Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

65,295 words·~297 min read·/register/2007/11/13/07-5636

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 218 Tuesday, November 13, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0183; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-146-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: There has been a reported case of failure of a bracket (P/N 85217732-108) of the over-centering spring assembly inside the translating door of the forward baggage compartment. * * * Failure of the bracket caused the eyebolt at the bottom of the spring assembly to become loose, resulted in damage of the support beam during normal door handle movement. Damage of the support beam, which is dormant, in combination with failure of a doorstop attached to any remaining undamaged support beam will degrade the structural integrity of the door, resulting in possible depressurization or loss of the door. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pong K. Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7324; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0183; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-146-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-05, effective April 24, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: There has been a reported case of failure of a bracket (P/N 85217732-108) of the over-centering spring assembly inside the translating door of the forward baggage compartment. This condition can exist on other translating doors on the aircraft. Investigation concluded that an insufficient gap between the bottom eyebolt and the barrel of the spring assembly caused an increase of tension load on the bracket and resulted in subsequent failure of the bracket. Failure of the bracket caused the eyebolt at the bottom of the spring assembly to become loose, resulted in damage of the support beam during normal door handle movement. Damage of the support beam, which is dormant, in combination with failure of a doorstop attached to any remaining undamaged support beam will degrade the structural integrity of the door, resulting in possible depressurization or loss of the door. Corrective actions include a one-time inspection for damage of the spring support bracket and support beam of the forward baggage door, aft service door, and aft passenger door; repetitive inspections for integrity (corrosion, damage, cracking, and looseness or misalignment) of the doorstops of support beams found to be within damage limits; repair of support beams, or replacement of damaged brackets, support beams, or doorstops, as applicable; and removal of certain washers and nuts. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-52-51, Revision A, dated September 8, 2006, including Service Bulletin 8-MHI0084, Revision C, dated September 6, 2006; and Repair Drawing RD 8/4-52-202, Issue 1, dated December 2, 2005. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 29 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $11,600, or $400 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Docket No. FAA-2007-0183; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-146-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by December 13, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401, and DHC-8-402 airplanes; certificated in any category; having serial numbers 4001 and 4003 through 4102. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 52: Doors. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: There has been a reported case of failure of a bracket (P/N 85217732-108) of the over-centering spring assembly inside the translating door of the forward baggage compartment. This condition can exist on other translating doors on the aircraft. Investigation concluded that an insufficient gap between the bottom eyebolt and the barrel of the spring assembly caused an increase of tension load on the bracket and resulted in subsequent failure of the bracket. Failure of the bracket caused the eyebolt at the bottom of the spring assembly to become loose, resulted in damage of the support beam during normal door handle movement. Damage of the support beam, which is dormant, in combination with failure of a doorstop attached to any remaining undamaged support beam will degrade the structural integrity of the door, resulting in possible depressurization or loss of the door. Corrective actions include a one-time inspection for damage of the spring support bracket and support beam of the forward baggage door, aft service door, and aft passenger door; repetitive inspections for integrity (corrosion, damage, cracking, and looseness or misalignment) of the doorstops of support beams found to be within damage limits; repair of support beams, or replacement of damaged brackets, support beams, or doorstops, as applicable; and removal of certain washers and nuts. Actions and Compliance

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time inspection for damage of the spring support bracket and support beams of the forward baggage door, aft service door, and aft passenger door, as applicable, in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-51, Revision A, dated September 8, 2006. Replace any damaged bracket, support beam, or doorstop in accordance with the service bulletin, prior to further flight.

(i)If any support beam is damaged at only one spring location and the damage is within the limits defined in Bombardier Repair Drawing RD 8/4-52-202, Issue 1, dated December 2, 2005, do the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) and (f)(1)(i)(B) of this AD.

(A)Inspect each doorstop of the affected door for integrity in accordance with the service bulletin prior to further flight, and repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 400 flight hours, until the support beam is repaired as specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(B) of this AD or replaced in accordance with the service bulletin. If the doorstop does not meet integrity standards during any inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair or replace the doorstop with a new or serviceable doorstop in accordance with the repair drawing.

(B)Within 5,000 flight hours after accomplishing the inspection described in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, repair the support beam in accordance with the repair drawing or replace in accordance with the service bulletin. Doing the repair or replacement terminates the inspections required by paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) of this AD.

(ii)If any support beam is damaged at one or two spring locations and any damage exceeds the limits defined in Bombardier Repair Drawing RD 8/4-52-202, Issue 1, dated December 2, 2005, prior to further flight, replace the damaged support beam with a new support beam in accordance with the service bulletin.

(iii)If any support beam is damaged at two spring locations and the damage is within the limits defined in Bombardier Repair Drawing RD 8/4-52-202, Issue 1, dated December 2, 2005, prior to further flight, repair the support beam in accordance with the repair drawing.

(2)Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, remove the nuts and washers at the bottom of the over-centering spring assemblies of the forward baggage door, aft service door, and aft passenger door by incorporating Modsum 4-155296, in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-51, Revision A, dated September 8, 2006. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Pong K. Lee, Aerospace Engineer, New York ACO, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7324; fax

(516)794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-05, effective April 24, 2007; Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-51, Revision A, dated September 8, 2006, including Service Bulletin 8-MHI0084, Revision C, dated September 6, 2006; and Bombardier Repair Drawing RD 8/4-52-202, Issue 1, dated December 2, 2005, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 5, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22103 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0182; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-138-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Fan Jet Falcon, Fan Jet Falcon Series C, D, E, F, and G Airplanes; Model Mystere-Falcon 200 Airplanes; and Model Mystere-Falcon 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: One occurrence has been reported where a maintenance operation had been performed on the elevator controls, and bellcrank * * * located in the Right Hand MLG (main landing gear) wheel well was mistakenly installed upside down. This discrepancy and improper installation caused an unexpected 5° positioning offset of the elevator control surfaces leading to a hazardous condition on landing, [involving] the pilot being unable to flare the aircraft as needed * * * [which resulted in a hard landing]. The unsafe condition is reduced controllability of the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0182; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-138-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member State of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0185, dated July 6, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: One occurrence has been reported where a maintenance operation had been performed on the elevator controls, and bellcrank P/N (part number) MY20273017 or P/N MY20273017015 located in the Right Hand MLG (main landing gear) wheel well was mistakenly installed upside down. This discrepancy and improper installation caused an unexpected 5° positioning offset of the elevator control surfaces leading to a hazardous condition on landing, [involving] the pilot being unable to flare the aircraft as needed * * * [which resulted in a hard landing]. The purpose of this AD is to prevent reoccurrence of this kind of incident introducing disabusing markings on the incriminated parts by applying SB (Service Bulletin) F20-768 or SB F200-122 as appropriate. The unsafe condition is reduced controllability of the airplane. Corrective actions include verifying the correct assembly of the elevator bellcrank and re-installing if necessary. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Dassault has issued Service Bulletins F20-768, dated May 23, 2006, and F200-122, dated May 23, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 255 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $9 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $63,495, or $249 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Dassault Aviation (Formerly Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation (AMD/BA)):** Docket No. FAA-2007-0182; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-138-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by December 13, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Dassault Model Fan Jet Falcon, Fan Jet Falcon series C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model Mystere-Falcon 200 airplanes; and Model Mystere-Falcon 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 27: Flight Controls. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: One occurrence has been reported where a maintenance operation had been performed on the elevator controls, and bellcrank P/N (part number) MY20273017 or P/N MY20273017015 located in the Right Hand MLG (main landing gear) wheel well was mistakenly installed upside down. This discrepancy and improper installation caused an unexpected 5° positioning offset of the elevator control surfaces leading to a hazardous condition on landing, [involving] the pilot being unable to flare the aircraft as needed * * * [which resulted in a hard landing]. The purpose of this AD is to prevent reoccurrence of this kind of incident introducing disabusing markings on the incriminated parts by applying SB (Service Bulletin) F20-768 or SB F200-122 as appropriate. The unsafe condition is reduced controllability of the airplane. Corrective actions include verifying the correct assembly of the elevator bellcrank and re-installing if necessary. Actions and Compliance

(f)Within 74 months from the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Verify the correct assembly of the elevator bellcrank P/N (part number) MY20273-17 or P/N MY20273-17-15 at frame 26, as instructed in Dassault Service Bulletin F20-768, dated May 23, 2006; or Dassault Service Bulletin F200-122, dated May 23, 2006; as applicable.

(2)If the elevator bellcrank is found in the reverse orientation, reinstall it prior to next flight in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletin F20-768, dated May 23, 2006; or Dassault Service Bulletin F200-122, dated May 23, 2006; as applicable.

(3)Label the elevator bellcrank as instructed in Dassault Service Bulletin F20-768, dated May 23, 2006; or Dassault Service Bulletin F200-122, dated May 23, 2006; as applicable. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No Differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0185, dated July 6, 2006, and Dassault Service Bulletins F20-768 and F200-122, both dated May 23, 2006, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 23, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22102 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0184; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-140-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require various repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of the fuselage, and other specified and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD also provides for an optional preventive modification, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD results from a report that the upper frame of the fuselage was severed between stringers S-13L and S-14L at station 747, and the adjacent frame at station 767 had a 1.3-inch-long crack at the same stringer location. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the frame and adjacent lap joint. This reduced structural integrity can increase loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin crack growth and result in decompression of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6447; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0184; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-140-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion We have received a report indicating that the upper frame of the fuselage was severed between stringers S-13L and S-14L at station 747 on one airplane that had completed 41,000 total flight cycles, and that the adjacent frame at station 767 had a 1.3-inch-long crack at the same stringer location. This incident occurred on a Model 737-300 airplane. All cracks in the upper frame originated from the upper end fastener hole of the frame splice common to the fail safe chord. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the frame and adjacent lap joint. This reduced structural integrity can increase loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin crack growth and result in decompression of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, including Appendices A through X inclusive, dated January 19, 2006. The service bulletin describes the following procedures for various repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of the fuselage, and other specified and corrective actions if necessary. The inspections and other specified and corrective actions are described below: • Configuration 1 airplanes on which the preventive modification specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1125 has been done: Perform repetitive medium frequency eddy current

(MFEC)inspections for cracking of the upper frame, repair of any crack before further flight, an optional preventive modification, which would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections. The preventive modification also involves a high frequency eddy current

(HFEC)inspection for cracking of the fastener holes in the upper frame and side frame, repair of any crack before further flight, and if no crack is found, fabricating and installing a modification angle as defined in the applicable Appendix. • Configuration 2 airplanes on which the frame repair specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1125 has been done: Perform a detailed inspection of the frame repair to make sure it follows the repair given in the applicable Boeing Model 737 Structural Repair Manual (SRM). If the repair is not as given in the SRM, perform any applicable corrective actions. Then perform an HFEC inspection for cracking of the upper frame. If any crack is found, repair before further flight. If no crack is found, repeat the HFEC inspection or contact Boeing for applicable terminating action, which would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections. • Configuration 3 airplanes on which the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1125 have not been done: Perform an MFEC inspection for cracking of the upper frame. The MFEC inspection is not necessary if the preventive modification is being accomplished. If any crack is found, repair before further flight. If no crack is found, repeat the MFEC inspection or do the preventive modification, which would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections. When doing the preventive modification, perform an HFEC inspection for cracking of the fastener holes in the upper frame and side frame. If any crack is found, repair before further flight. If no crack is found, fabricate and install a modification angle as defined in the applicable Appendix. The service bulletin specifies a compliance time for the initial inspection ranging between 30,000 total flight cycles and 50,000 total flight cycles, with a grace period of 5,000 flight cycles after the release date of the service bulletin, whichever occurs later, depending on airplane configuration. The corrective actions include repair of any cracks found and ensuring that the frame maintains its structural integrity. If, during the accomplishment of the corrective actions, the structure that has been damaged is not covered in the structural repair manual, the service bulletin specifies contacting Boeing for repair. The service bulletin also describes procedures for a preventive modification of the frame splice joints which would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections. In addition, the service bulletin recommends contacting Boeing for certain repair instructions and terminating action for certain airplanes. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. Other Related Service Information Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261 refers to Boeing Message M-7200-02-01294, dated August 20, 2002, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing certain repairs and optional terminating action of the preventive modification. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1125, dated November 22, 1989, Revision 1, dated September 20, 1990, and Revision 2, dated November 21, 1991, provided a preventive modification to reduce the stress level at the first fastener location in the frame splice common to the fail safe chord. The preventive modification increased the fatigue life of the splice area. However, the service bulletin did not include adequate inspections for cracks prior to accomplishing the preventive modification; therefore, the inspections specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261 (described above) are recommended on airplanes on which that preventive modification has been accomplished in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1125. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Alert Service Bulletin.” Difference Between Proposed AD and Alert Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance There are about 1509 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 524 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspections would take between 18 and 38 work hours per airplane, depending on airplane configuration, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the inspections proposed by this AD for U.S. operators is between $754,560 and $1,592,960, or $1,440 and $3,040 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0184; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-140-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December 28, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, dated January 19, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that the upper frame of the fuselage was severed between stringers S-13L and S-14L at station 747, and the adjacent frame at station 767 had a 1.3-inch-long crack at the same stringer location. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the frame and adjacent lap joint. This reduced structural integrity can increase loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin crack growth and result in decompression of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Actions

(f)At the applicable compliance time listed in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, including Appendices A through X inclusive, dated January 19, 2006: Do the applicable inspections for cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of the fuselage by doing all of the actions, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin; except as provided by paragraphs

(g)and

(h)of this AD. Do all applicable specified and corrective actions before further flight in accordance with the service bulletin. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles until the terminating action in paragraph

(i)of this AD has been accomplished.

(g)If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD, and the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the crack in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD.

(h)If, during the accomplishment of the corrective actions required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, the structure that has been damaged is not covered in the structural repair manual, before further flight, repair in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD. Optional Terminating Action

(i)Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) (i)(2) or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph

(f)of this AD for the repaired or modified frames only.

(1)Accomplishment of the repair specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, including Appendices A through X inclusive, dated January 19, 2006, or the preventive modification specified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.

(2)Accomplishment of the repair or the preventive modification specified in Boeing Message M-7200-02-01294, dated August 20, 2002.

(3)Accomplishment of the repair or the preventive modification in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 5, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22104 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0185; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-246-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the CL-600-2B19 aircraft fuel system * * *. The assessment showed that if the fuel boost pump reducer coupling is anodized, insufficient electrical bonding between the boost pump canister and the pressure pick-up line could occur. Insufficient electrical bonding between the boost pump canister and the pressure pick-up line, if not corrected, could result in arcing and potential ignition source inside the fuel tank during lightning strikes and consequent fuel tank explosion. * * * The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rocco Viselli, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7331; fax

(NPA)2002-043. The identified non-compliances were assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001 to determine if mandatory corrective action is required. The assessment showed that if the fuel boost pump reducer coupling is anodized, insufficient electrical bonding between the boost pump canister and the pressure pick-up line could occur. Insufficient electrical bonding between the boost pump canister and the pressure pick-up line, if not corrected, could result in arcing and potential ignition source inside the fuel tank during lightning strikes and consequent fuel tank explosion. To correct the unsafe condition, this directive mandates a detailed visual inspection of the fuel boost pump for the presence of anodized reducer couplings. All anodized couplings found are to be replaced with couplings having ion vapor deposition

(IVD)coating. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 601R-28-057, dated December 4, 2003. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 509 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $508 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $706,492, or $1,388 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2007-0185; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-246-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by December 13, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certified in any category, serial numbers 7003 through 7067 and 7069 through 7797. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the CL-600-2B19 aircraft fuel system against new fuel tank safety standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(IVD)coating. Actions and Compliance

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Within 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, carry out a detailed inspection for the presence of an anodized (blue color) fuel boost pump reducer coupling according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-057, dated December 4, 2003.

(2)If the results of the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD reveal that none of the fuel boost pump reducer couplings are anodized, no further action is required.

(3)If the results of the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD reveal the presence of any anodized fuel boost pump reducer coupling, prior to further flight, replace the anodized coupling with a coupling having ion vapor deposition coating according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-057, dated December 4, 2003. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No Differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Rocco Viselli, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7331; fax

(516)794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-18, dated September 4, 2007, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-28-057, dated December 4, 2003, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 5, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22146 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0186; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-226-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, and MD-10-30F Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to revise an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, and DC-10-40F airplanes. The existing AD currently requires installing or replacing with improved parts, as applicable, the bonding straps between the metallic frame of the fillet and the wing leading edge ribs, on both the left and right sides of the airplane. This proposed AD would revise the applicability to clarify the identity of the affected airplanes. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks in the event of a severe lightning strike, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5262; fax

(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0186; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-226-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion On July 21, 2006, we issued AD 2006-16-03, amendment 39-14703 (71 FR 43962, August 3, 2006), for certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, and DC-10-40F airplanes. That AD requires installing or replacing with improved parts, as applicable, the bonding straps between the metallic frame of the fillet and the wing leading edge ribs, on both the left and right sides of the airplane. That AD resulted from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We issued that AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks in the event of a severe lightning strike, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued The applicability of AD 2006-16-03 does not specifically identify Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes by model name. However, those airplanes (converted from Model DC-10 series airplanes) are identified by manufacturer's fuselage numbers in the effectivity listing of McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletins 53-109, Revision 4, dated October 7, 1992; and 53-111, Revision 3, dated August 24, 1992. And those service bulletins were referenced in the applicability of AD 2006-16-03. We have been informed that Boeing is considering revising the service bulletins to, among other things, update the effectivity to clarify the identity of the affected airplanes. If the service bulletins are revised, we might consider approving each as a general alternative method of compliance for the requirements of AD 2006-16-03. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would revise AD 2006-16-03 and retain its requirements. This proposed AD would clarify the applicability by specifically identifying McDonnell Douglas Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes (converted from Model DC-10 series airplanes) in addition to the airplane models already identified in the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 457 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 280 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions of this proposed AD would add no additional economic burden to the existing requirements of AD 2006-16-03. The current costs for this AD are repeated for the convenience of affected operators, as follows: The required actions take between 9 and 17 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost between $3,720 and $4,169 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD is between $4,440 and $5,529 per airplane, or between $1,243,200 and $1,548,120 for the U.S.-registered fleet. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and place it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14703 (71 FR 43962, August 3, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0186; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-226-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December 28, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD revises AD 2006-16-03. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, and DC-10-40F airplanes, and MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes that have been converted from Model DC-10 series airplanes; certificated in any category; with manufacturer's fuselage numbers as identified in the applicable service bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Service Bulletins McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin— Revision— Dated— For airplanes with— 53-109 4 October 7, 1992 Extended wing-to-fuselage fillets. 53-111 3 August 24, 1992 Conventional wing-to-fuselage fillets. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks in the event of a severe lightning strike, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Installation or Replacement

(f)Within 7,500 flight hours or 60 months after September 7, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-16-03), whichever occurs earlier: Install or replace with improved parts, as applicable, the bonding straps between the metallic frame of the fillet and the wing leading edge ribs, on both the left and right sides of the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-16-03 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 5, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22090 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-115910-07] RIN 1545-BG58 Information Reporting on Employer-Owned Life Insurance Contracts AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: Elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS is issuing temporary regulations concerning information reporting on employer-owned life insurance contracts under section 6039I of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The temporary regulations generally apply to taxpayers that are engaged in a trade or business and that are directly or indirectly a beneficiary of a life insurance contract covering the life of an insured who is an employee of the trade or business on the date the contract is issued. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-115910-07), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-115910-07), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-115910-07). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, Linda K. Boyd, 202-622-3970; concerning submissions and requests for a public hearing, contact Kelly Banks, 202-622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions The Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280, 120 Stat. 780 (2006), added sections 101(j) and 6039I to the Internal Revenue Code concerning employer-owned life insurance contracts. Section 101(j)(1) provides that in the case of an employer-owned life insurance contract, the amount of death benefits excluded from gross income under section 101(a) shall not exceed an amount equal to the sum of the premiums and other amounts paid by the policyholder for the contract. Section 101(j)(2), however, sets forth exceptions to this rule for certain contracts for which notice and consent and other requirements are met. Section 6039I requires information reporting with respect to certain employer-owned life insurance contracts at such time and in such manner as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe. Temporary regulations in this issue of the **Federal Register** provide that the Commissioner may prescribe the form and manner of satisfying the reporting requirements imposed by section 6039I. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations. Special Analyses It has been determined that this proposed regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to this regulation. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply to this proposed regulation because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities. Even though a substantial number of small businesses may be subject to the requirements of section 6039I, it is anticipated that whatever requirements the Commissioner may prescribe pursuant to this regulation will not impose a “significant economic impact” because the information requested will already be available to taxpayers and the burden of compliance will be minimal. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this Regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight

(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . The IRS and Treasury Department are aware that guidance may be needed under section 101(j) and request comments on that provision as well. In particular, comments are requested on the need for guidance concerning

(1)determination of the status of insured individuals as “highly compensated employees” or “highly compensated individuals”;

(2)requirements a taxpayer must meet to satisfy the notice and consent requirements of section 101(j)(4); and

(3)the consequences of a section 1035 exchange of an employer-owned life insurance contract. The IRS and Treasury Department anticipate that future guidance, if any, under section 101(j) will not be applied retroactively to the detriment of taxpayers who make a good faith effort to comply with section 101(j) based on a reasonable interpretation of that provision. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Linda K. Boyd, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions & Products). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1** . The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Section 1.6039I-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6039I. * * * **Par. 2** . Section 1.6039I-1 is added to read as follows: § 1. 6039I-1 Reporting of certain employer-owned life insurance contracts. [The text of this proposed section is the same as the text of § 1.6039I-1T published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-22136 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. CGD07-07-102] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events in the Seventh Coast Guard District AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to create special local regulations to regulate recurring marine events in the Seventh Coast Guard District. These regulations will apply to all permitted events listed on the table attached to the regulation, and include events such as regattas, parades, and fireworks displays. These regulations are being proposed to reduce the Coast Guard's administrative workload and expedite public notification of events. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Seventh District (dpi), 909 SE 1st Ave, Miami, FL 33131-3050. The Seventh District Prevention Division 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 the Brickell Plaza Federal Building, Miami, FL, between 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Clint Smith, U.S. Coast Guard District Seven Prevention Division,

(305)415-6860. 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 your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking CGD07-07-102, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. 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. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the U.S. Coast Guard District Seven Prevention 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 Marine events are frequently held on the navigable waters within the boundary of the Seventh Coast Guard District. These include events such as sailing regattas, holiday parades, and fireworks displays. Currently, there are over 250 annually recurring marine events and many other non-recurring events within the district. In the past, the Coast Guard regulated these events by creating individual special local regulations on a case by case basis. Most of these events required only the establishment of a regulated area and assignment of a patrol commander to ensure safety. Issuing individual, annual special local regulations has created a significant administrative burden on the Coast Guard. In 2005, the Coast Guard created over 60 temporary regulations for marine events in the Seventh District. That number rose to over 110 in 2006 and is expected to rise even higher in 2007. Additionally, for the majority of these events, the Coast Guard does not receive notification of the event, or important details of the event are not finalized by event organizers, with sufficient time to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and final rule before the event date. The Coast Guard must therefore create temporary final rules that sometimes are not completed until only days before the event. This results in delayed notification to the public, potentially placing the public and event participants at risk. This proposed rule will significantly relieve the administrative burden on the Coast Guard, and at the same time allow the sponsor of the event and the Coast Guard to notify the public of these events in a timely manner. The public will be provided with notice of events through the table attached to this regulation. This table lists each recurring event that may be regulated by the Coast Guard, and indicates the sponsor, as well as the date and location of the event. Because the dates and location of these events may change slightly from year to year, the specific information on each event, including the exact dates, specific areas, and description of the regulated area, will be provided to the public through a Local Notice to Mariners published before the event, as well as through Broadcast Notice to Mariners. This table will be updated by the Coast Guard periodically to add new recurring events, remove events that no longer occur, and update listed events to ensure accurate information is provided. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule will apply to each event listed in the attached table to this rule. Events listed in the table are events that recur annually in the Seventh Coast Guard District. The table provides the event name and sponsor, as well as an approximate date and location of the event. The specific date and regulated area for each event will be provided in a Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners prior to each event. Some events listed in the table currently have permanent regulations published in 33 CFR part 100, and these regulations will be removed. For each event listed in the table, an event patrol, with a Patrol Commander in charge may be assigned. The Patrol Commander may control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area(s). When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel in these areas shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any vessel participating in the event, at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. Only event sponsors, designated participants, and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter a regulated area. All persons and vessels not registered with the event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. Spectators may not enter the regulated area and may be confined to a designated spectator area to view the event. Spectators may contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to request permission to pass through the regulated area. If permission is granted, spectators must pass directly through the regulated area at safe speed and without loitering. 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. 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the areas where marine events are being held. This proposed regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will only be enforced on marine events that have been permitted by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the areas where events are occurring. Additionally, in most cases, vessels will be able to safety transit around the regulated area at all times, and, with the permission of the Patrol Commander, vessels may transit through the regulated area. 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 person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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 an 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 and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule fits the category of paragraph 34(h) because it proposes to create special local regulations for regattas and marine parades. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. §§ 100.709, 100.710, 100.714, 100.715, 100.716, 100.721, 100.722, 100.723, 100.730, 100.731, 100.733, and 100.735 [Removed] 2. Remove the following sections from this part: §§ 100.709, 100.710, 100.714, 100.715, 100.716, 100.721, 100.722, 100.723, 100.730, 100.731, 100.733, and 100.735. 3. Add a new § 100.701 to read as follows: § 100.701 Special Local Regulations; Marine Events in the Seventh Coast Guard District. The following regulations apply to the marine events listed in Table 1 of this section. These regulations will be effective annually, for the duration of each event listed in Table 1. Annual notice of the exact dates and times of the effective period of the regulation with respect to each event, the geographical area, and details concerning the nature of the event and the number of participants and type(s) of vessels involved will also be published in local notices to mariners and/or a Notice of Enforcement in the **Federal Register** .

(a)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to this section: *Patrol Commander.* A Patrol Commander is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the respective Coast Guard Sector Commander to enforce these regulations. *Spectators.* All persons and vessels not registered with the event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.

(b)*Event Patrol.* The Coast Guard may assign an event patrol, as described in § 100.40 of this part, to each regulated event listed in the table. Additionally, a Patrol Commander may be assigned to oversee the patrol. The event patrol and Patrol Commander may be contacted on VHF Channel 16.

(c)*Special Local Regulations.*

(1)The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area(s). When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel in these areas shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

(2)The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any vessel participating in the event, at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.

(3)Only event sponsor designated participants and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the regulated area.

(4)Spectators are only allowed inside the regulated area if they remain within a designated spectator area. Spectators may contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to request permission to pass through the regulated area. If permission is granted, spectators must pass directly through the regulated area at safe speed and without loitering.

(d)*Contact Information.* Questions about marine events should be addressed to the local Coast Guard Captain of the Port for the area in which the event is occurring. Contact information is listed below. For a description of the geographical area of each Captain of the Port zone, please see subpart 3.35 of this chapter.

(1)Captain of the Port Charleston, South Carolina:

(843)724-7616.

(2)Captain of the Port Savannah, Georgia:

(912)652-4353.

(3)Captain of the Port Jacksonville, Florida:

(904)247-7318.

(4)Captain of the Port Miami, Florida:

(305)535-8701.

(5)Captain of the Port Key West, Florida:

(305)292-8779.

(6)Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg, Florida:

(727)824-7506.

(7)Captain of the Port San Juan, Puerto Rico:

(787)289-2041.

(e)*Application for Marine Events.* The application requirements of § 100.15 of this part apply to all events listed in Table 1. For information on applying for a marine event, contact the Captain of the Port for the area in which the event will occur, at the phone numbers listed above. Table 1 to § 100.701 Date Event Sponsor Location COTP Zone Miami January—1st weekend Levin Memorial Regatta Biscayne Bay Star Fleet Biscayne Bay, 2.3 nautical miles offshore from the Coral Bay, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 1.7NM centered around position 25°39′6″N, 080°13′30″W no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. January—1st weekend Fort Lauderdale Boomerang Regatta Lauderdale Yacht Club Atlantic Ocean .5 nautical mile offshore from .5 nautical mile south of the Port Everglades Channel to 4 nautical miles south of the Port Everglades offshore of West Lake, Port Everglades, Florida no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. January—3rd weekend Rolex Miami Olympic Sailing Race U.S. Sailing & U.S. Olympic Sailing Center Southern Biscayne Bay inside of an area from the Rickenbacker Causeway southwest to Snapper Creek Canal south to Latitude 25°32′00″N east to Soldier Key and northeast to a position approximately 1 nautical mile east of Cape Florida, northwest to Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. February—1st weekend Commodore Rasco Snipe Class Regatta Coconut Grove Sailing Club Biscayne Bay, 1 mile offshore from the Coconut Grove Sailing Club, Coconut Grove, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 1NM centered around position 25°41′42″N, 080°13′00″W no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. March—1st week, Monday-Friday Bacardi Cup Biscayne Bay Star Fleet All waters within 1.5 nautical miles of the following center point: 25°38′16″N latitude; 080°13′14″W longitude, in southern Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida. March—2nd weekend, Saturday and Sunday Lightenings Midwinter's Coral Reef Yacht Club Biscayne Bay, 2.3 nautical miles offshore from the Coral Bay, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 1.7NM centered around position 25°39′6″N, 080°13′5″ W no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. March—2nd weekend Don Q Rum Snipe Class Regatta Coconut Grove Sailing Club Biscayne Bay, 1 mile offshore from the Coconut Grove Sailing Club, Coconut Grove, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 1NM centered around position 25°41′42″N, 080°13′00″W no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. March—2nd weekend, Saturday and Sunday Coral Cup Coconut Grove Sailing Club Biscayne Bay, 1 mile offshore from the Coconut Grove Sailing Club, Coconut Grove, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 1NM centered around position 25°41′42″N, 080°13′00″W. March—last weekend Shake-A-Leg Mid Winter Regatta Shake-A-Leg Foundation All waters of Biscayne Bay, from the Rickenbacker Causeway south to Latitude 25°32′00″N, Miami, Florida no closer than 500 ft from each vessel. April—2nd or 3rd weekend Miami to Key Largo Race Miami Yacht Club Youth Sailing Foundation Biscayne Bay and Intracoastal Waterway from the Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami, Florida to Key Biscayne to Cape Florida to Soldier Key to Sands Key to Elliot Key to Two Stacks to Card Sound to Barnes Sound to Blackwater Sound in Key Largo, Florida no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. April—2nd weekend Florida State Optimists Championship Regatta Coconut Grove Sailing Club Biscayne Bay, 1 mile offshore from the Coconut Grove Sailing Club, Coconut Grove, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 1NM centered around position 25°41′42″N, 080°13′00″W. April—2nd weekend, Saturday and Sunday Fort Lauderdale Air/Sea Show Super Boat Grand Prix Super Boat International Productions, Inc Atlantic Ocean offshore Fort Lauderdale, Florida within an area 500 yards wide 300 yards offshore from 1,500 yards north of the Port Everglades Channel north for 4 nautical miles (600 yards north of the Oakland Park Beach Blvd). April—3rd weekend Miami Super Boat Grand Prix Super Boat International Productions, Inc Offshore Miami Beach, Florida, including the area within a line joining the following points: 25°46′18″N, 080°07′51″W; thence to, 25°46′18″N, 080°06′49″W; thence to, 25°51′18″N, 080°06′12″W; thence to, 25°51′18″N, 080°07′11″W; thence along the shoreline to the starting point. April—last Saturday Sunfest Fireworks Pyro Shows, Inc Intracoastal Waterway in West Palm Beach between Banyon St and Lakeview; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 1000 ft centered around position 26°42′34″N, 080°02′47″W. April—last weekend Vero Beach Yacht Club Blessing of the Fleet Blessing of the Fleet North Fork and St Lucie River, Florida no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. April, May, and June—1st weekend Hollywood Super Boat Grand Prix Super Boat International Productions, Inc Atlantic Ocean offshore Hallandale Beach, Florida in an area 400 yards wide approximately 200 yards offshore from the Hallandale Beach tank to approximately 1 nautical mile south of the Dania Town Canal. May—1st weekend C-Gull Cup Coconut Grove Sailing Club Biscayne Bay, 1 mile offshore from the Coconut Grove Sailing Club, Coconut Grove, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 1NM centered around position 25°41′42″N, 080°13′00″W. May—1st weekend Fort Lauderdale Air & Sea Show Fort Lauderdale Parks and Recreation Atlantic Ocean offshore Fort Lauderdale, Florida within an area 500 yards wide 300 yards offshore from 1,500 yards north of the Port Everglades Channel north for 4 nautical miles (600 yards north of the Oakland Park Beach Blvd). May—3rd weekend Pompano Beach Power Squadron Safe Boat Parade Pompano Beach Power Squadron 14th St Bridge to Sunrise Bay, Florida. May—last weekend Goombay Regatta Coconut Grove Sailing Club Biscayne Bay, 1 mile offshore from the Coconut Grove Sailing Club, Coconut Grove, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 1NM centered around position 25°41′42″N, 080°13′8″W no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. July 4th American Legion Fourth of July Add-Fire Fireworks, Inc Biscayne Bay, approx 400 ft offshore of Legion Picnic Island, Miami, Florida in approx position 25°50′02″N, 080°10′24″W. July 4th Fort Lauderdale Fourth of July Colonial Fireworks 1/2 NM offshore at Las Olas Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, Florida. July 4th Fort Lauderdale Yacht Club Fourth of July Colonial Fireworks Intracoastal Waterway in front of the Fort Lauderdale Yacht Club, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. July 4th City of Stuart Fourth of July Creative Fireworks Co Intracoastal Waterway in front of Stuart City Hall, Stuart, Florida. July 4th Bayfront Park Fourth of July Firepower Displays All waters within a 1680 foot radius around approximate position 25°46′30″N, 080°10′54″W, in Biscayne Bay, FL. July 4th Coral Reef Yacht Club Fourth of July Firepower Displays 700 ft offshore from Vizcaya in Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida. July 4th Fisher's Island Fourth of July Firepower Displays Offshore 840 ft from Fisher Island, Florida. July 4th Miami Beach Fourth of July Firepower Displays 840 ft offshore from Atlantic Heights, Miami Beach, Florida. July 4th Village of Key Biscayne Fourth of July Firepower Displays 1500 ft offshore from Key Biscayne in Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida. July 4th Viscayans Fourth of July Firepower Displays 700 ft offshore from Viscaya in Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida. July 4th Delray Beach Fourth of July Fireworks by Grucci, Inc Atlantic Ocean, 1,000 ft offshore from Delray Beach, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 840 feet centered around position 26°27′41″N, 080°03′11″W. July 4th Boynton Beach Fourth of July Melrose South Pyrotechnics All waters from the surface to the bottom, for 840 ft out in all directions from approximate position 26°32′52″N, 080°02′54″W. July 4th City of Hollywood Fourth of July Melrose South Pyrotechnics Atlantic Ocean, 1,000 ft offshore from Hollywood, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 840 feet centered around position 26°01′19″N, 080°06′39″W. July 4th Riviera Beach Fourth of July Sparktacular Fireworks All waters within a 1400 foot diameter around approximate position 26°42′26″N, 080°02′28″W. July 4th Town of Lantana Fourth of July Zambelli Fireworks All waters within an 840 foot diameter in approximate position 26°35′13″N, 080°02′50″W. July 4th West Palm Beach Fourth of July Zambelli Fireworks All waters within a 1400 foot diameter of approximate position 26°42′26″N, 080°02′28″W. July—1st weekend Commodore's Cup Regatta Coconut Grove Sailing Club Biscayne Bay, 1 mile offshore from the Coconut Grove Sailing Club, Coconut Grove, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 1NM centered around position 25°41′42″N, 080°13′00″W no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. July—2nd weekend Dania Beach / Hollywood Super Boat Race Super Boat International Productions, Inc Waters offshore of Hollywood Beach within an area located 300 yards offshore from North Lake north to Dania Cutoff Canal going offshore aproximately 650 yards. August—3rd weekend Conch Cup Regatta Miami Yacht Club Biscayne Bay from the Rickenbacker Causeway south in the Intracoastal Waterway to the Cape Florida Channel, east around Key Biscayne and north to the Miami Channel entrance, Miami, Florida no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. October—1st weekend Columbus Day Regatta Columbus Day Regatta, Inc Southern Biscayne Bay inside of an area from 1 nautical mile south of the Rickenbacker Causeway and 1 nautical mile east of Deering Channel southwest to Snapper Creek Canal south to a point half between Soldier Key and Lewis Cut west to the chain of islands south of Soldier Key and north to 1 nautical mile south of Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida October—1st weekend Deerfield Beach Super Boat National Championship Super Boat International Productions, Inc Atlantic Ocean within an area 500 yards wide approximately 500 yards offshore Deerfield Beach, FL from 2 miles north of Hillsboro Inlet to .5 mile south of Boca Raton Inlet. October—2nd weekend Miami Kayak Challenge Cystic Fibrosis Foundation All waters of Biscayne Bay from Lummus Island Cut to the Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida. November—2nd weekend, Saturday and Sunday Keely Perpetual Trophy Regatta Biscayne Bay Yacht Club Biscayne Bay within an area from the Dinner Key Channel to Biscayne National Park Marker “B” to Cutter Channel Mark “2” to Biscayne National Park Marker “C” to West Featherbead Bank Channel Marker “3” to West Featherbed Bank Channel Marker “5” to Elliot Key Biscayne National Park Anchorage, Miami, Florida no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. November—2nd or 3rd weekend Matheson Perpetual Trophy Regatta Biscayne Bay Yacht Club Biscayne Bay within an area from the Dinner Key Channel to Biscayne National Park Marker “B” to Cutter Channel Mark “2” to Biscayne National Park Marker “C” to West Featherbead Bank Channel Marker “3” to West Featherbed Bank Channel Marker “5” to Elliot Key Biscayne National Park Anchorage, Miami, Florida no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. November—2nd weekend PHRF SE Florida Championship Coconut Grove Sailing Club Biscayne Bay, 2.3 nautical miles offshore from the Coral Bay, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 1.7NM centered around position 25°39′6″;N, 080°13′30″W no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. November—2nd weekend Viscayan's Ball Firepower Displays 1200 ft offshore from Virginia Key, South of Seaquarium, Miami, Florida. December 31st Bayside New Years Add-Fire Fireworks, Inc All waters within a 1680 foot radius around a barge in position 25°46′30″N, 080°10′54″W. December 31st Fisher Island New Years Add-Fire Fireworks, Inc 1000 ft offshore east of Fisher Island, Florida. December 31st Hillsboro New Years Fireworks Add-Fire Fireworks, Inc 100 yds north of Hillsboro Inlet, Florida. December 31st Indian Riverside Park New Years Add-Fire Fireworks, Inc 1200 ft east of Indian Riverside Park, Jensen Beach, Florida. December 31st Greater Miami New Years Firepower Displays 1200 ft offshore from Bayfront Park, Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida. December 31st Viscayan's New Years Firepower Displays 840 ft offshore from Viscaya, Miami, Florida. December—3rd weekend Pompano Beach Boat Parade Pompano Beach Boat Parade Committee Intracoastal Waterway in Pompano Beach, Florida, from Lake Santa Barbara to Hillsboro Blvd Bridge. December—1st weekend Commodore's Cup Biscayne Bay Star Fleet Biscayne Bay, 2.3 nautical miles offshore from the Coral Bay, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 1.7NM centered around position 25°39′6″N, 080°13′30″W no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. December—1st weekend Kiwanis of Little Havana Christmas Firepower Displays 1200 ft offshore from Virginia Key, south of Seaquarium, Miami, Florida. December—1st weekend Holiday Boat Parade of the Palm Beaches Marine Industrial Association of Palm Beach County Port of Palm Beach Turning Basin and the Intracoastal Waterway extending south from Lake Worth South LT 1 (LLNR 42170) to Lake Worth South Daybeacon 23 (LLNR 42300). December—1st weekend Martin County Christmas Boat Parade Marine Industries Association All waters of the North and South Forks of the St Lucie River in Stuart, Florida, starting on the north side of the State Road 60 Bridge going south to Hutchinson Island and circling back north to the State Road 60 Bridge and ending past the City of Stuart Municipal Marina. December—2nd or 3rd weekend Seminole Hard Rock Winterfest Boat Parade Winterfest, Inc All waters of the Intracoastal Waterway from the Port Everglades turning basin to the Pompano Beach Daybeacon 74 (LLNR 47230). December—2nd weekend Piana Cup Regatta Biscayne Bay Yacht Club Biscayne Bay, 2.3 nautical miles offshore from the Matheson Hammock County Park, Florida; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 1.5NM centered around position 25°39′54″N, 080°13′12″W no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. December—2nd weekend Boynton/Delray Beach Christmas Boat Parade Kiwanis Club Delray Beach Intracoastal Waterway from marker #46 in Boynton Beach, Florida to C-15 Canal in Delray Beach, Florida. December—2nd weekend St Lucie Christmas Boat Parade Marine Industrial Association All waters of the Intracoastal Waterway and Taylor Creek in Fort Pierce, Florida, starting in the Fort Pierce turning basin and inlet area going to Taylor Creek and the Intracoastal Waterway between the North Causeway Bridge and the South Causeway Bridge. December—2nd weekend Miami Outboard Club Christmas Boat Parade Miami Outboard Club Biscayne Bay from the Miami Outboard Club on Watson Island starting from in between the MacArthur Causeway and Palm Island heading west around Palm Island and Hibiscus Island, heading east between Di Lido Island, heading east around the monument, south through Meloy Channel, west in Government Cut to Bicentennial Park, south to the Dodge Island Bridge, south in the Intracoastal Waterway to Claughton Island, circling back to the north in the Intracoastal Waterway to Watson Island, around the island on the north side to Miami Outboard Club no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. December—2nd weekend Boca Raton Holiday Boat Parade City of Boca Raton Moving zone in New River and Intracoastal Waterway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; from the C15 Canal in Fort Lauderdale to Hillsboro Inlet with 500 feet ahead of the lead parade vessel and 500 feet astern of the last participating parade vessel or within 50 feet on either side of the parade. December—4th weekend Orange Bowl Youth Sailing Regatta Coral Reef Yacht Club Southern Biscayne Bay inside of an area from the Rickenbacker Causeway southwest to Snapper Creek Canal south to latitude 25°32′N east to Soldier Key and northwest to Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida no closer than 500 ft from each vessel. December—last weekend Coconut Grove Sailing Club Orange Bowl Regatta Coconut Grove Sailing Club Southern Biscayne Bay inside of an area from the Rickenbacker Causeway southwest to Snapper Creek Canal south to latitude 25°32′N east to Soldier Key and northwest to Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida no closer than 500 ft from each vessel. Monthly—last weekend, Saturday and Sunday Biscayne Bay Racing Association Full Moon Regatta Biscayne Bay Yacht Racing Association Southern Biscayne Bay inside of an area from the Rickenbacker Causeway southwest to Snapper Creek Canal south to latitude 25°32′00″N east to Soldier Key and northwest to Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida no closer than 500 ft from each vessel. COTP Zone Key West January 1st Blessing of the Fleet Islamorada Charter Boat Assn From Whale Harbor Channel to Whale Harbor Bridge, Islamorada, Florida. January through April—last Monday or Tuesday Wreckers Cup Races Schooner Wharf Bar Key West Harbor to Sand Key, Florida (Gulf of Mexico side). January—3rd week, Monday-Friday Yachting Key West Race Week Premiere Racing, Inc Inside the reef on either side of main ship channel, Key West Harbor Entrance, Key West, Florida. February—1st Saturday The Bogey Florida Bay Outfitters Blackwater Sound (entire sound), Key Largo, Florida. February—1st Sunday The Bacall Florida Bay Outfitters Blackwater Sound (entire sound), Key Largo, Florida. April—3rd weekend, Saturday-Sunday Miami to Key Largo Sailboat Race MYC Youth Sailing Foundation, Inc Biscayne Bay and Intracoastal Waterway from the Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami, Florida to Key Biscayne to Cape Florida to Soldier Key to Sands Key to Elliot Key to Two Stacks to Card Sound to Barnes Sound to Blackwater Sound in Key Largo, Florida no closer than 500 feet from each vessel. April—last Friday Conch Republic Navy Parade and Battle Sponsor: Conch Republic All waters approximately 150 yards offshore from Ocean Key Sunset Pier, Mallory Square and the Hilton Pier within the Key West Harbor. May—3rd weekend Marathon Super Boat Grand Prix. Super Boat International Productions, Inc All waters of Knight Key Channel, encompassing both the Gulf of Mexico side and the Atlantic Ocean side of the Seven Mile Bridge. June—2nd weekend FKCC Swim around Key West Florida Keys Community College Begin at Smather's Beach and swim the loop around the island back to the start approximately 50 yards offshore, Key West, Florida. July—3rd weekend, Saturday and Sunday The Easom Cup South Eastern Ocean Racing Series (SEORS) Caesar's Creek, Everglades City, Florida. November—2nd week, Wednesday-Sunday Key West World Championship Super Boat International Productions, Inc In the Atlantic Ocean, off the tip of Key West, on the waters of the Key West Main Ship Channel, Key West Turning Basin, and Key West Harbor Entrance. November—first weekend, Friday-Sunday U.S. Wake Board Championships Middle Keys Events Council Sombrero Beach, Marathon, Florida; between Sister Creek and Sister Rock to approximately 500 yards offshore from Sombrero Beach. December—1st Thursday Boot Key Harbor Christmas Boat Parade Dockside Marina Boot Key Harbor (entire harbor), Marathon, Florida. December—2nd Sunday Key Colony Beach Holiday Boat Parade Key Colony Beach Community Assn Key Colony Beach, Marathon, Florida, between Vaca Cut Bridge and Long Key Bridge. December—3rd Saturday Key Largo Boat Parade Key Largo Boat Parade From Channel Marker 41 on Dusenbury Creek in Blackwater Sound to tip of Stillwright Point in Blackwater Sound, Key Largo, Florida. December—3rd Saturday Key West Lighted Boat Parade Schooner Wharf Bar All waters between Christmas Tree Island and Coast Guard Station thru Key West Harbor to Mallory Square, approximately 35 yards from shore. COTP Zone San Juan May—first Sunday Half Ironman Triathlon Project St. Croix, Inc St. Croix (Christiansted Harbor), U.S.V.I.: In the following position: PT1 on the shoreline at Kings Wharf at posn 17°44′51″N, 064°42′16″W, thence north to PT2 at the southwest corner of Protestant Cay in posn 17°44′56″N, 064°42′12″W, then east along the shoreline to PT3 at the southeast corner of Protestant Cay in posn 17°44′56″N, 064°42′08″W, thence northeast to PT4 at Christiansted Harbor Channel Round Reef Northeast Junction Lighted Buoy RR in posn 17°45′24″N, 064°41′45″W, thence southeast to PT 5 at Christiansted Schooner Channel Lighted Buoy 5 in posn 17°45′18″N, 064°41′43″W, thence south to PT6 at Christiansted Harbor Channel Buoy 15 in posn 17°44′56″N, 064°41′56″W, thence to PT7 on the shoreline north of Fort Christiansvaem in posn 17°44′51″N, 064°42′05″W, thence west along the shoreline to PT1. July 4th Fireworks Display St. John Festival & Cul., Org St. John (West of Cruz Bay/Northeast of Steven Cay), U.S.V.I. all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 200 yards centered around position 18°19′55″N, 064°48′06″W. July—3rd week, Sunday San Juan Harbor Swim Municipality of Catano San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico PT1: La Puntilla Final, Coast Guard Base at posn 18°27′33″N, 066°07′00″W, then south to PT2: Catano Ferry Pier at posn 18°26′36″N, 066°07′00″W, then east along the Catano shoreline to PT3: Punta Catano at posn 18°26′40″N, 066°06′48″W, then north to PT4: Pier 1 San Juan at posn 18°27′40″N, 066°06′49″W, then back along the shoreline to origin at PT1. December 31st Fireworks St. Thomas, Great Bay Mr. Victor Laurenza, Pyrotecnico, New Castle, PA St. Thomas (Great Bay area), U.S.V.I.; all waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 600 feet centered around position 18°19′14″N, 064°50′18″W. December—1st week Christmas Boat Parade St. Croix Christmas Boat Committee St. Croix (Christiansted Harbor), U.S.V.I.; 200 yards off-shore around Prostestant Cay beginning in posn 17°45′56″N, 064°42′16″W, around the cay and back to the beginning position. COTP Zone Charleston May—Morning Slack Tide on the 3rd and 4th Saturday Lowcountry Splash Logan Rutledge Cooper River/Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, including the waters of the Wando River, Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor from Hobcaw Yacht Club, in approximate position 32°49′32″N, 079°53′81″W, south along the coast of Mt. Pleasant, S.C., to Charleston Harbor Marina, approximate position 32°47′20″N, 079°54′64″W, and extending out 150 yards from shore. June—2nd week Beaufort Water Festival City of Beaufort Beaufort, South Carolina, between the Lady's Island swing bridge and Spanish Point. June-August—every Tuesday Shelter Cove Fireworks Greenwood Development Corp Shelter Cove, Hilton Head, South Carolina extending a radius of 600 feet from approximate position 32°11′10″N, 080°43′54″W. July 4th Sea pines resort 4th of July Seapines Plantation Harbortowne, Hilton Head, Calibogue Sound, South Carolina extending a radius of 600 feet from approximate position 32°11′10″N, 080°43′54″W. July 4th Patriots Point Fireworks Patriots Point Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, extending a radius of 1000 feet from approximate position 32°47′01″N, 079°53′8″W. July 4th Skull Creek Fireworks Hudson Seafood Skull Creek, Hilton Head, South Carolina extending a radius of 1000 feet from the approximate position 32°13′57″N, 080°45′06″W. July 4th City of North Charleston Fireworks City of North Charleston Cooper River, Charleston, South Carolina extending a radius of 1000 feet from approximate position 32°51′57″N, 079°57′35″W. July 4th Market Street Fireworks City of Charleston Charleston harbor, South Carolina extending a radius of 1000 feet from center approximate position 32°54′01″N, 080°08′05″W. November—2nd week Head of the South Augusta Rowing club Upper Savannah River MM199 to MM196, Georgia. December—2nd week Charleston Harbor Christmas Parade of Boats City of Charleston Charleston harbor, South Carolina, from Anchorage A through Shutes Folly, Horse Reach, Hog Island Reach, Town Creek Lower Reach, Ashley River, and finishing at City Marina. COTP Zone St. Petersburg January—3rd Saturday Gasparilla Children's Parade Fireworks Event Makers Hillsborough Bay within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 27°55′04″N, 082°29′08″W. January—3rd Saturday Gasparilla Children's Parade Air show Air Boss and Consulting Hillsborough Bay north of an imaginary line drawn at 27°55′N, west of Davis Islands, and south of the Davis Island Bridge. January—last Saturday Gasparilla Boat Parade YE Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla Tampa Bay, Florida, including all waters of Hillsborough Bay and its tributaries north of a line drawn along latitude 27°51′18″N. Hillsborough Cut “D” Channel, Sparkman Channel, Ybor Channel, Seddon Channel and the Hillsborough River south of the John F. Kennedy Bridge. March—last Friday, Saturday, and Sunday Honda Grand Prix Honda Motor Company and City of St. Petersburg Demons Landing, St Petersburg FL, all waters within 100 ft of the seawall. March—last Friday, Saturday, and Sunday St Pete Grand Prix Air show Honda Motor Company and City of St. Petersburg St Petersburg FL, within two NM of the Albert Whitted Airport. April—last Sunday St Anthony's Triathlon St Anthony's Health Care St Petersburg within one NM of Spa Beach. July 4th Freedom Swim None Peace River FL within two NM of the U.S. 41 Bridge. July 4th and January 1st Ybor Fireworks Display Tampa Bay Attractions Association or various private entities Ybor Turning Basin within a 120 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approx. position 27°56′29″N, 082°26′43″W. July 4th and January 1st Clearwater fireworks displays City of Clearwater Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Clearwater within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 26°58′01″N, 082°48′15″W. July 4th and January 1st Marco Island fireworks displays City of Marco Island Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of Marco Island within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 25°54′36″N, 081°45′06″W. July 4th and January 1st Venice fireworks displays City of Venice Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of Venice Inlet within a 200 yard radius of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 27°06′44″N, 082°28′09″W. July 4th and January 1st Beach House Restaurant fireworks displays Beach House Restaurant Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of Bradenton Beach within a 200 yard radius of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 27°27′59″N, 082°41′58″W. July 4th and January 1st Ft Myers fireworks displays City of Ft Myers Caloosahatchee River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 26°38′45″N 081°52′50″W. July—1st Sunday Suncoast Offshore Grand Prix Suncoast Foundation for the Handicapped Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of Sarasota, from New Pass to Siesta Beach out to eight NM. September—3rd Friday, Saturday, and Sunday Homosassa Raft Race Citrus 95 FM radio Homosassa River between Private Green Dayboard 81 east to private Red Dayboard 2. October—2nd Friday, Saturday, and Sunday St Petersburg Airfest City of St Petersburg St Petersburg, within two NM of the Albert Whitted Airport. November—3rd Thursday, Friday, and Saturday Ironman World Championship Triathlon City of Clearwater & Ironman North America Gulf of Mexico within two NM of Clearwater Beach FL. COTP Zone Savannah May—2nd weekend, Sunday Blessing of the Fleet—Brunswick Knights of the Columbus—Brunswick Brunswick River from the start of the east branch of the Brunswick River (East Brunswick River) to the Golden Isles Parkway Bridge. May—2nd or 3rd weekend Grand Prix of Augusta Champboat Series, LLC Savannah River, Augusta, Georgia, from the U.S. Highway 1 (Fifth Street) Bridge at mile 199.45 to Eliot's Fish Camp at mile 197. July 4th Fourth of July Fireworks Savannah Waterfront Association Savannah River, Savannah Riverfront, Georgia, 500 feet around fireworks launch point centered at approximate position 32°04′56″N, 081°05′02″W. July—3rd full weekend Augusta Southern Nationals Drag Boat Races Augusta Southern Nationals Savannah River, Augusta, Georgia, from the U.S. Highway 1 (Fifth Street) Bridge at mile 199.45 to Eliot's Fish Camp at mile 197. October—3rd or 4th weekend or November—1st weekend Champboat Races of Savannah Champboat Series, LLC. Savannah River, Savannah Riverfront, Georgia, Talmadge bridge to a line drawn at 146 degrees true from dayboard 62. November—1st Saturday after Thanksgiving Day Savannah Harbor Boat Parade of Lights and Fireworks Westin Resort, Savannah Savannah River, Savannah Riverfront, Georgia, Talmadge bridge to a line drawn at 146 degrees true from dayboard 62. December 31st New Years Eve Fireworks Savannah Waterfront Association Savannah River, Savannah Riverfront, Georgia, 500 feet around fireworks launch point centered at approximate position 32°04′56″N, 081°05′02″W. Monthly—first Friday First Friday of the Month Fireworks Savannah Waterfront Association Savannah River, Savannah Riverfront, Georgia, 500 feet around fireworks launch point centered at approximate position 32°04′56″N, 081°05′02″W. COTP Zone Jacksonville February—1st weekend, Friday-Monday Clay County Super Celebration Reynolds Park Yacht Club Reynolds Park Yacht Club (entire club), Green Cove Springs. February—last Saturday El Cheapo Sheepshead Tournament Jacksonville Offshore Sport Fishing Club Mayport/Jacksonville Boat Ramp; 500 feet seaward of the boat ramp. March—1st Saturday Jacksonville Invitational (Rowing Race) Stanton Rowing Foundation (may vary) Ortega River Race Course, Jacksonville; between Timuquana and Roosevelt Bridges. March—1st Saturday Stanton Invitational (Rowing Race) Stanton Rowing Foundation Ortega River Race Course, Jacksonville; between Timuquana and Roosevelt Bridges. March or April—Palm Sunday Blessing of the Fleet—Jacksonville City of Jacksonville Office of Special Events St. Johns River, downtown Jacksonville in the vicinity of Jacksonville Landing between the Main Street Bridge and Acosta Bride. March or April—Palm Sunday Blessing of the Fleet—St. Augustine City of St. Augustine St. Augustine Municipal Marina (entire marina). April—1st full weekend, Saturday and Sunday Mount Dora Yacht Club Sailing Regatta Mount Dora Yacht Club Lake Dora, Mount Doran—500 ft. off Grantham Point. April—3rd Saturday Jacksonville City Championships Stanton Rowing Foundation Ortega River Race Course, Jacksonville; between Timuquana and Roosevelt Bridges. April—3rd weekend Florida Times Union Redfish Roundup The Florida Times-Union Sister's Creek Marina to Marker 88 on the St. John's River. May—1st Friday Isle of Eight Flags Shrimp Festival Pirate Landing and Fireworks City of Fernandina Beach Fernandina Harbor Marina (entire marina). May—1st Saturday Mug Race The Rudder Club of Jacksonville, Inc St. Johns River; Palatka to Buckman Bridge. May—4th Friday Palatka Blue Crab Festival and Fireworks Palatka Blue Crab Festival All waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 29°38′37″N, 081°37′50″W. May—4th weekend Memorial Day RiverFest City of Green Cove Springs All waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 29° 59′39″N, 081°40′33″W. May—last full week, Monday—Friday Bluewater Invitational Tournament Northeast Florida Marlin Association There is a no-wake zone in effect from the St. Augustine City Marina out to the end of the St. Augustine Jettys 6 a.m.-8 a.m. and 3 p.m.-5 p.m. during the above days. May—last full weekend, Friday—Sunday Blue Crab Festival Ski Shows Downtown Palatka, Inc. & Palatka Blue Crab Festival, Inc St. Johns River, South of Memorial Bridge, Palatka. June—1st Saturday Florida Sport Fishing Association Offshore Fishing Tournament Florida Sport Fishing Association From Sunrise Marina to the end of Port Canaveral Inlet. June—1st weekend, Friday-Sunday Jetty Park Ocean Regatta Fleet 45 Space Coast Catamaran Association, Inc Jetty Park, Port Canaveral; all waters within a 1000-yard radius around approximate position 28°24′21″N, 080°33′33″W. June—2nd weekend, Friday-Sunday St. Augustine King Buster Classic 400 King Buster Classic, Inc St. Augustine Municipal Marina (entire marina) June—4th Saturday Veterans Day Celebration, Parade and Fireworks Display City of New Smyrna Beach All waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 29°03′N, 080°55′W. June—4th weekend, Thursday-Saturday Tournament of Champions Kingfish Tournament Nassau Sport Fishing Association Fernandina Harbor Marina (entire marina), Fernandina Beach. June—2nd weekend, Saturday and Sunday Kingfish Challenge Ancient City Game Fish Association There is a no-wake zone in effect from the St. Augustine City Marina out to the end of the St. Augustine Jettys 6 a.m.-8 a.m. and 3 p.m.-5 p.m. July 4th Cocoa 4th of July Fireworks City of Cocoa All waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 28°20′22″N, 080°31′27″W. July 4th Daytona Beach Boardwalk Association July 4th Fireworks Daytona Beach Boardwalk Association All waters within a 500-yard radius around at approximate position 29° 13′34″N, 081°00′33″W. July 4th Edgewater Fire Rescue Association Annual Fireworks Celebration Edgewater Fire Rescue Association All waters within a 500-yard radius around the pier at Kennedy Memorial Park, Edgewater, FL. July 4th Fernandina Beach 4th of July Fireworks City of Fernandina Beach/ Fernandina Harbor Marina All waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 30°40′17″N, 081°27′56″W. July 4th Fireworks Display for Independence Day Celebration (Palatka) City of Palatka/Downtown Palatka All waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 29°38′37″N, 081°37′51″W. July 4th Flagler Beach July 4th Celebration Fireworks Flagler Beach Chamber of Commerce All waters within a 500-yard radius around (the end of Flagler Beach Pier) approximate position 29°28′50″N, 081°07′27″W. July 4th Florida Yacht Club and Timuquana Country Club Fireworks Display Florida Yacht Club and Timuquana Country Club All waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 30°15′00″N, 081°41′17″W. July 4th Kissimmee July 4th Celebration Fireworks City of Kissimmee Parks and Recreation All waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 28°17′08″N, 081°24′08″W. July 4th Kiwanis Club of St. Marys Annual Fourth of July Festival Fireworks Kiwanis Club of St. Marys Georgia St. Marys River, St. Marys, GA; all waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 30°43′7″N, 081°32′59″W. July 4th Liberty Fest—4th of July Celebration (Jacksonville Beach) City of Jacksonville Beach All waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 30°17′06″N, 081°23′16″W. July 4th Mount Dora Old Fashioned 4th of July Celebration Rotary Club of Mount Dora/ Mount Dora Firefighter Association Lake Dora, Mount Dora—500 ft. off Grantham Point. July 4th Orange Park Independence Day Celebration Fireworks Town of Orange Park All waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 30°10′20″N, 081°42′20″W. July 4th Ormond Beach Independence Day Celebration Fireworks City of Ormond Beach All waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 29°17.2′N, 081°02.988′W. July 4th Patrick Air Force Base 4th of July Celebration and Fireworks Patrick Air Force Base All waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 28°14′00″N, 080°37′00″W. July 4th Sanford's July 4th Celebration Fireworks City of Sanford All waters within a 500-yard radius around the Monroe Harbor Marina. July 4th St. Augustine July 4th Fireworks Display City of St. Augustine All waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 29°53′50.84″N, 081°18′30.87″W. July—3rd Saturday Halifax Rowing Association Summer Regatta Halifax Rowing Association Halifax River, Daytona, S. of Memorial Bridge—East Side. July—3rd week BellSouth Greater Jacksonville Kingfish Tournament Jacksonville Marine Charities, Inc All waters of the St. Johns River, from lighted buoy 10 (LLNR 2190) in approximate position 30°24′22″N, 081°24′59″W to lighted buoy 25 (LLNR 7305). August—2nd week Townsend Hawkes Ocean Swim Jacksonville Beaches Kiwanis Club 50 ft. offshore from Jacksonville Beach to Sea Turtle Inn, Atlantic Beach. December 31st Jacksonville New Year's Eve Fireworks City of Jacksonville Office of Special Events St. Johns River; west side of Main Street Bridge. December 31st St. Augustine Beach New Year's Eve Fireworks City of St. Augustine Beach All waters within a 500-yard radius approximate position 29°51′16″N, 081°15′49″W. December—2nd Saturday St. Johns River Christmas Boat Parade St. Johns River Christmas Boat Parade, Inc St. Johns River; Whitehair Bridge, Deland to Lake Beresford. December—2nd Saturday Christmas Boat Parade (Daytona Beach/ Halifax River) Halifax River Yacht Club Halifax River from Seabreeze Bridge to Halifax Harbor Marina. December—2nd Saturday Kissimmee Holiday Extravaganza Fireworks City of Kissimmee Parks and Recreation Kissimmee Lakefront Park; all waters within a 500-yard radius around approximate position 28°17′13″N, 081°24′13″W. Dated: October 4, 2007. D.W. Kunkel, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-21714 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0014, FRL-8494-4] RIN 2060-AM91 Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): Reconsideration of Inclusion of Fugitive Emissions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of reconsideration of final rule. SUMMARY: On December 31, 2002, we (the EPA) issued our final New Source Review

(NSR)Improvement Rule which, among other things, requires all sources to include “fugitive emissions” in assessing whether a proposed physical or operational change qualifies as a “major modification” that is subject to review under major NSR. On July 11, 2003, we received a petition for reconsideration on behalf of Newmont USA Limited, dba Newmont Mining Corporation (“Newmont”) arguing that the December 31, 2002 final rule failed to comply with the Clean Air Act

(Act)requirement that EPA conduct a rulemaking to list source categories for which fugitive emissions must be included in computing a source's emissions to determine whether it is a “major stationary source.” In January 2004, we agreed to reconsider this issue. In this action, we are proposing to revise the provisions of the December 2002 final rules related to the treatment of fugitive emissions for purposes of determining whether a physical or operational change at an existing major source qualifies as a major modification. We request public comment on the proposed revisions. In this action, we are also providing guidelines for determining when and how emissions are to be considered fugitive for NSR and Title V permitting. DATES: *Comments* . Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2008. *Public Hearing* . If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a public hearing on or before December 3, 2007, we will hold a public hearing approximately 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0014 by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov* , attention Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0014. • *Fax* : 202-566-9744. • *Mail* : Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0014, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), Mail code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of 2 copies. • *Hand Delivery* : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0014. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0014. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an (anonymous access( system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA(s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to section I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0014. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is

(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lynn Hutchinson, Air Quality Policy Division (C504-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, *telephone number:*

(919)541-5795, *fax number* :

(919)541-4028, or electronic mail at *hutchinson.lynn@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Entities potentially affected by this proposed action include sources in all industry groups. The majority of sources potentially affected are expected to be in the following groups. Industry group SIC a NAICS b Electric Services 491 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122 Petroleum Refining 291 324110 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 281 325181, 325120, 325131, 325182, 211112, 325998, 331311, 325188 Industrial Organic Chemicals 286 325110, 325132, 325192, 325188, 325193, 325120, 325199 Miscellaneous Chemical Products 289 325520, 325920, 325910, 325182, 325510 Natural Gas Liquids 132 211112 Natural Gas Transport 492 486210, 221210 Pulp and Paper Mills 261 322110, 322121, 322122, 322130 Paper Mills 262 322121, 322122 Automobile Manufacturing 371 336111, 336112, 336211, 336992, 336322, 336312, 336330, 336340, 336350, 336399, 336212, 336213 Pharmaceuticals 283 325411, 325412, 325413, 325414 Mining 211, 212, 213 21 Agriculture, Fishing and Hunting 111, 112, 113, 115 11 a Standard Industrial Classification. b North American Industry Classification System. Entities potentially affected by the subject rule for this proposed action also include State, local, and tribal governments. B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Also, send an additional copy clearly marked as above not only to the Air docket but to: Roberto Morales, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer, (C339-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0014. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. How can I find information about a possible public hearing? Persons interested in presenting oral testimony should contact Ms. Pamela S. Long, New Source Review Group, Air Quality Policy Division (C504-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number

(919)541-0641, at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also contact Ms. Long to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed changes. D. How is this preamble organized? The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? C. How can I find information about a possible public hearing? D. How is this preamble organized? II. Background A. What is major New Source Review? B. What sources are subject to major NSR? C. What are fugitive emissions, and how do they figure into major NSR applicability? D. What is the basis for and history of EPA's treatment of fugitive emissions in major NSR applicability determinations? E. Why is EPA reconsidering this aspect of the December 2002 NSR Improvement final rulemaking? III. This Action A. What are the results of EPA's reconsideration? B. How is EPA proposing to revise the major NSR regulations? C. What is the effect of this action on the minor NSR program? D. What is the rationale for this action? 1. The Newmont petition 2. Proposed action IV. When would these proposed changes take effect in the Federal PSD Program, and Must States revise their State Implementation Plans

(SIPs)to incorporate this proposed action? V. Guiding Principles for Determining Fugitive Emissions VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act VII. Statutory Authority II. Background A. What is major New Source Review? The major NSR program is mandated by parts C and D of title I of the Act. Major NSR is a preconstruction review and permitting program applicable to new or modified major stationary sources (major sources) of air pollutants regulated under the Act. In areas not meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and in ozone transport regions (OTR), the program is implemented under the requirements of part D of title I of the Act. We call this program the “nonattainment” major NSR program. In areas meeting NAAQS (“attainment” areas) or for which there is insufficient information to determine whether they meet the NAAQS (“unclassifiable” areas), the NSR requirements under part C of title I of the Act apply. We call this program the Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)program. Collectively, we also commonly refer to these programs as the major NSR program. These regulations are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, appendix S. B. What sources are subject to major NSR? Major NSR applies to

(1)construction of new major sources, and

(2)major modifications at existing major sources. In either case, the initial step in assessing applicability is to determine whether the source in question qualifies as a “major source.” A proposed or existing source qualifies as a major source if it “emits or has the potential to emit” a regulated NSR pollutant in an amount greater than the specified annual threshold. We define “potential to emit”

(PTE)as the maximum capacity of a source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design, taking into account any physical or operational limitations on the source that are enforceable as a practical matter. ( *See,* for example, § 52.21(b)(4) for the full definition of PTE.) If a proposed new source's PTE is greater than the applicable major source threshold for one or more regulated NSR pollutants, it is subject to preconstruction review under major NSR. For the PSD program, the major source threshold is 100 tons per year

(tpy)for sources in any of 28 categories listed in the regulations, and 250 tpy for any other type of source. ( *See* §§ 51.166(b)(1) and 52.21(b)(1) for the full definition of “major stationary source” under PSD.) The major source threshold under nonattainment major NSR is generally 100 tpy, but is lower for some pollutants in nonattainment areas classified as serious, severe, or extreme. ( *See* § 51.165(a)(1)(iv) for the full definition of “major stationary source” under nonattainment major NSR.) These same major source thresholds also apply to modifications at existing minor sources where the modification by itself has potential emissions in excess of the applicable threshold. If an existing major source (i.e., an existing source with actual emissions and/or PTE greater than the applicable major source threshold) is planning a physical or operational change, the project is subject to major NSR if it is a “major modification.” A physical or operational change is a major modification if it meets both of the following two criteria: 1 1 On October 20, 2005, we proposed different major NSR applicability procedures for modifications at electric generating units. ( *See* 70 FR 61081.) Our rulemaking effort for such units is ongoing. • The physical or operational change, taken by itself, would result in a significant increase in emissions of a regulated NSR pollutant; and • The physical or operational change, taken together with other, contemporaneous emissions increases and decreases at the source, would result in a significant net emissions increase. The level of emissions that is considered “significant” varies by pollutant and, in some cases, by a nonattainment area's classification. For example, an increase of 40 tpy is significant for sulfur dioxide, while 0.6 tpy of lead is considered a significant increase. ( *See* §§ 51.166(b)(23) and 52.21(b)(23) for the full definition of “significant” under PSD and § 51.165(a)(1)(x) for the full definition under nonattainment major NSR.) In determining the increase in emissions from a physical or operational change, new emissions units are evaluated at their PTE, while existing and replacement units are generally evaluated by comparing their baseline actual emissions before the physical or operational change to their projected actual emissions after the change. C. What are fugitive emissions, and how do they figure into major NSR applicability? For purposes of major NSR, we define “fugitive emissions” as emissions that could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening. ( *See,* for example, § 52.21(b)(20).) Examples of fugitive emissions include windblown dust from surface mines and volatile organic compounds

(VOCs)emitted from leaking pipes and fittings at petroleum refineries. Quantifiable fugitive emissions are included in a stationary source's PTE when determining whether the source is a major source only if it is in one of the source categories specifically listed in the major NSR regulations. This is consistent with section 302(j) of the Act, and is made clear in the definition of “major stationary source” that is found in the major NSR regulations. ( *See* , for example, § 52.21(b)(1)(iii).) Conversely, under the 2002 NSR rules, fugitive emissions to the extent quantifiable are included in determining whether a physical or operational change is a major modification (i.e., in calculating the resulting emissions increase and net emissions increase), regardless of the source's source category. This is the case because the definitions of the terms “projected actual emissions” and “baseline actual emissions” under the 2002 NSR rules, which are the definitions used to calculate emission increases at existing units, include quantifiable fugitive emissions. ( *See* §§ 52.21(b)(41)(ii)( *b* ) and 52.21(b)(48)(ii)( *a* ).) In this action we propose to modify this aspect of the 2002 NSR rules. We propose to take a consistent approach as to the inclusion of fugitive emissions in threshold major source and modification determinations. D. What is the basis for and history of EPA's treatment of fugitive emissions in major NSR applicability determinations? Section 302(j) of the Act sets out the definition of “major stationary source” that, along with several other provisions of the Act, provides the basis for the definitions used in the major NSR regulations. The definition in section 302(j) specifies that fugitive emissions are included in major source determinations only for source categories that EPA specifies through rulemaking. As discussed below, EPA enacted regulations pursuant to section 302(j) that specify the source categories for which fugitive emissions are included in the major source determination and has listed these source categories in the “major stationary source” definitions. However, the Act is silent regarding the treatment of fugitive emissions for purposes of determining whether a physical or operational change is a major modification. Below we discuss the history of this issue leading up to this proposed action. We first created the list of source categories for which fugitive emissions are included in major source determinations (the “section 302(j) list”) in the final PSD and nonattainment major NSR rules issued in 1980 on remand from the DC Circuit. ( *See* 45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980.) The court remanded our initial major NSR rules for a variety of reasons, including our failure to follow the requirements of section 302(j) in promulgating a partial exemption for fugitive dust. ( *See Alabama Power* v. *Costle,* 636 F.2d 323, 369-370 (DC Cir. 1979).) The promulgated section 302(j) list included the source categories listed in section 169(1) of the Act, which is the definition of “major emitting facility” for purposes of PSD. Under that definition, the major source threshold for the listed source categories is 100 tpy, rather than the 250 tpy threshold that applies to other categories of sources. In the preamble to the 1980 major NSR rules, we noted that the *Alabama Power* court stated that “Congress' intention, in establishing the list of source categories in section 169(1) of the Act, was to identify facilities which, due to their size, are financially able to bear the substantial regulatory costs imposed by the PSD provisions and which, as a group, are primarily responsible for emission of the deleterious pollutants that befoul our nation's air.” ( *See* 45 FR 52691.) In light of that intent, we determined that as a matter of policy, it would be appropriate to count all emissions—including fugitive emissions—in threshold calculations of applicability for those source categories. (Again, *see* 45 FR 52691.) In doing so, we indicated that our listing decisions would be based on whether sources in the category have the potential to degrade air quality significantly. We also indicated that we would consider information raised by commenters that showed that unreasonable socioeconomic impacts relative to the benefits would result from subjecting the sources to the relevant PSD or nonattainment programs. In addition to the source categories listed in section 169(1), based on application of these criteria, we included on the section 302(j) list “any other stationary source category which, as of August 7, 1980, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Act.” We noted in the 1980 preamble that categories of sources are regulated under section 111 (New Source Performance Standards or NSPS) or 112 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants or NESHAP) on the basis of a determination that their emissions seriously and adversely impact ambient air quality. We therefore determined that it was appropriate to include their fugitive emissions in the threshold calculations for purposes of major NSR applicability. We included the August 7, 1980 cutoff date because we believed that sources not regulated by an NSPS or NESHAP before the promulgation date of the major NSR rules could not have been afforded a meaningful opportunity to comment on the inclusion of their fugitive emissions in threshold applicability determinations for the source category. In the preamble to the 1980 NSR rules, we explained that the *Alabama Power* court determined that the “substantive preconstruction review and permitting requirements of section 165 `apply with equal force to fugitive emissions and emissions from industrial point sources,”' but went on to explain that this meant only that “section 165 requires that fugitive emissions be taken into account in determinations of whether NAAQS or allowable increments will be violated * * * and that fugitive emissions be subjected to BACT requirements * * *.” ( *See* 45 FR 52691.) Thus, in the preamble to the 1980 rules, we analytically grouped fugitive emissions for purposes of the major source definition and major modifications under the rubric of “threshold calculations.” ( *See* 45 FR 52690-91.) However, the 1980 NSR regulations on their face require fugitive emissions to be included in threshold applicability determinations for any project, but then exempt from the relevant PSD or nonattainment requirements any project that

(1)would be “major” only if fugitive emissions were included and

(2)does not belong to one of the categories specifically listed pursuant to the section 302(j) rulemaking. ( *See,* for example, §§ 52.21(b)(4) and (i)(4)(vii) as promulgated in 1980 at 45 FR 52736 and 52739, respectively. *See* also the discussion at 49 FR 43204, October 26, 1984.) Thus, in the 1980 rules, we included the section 302(j) list in a provision that exempted from PSD permitting requirements “a particular major stationary source or major modification, if * * * [t]he source or modification would be a major stationary source or major modification only if fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, are considered in calculating the potential to emit of the stationary source or modification and the source does not belong to [any of the categories in the section 302(j) list].” ( *See* §§ 52.21(i)(4), (i)(4)(vii), 45 FR 52738-52739.) A similar exclusion applied in the nonattainment major NSR context. ( *See* § 51.18(j)(4), 45 FR 52746.) In our response to a petition for reconsideration of the 1980 rules submitted on behalf of the American Mining Congress, we continued this approach, stating that “EPA * * * intended to establish that any source which would be `major' only if fugitive emissions were taken into account is not to be considered `major' for any PSD purpose, unless the source belongs to one of the categories on the list which now appears in [§ ]52.21(i)(4)(vii). Similarly, EPA intended to establish that any modification that would be `major' only if fugitive emissions were taken into account is not to be considered `major' for any PSD purpose, unless the source * * * belongs to one of the categories on that list.” Further, we committed to amend the regulations to conform them to these intentions. ( *See* letter from Douglas M. Costle, EPA Administrator, to Robert T. Connery, Holland & Hart, January 19, 1981.) On October 26, 1984 (49 FR 43202) we affirmed the interpretation that we had stated in the 1980 NSR rulemaking. ( *See* 49 FR 43208.) We also added NSR regulatory provisions that the fugitive emissions of a stationary source shall not be included in the threshold determination of whether it is a major stationary source unless the source belongs to one of the categories of sources identified by EPA in its section 302(j) rulemaking. ( *See* 49 FR 43209-10.) In a companion notice published on October 26, 1984 (49 FR 43211), we solicited public comment on an “interpretive ruling” regarding section 302(j) of the Act as it relates to the review of physical or operational changes involving fugitive emissions. 2 In this notice, we observed that in our 1980 NSR rulemaking and when proposing amendments in 1983, we had assumed that the rulemaking requirement in section 302(j) regarding source categories for which fugitive emissions should be considered applies to modification determinations as well as to threshold major source determinations. However, in this 1984 interpretive proposal, we stated that we believed our prior assumption in this regard was incorrect. We proposed to include fugitive emissions for sources in all source categories, to the extent quantifiable, when determining whether a physical or operational change meets the significance thresholds for a modification for purposes of major NSR. ( *See* 49 FR 43213-14.) 2 This was an “interpretive ruling” in that we proposed to change our previous interpretation of the Act. To put the interpretive ruling into effect, we chose not to finalize the proposed revision to the major modification definition. On February 28, 1986 ( *see* 51 FR 7090), we reopened the comment period to receive further comment on several of the issues addressed in our October 26, 1984 proposal. The comment period ended April 9, 1986. Comments for this proposal are captured in legacy docket A-84-33. On November 28, 1989 ( *see* 54 FR 48870), we finalized our 1984 interpretation and concluded that the section 302(j) limitation on including fugitive emissions applies to the threshold determination of whether a source is a major source, but not to the threshold determination of whether a physical or operational change constitutes a major modification. We pointed out that the language of section 302(j) explicitly attaches the rulemaking requirements only to existing or proposed major sources, and says nothing about major modifications to existing sources. We also noted that the PSD and nonattainment major NSR definitions of “modification” in section 169(2)(C) and section 171(4) of the Act, respectively, merely cross-reference section 111(a)(4) of the Act, which is the definition of “modification” in the NSPS provisions. Because section 111(a)(4) defines modification solely in terms of the total amount of pollution that a change at a source would produce, we believed that Congress intended to establish no qualitative distinction between stack and fugitive emissions. Moreover, we stated that the legislative history on section 302(j) does not refer directly to major modifications, although the conference report on the PSD construction and modification definitions in section 169(2)(C) does provide that Congress' general intent was “to conform to usage in other parts of the Act” [123 Cong. Rec. H 11957, col. 3 (daily ed.) (November 1, 1977)]. We reasoned that this passage referred not only to section 111(a)(4), but to usage of these terms in existing EPA regulations under the NSPS and NSR programs, which did not distinguish between fugitive and stack emissions. We concluded that an interpretation of section 302(j) to exempt fugitive emissions from modification calculations ran counter to EPA's longstanding practice, and that if Congress intended a legislative change as to major modifications, it would have said so explicitly. ( *See* 54 FR 48882-83.) We further concluded that EPA's longstanding practice of considering the fugitive emissions of all sources, not just those on the section 302(j) list, when determining whether a major modification had occurred was reasonable. ( *See* 54 FR 48883.) In addition, we related that our interpretation likely would not impose new regulatory burdens because fugitive emissions from physical or operational changes would still be excluded from applicability determinations unless the changes occurred at a major source. We reasoned that under the Act and EPA regulations, a modification is “major” and subject to review only if the source at which it would occur is also “major.” Hence, a modification to a source of predominantly fugitive emissions that does not belong to a currently listed category could not be subject to review, even if its fugitive emissions were taken into account, because the source would not be “major.” ( *See* 49 FR 43213-14.) Based on this reasoning, our November 28, 1989 final action reaffirmed our October 1984 proposed interpretation that the list of fugitive emissions sources created pursuant to section 302(j) does not apply to major modifications and that fugitive emissions for sources in all source categories must be included when determining whether a physical or operational change meets the significance thresholds for purposes of major NSR. In October 1990, we issued the draft “New Source Review Workshop Manual,” 3 in which we stated that under the federal PSD regulations, fugitive emissions “are included in the potential to emit (and increases in the same due to modification)” if they occur at one of the source categories listed pursuant to section 302(j). ( *See* page A.9 of the Manual, which may be found at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nsr/gen/wkshpman.pdf.* ) This phrasing seemingly contradicts our November 1989 final interpretive ruling, although we did not intend to change our policy in this area. 3 The “New Source Review Workshop Manual” is in draft form and the Agency chose not to finalize this manual. In the NSR Improvement final rulemaking published December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), we promulgated final rules consistent with our November 1989 final interpretive ruling. There, we required the inclusion of fugitive emissions in calculating emissions increases for purposes of determining whether a particular physical or operational change constitutes a major modification requiring a PSD or nonattainment major NSR permit. ( *See* , for example, § 52.21(b)(41)(ii)( *b* ), which includes fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, in the definition of “projected actual emissions” and § 52.21(b)(48)(i)( *a* ), which includes fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, in the definition of “baseline actual emissions.”) E. Why is EPA reconsidering this aspect of the December 2002 NSR Improvement final rulemaking? On July 11, 2003, we received a petition for reconsideration of the December 2002 NSR Improvement final rules from Newmont USA Ltd., dba Newmont Mining Corporation (Newmont). Newmont argued that we failed to comply with the requirements of section 302(j) of the Act in requiring fugitive emissions to be counted for purposes of determining whether a physical or operational change constitutes a major modification for sources in source categories not listed pursuant to section 302(j). Newmont also argued that we failed to provide notice and an opportunity for comment on this issue. The EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation granted Newmont's petition by letter in January 2004. III. This Action A. What are the results of EPA's reconsideration? We are proposing to revise the provisions of the December 2002 NSR Improvement final rules related to the treatment of fugitive emissions for purposes of determining whether a physical or operational change at an existing major source qualifies as a major modification. We propose to reverse our existing policy and include fugitive emissions in determining whether a physical or operational change results in a major modification only for sources in the source categories that have been designated through rulemaking pursuant to section 302(j) of the Act. In other words, we propose to adopt the same approach to fugitive emissions currently used for determining whether a source is major, for determining whether a change is a major modification. We solicit comment on this proposed approach. B. How is EPA proposing to revise the major NSR regulations? To implement our new approach to fugitive emissions, in this action we propose to revise all four portions of the major NSR program regulations: § 51.165, § 51.166, § 52.21, and appendix S of part 51. This notice includes specific proposed revisions for §§ 51.165, 51.166, and 52.21. The proposed revisions are nearly identical for these regulations because they contain nearly identical provisions related to major modifications. We are not proposing specific revisions for appendix S in this action, but we propose to revise it with regulatory text consistent with the changes that we ultimately finalize for § 51.165. For §§ 51.165, 51.166, and 52.21, we propose to modify a number of definitions. In addition, we propose a minor change in the provisions for plantwide applicability limitations

(PALs)to preserve the existing treatment of fugitive emissions for PALs. We are proposing to modify the paragraph in each rule that explains how to calculate whether a significant emissions increase will occur as the result of a physical or operational change. We are proposing a minor revision in the provisions on monitoring and reporting for physical and operational changes that are found not to be major modifications. Finally, we are proposing to delete as unnecessary the paragraph that provides for a generalized exemption related to fugitive emissions and repeats the section 302(j) list. These proposed rule revisions are discussed in more detail below. We are proposing revisions to the definitions of “baseline actual emissions” and “projected actual emissions.” As noted in the Newmont petition, these definitions (which figure in determining the increase associated with a physical or operational change) currently require that fugitive emissions be included, to the extent quantifiable, without regard to source category. Our proposed revisions will qualify this requirement so that fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable) must be included for an emissions unit that “belongs to one of the source categories listed in [the section 302(j) list that appears in the definition of ‘major stationary source’] or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories.” For baseline actual emissions, this revision appears in § 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv)(A)( *1* ), (B)( *1* ), and (C); § 51.166(b)(47)(i)( *a* ), (ii)( *a* ), and (iii); and § 52.21(b)(48)(i)( *a* ), (ii)( *a* ), and (iii). For projected actual emissions, the revision appears in § 51.165(a)(1)(xxviii)(B)( *2* ) and ( *4* ), § 51.166(b)(40)(ii)( *b* ) and ( *d* ), and § 52.21(b)(41)(ii)( *b* ) and ( *d* ). Note that the proposed language refers to emissions units that are in a source category on the section 302(j) list, as well as the listing status of the entire major stationary sources that belong to one of the listed source categories. This language addresses those situations where an emissions unit that is included in one of the listed source categories is located within a parent source whose primary activity is not on the list. If either the emissions unit or the parent source is in a source category on the section 302(j) list, the emission unit's fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, must be included for purposes of determining whether a physical or operational change constitutes a modification. We propose similar language throughout this proposed rule. See section III.D below for additional discussion of the rationale for this proposed language. We also propose to revise the definition of “baseline actual emissions” to maintain the current requirements for PALs. Plantwide applicability limitations are an alternative means of determining the applicability of major NSR to changes at an existing major stationary source. Instead of evaluating each physical or operational change individually, the source simply tracks total emissions from the source to be sure that they remain below the level of its PAL. Baseline actual emissions are used in setting the level of the PAL. We continue to believe that it is appropriate to include fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable) in setting the level of the PAL and in tracking compliance with it, regardless of the source category. In the preamble to the December 2002 NSR Improvement rules, we explained that the benefit of PALs to the public and the environment is that PALs are designed “to assure local communities that air emissions from your major stationary source will not exceed the facility-wide cap set forth in the permit unless you first meet the major NSR requirements.” We further explained that a PAL “provides a more complete perspective to the public because in setting a PAL, your reviewing authority accounts for all current processes and all emissions units together and reflects the long-term maximum amount of emissions it would allow from your source.” ( *See* 67 FR 80206.) We therefore do not believe we can exempt fugitive emissions from being included when setting a PAL. Consequently, we are proposing to revise the subparagraph of this definition that addresses PALs to ensure that fugitive emissions continue to be included for the purposes of PALs for all source categories. This proposed revision is found in §§ 51.165(1)(a)(xxxv)(D), 51.166(b)(47)(iv), and 52.21(b)(48)(iv). To reinforce our intentions for PALs, we are proposing a minor revision to the provisions for PALs to state clearly that a PAL is to include fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, “regardless of whether the emissions unit or major stationary source belongs to one of the source categories listed in [the section 302(j) list].” This revision is found in §§ 51.165(f)(4)(i)(D), 51.166(w)(4)(i)( *d* ), and 52.21(aa)(4)(i)( *d* ). We are proposing to revise the definition of “major modification” to mirror the existing definition of “major stationary source.” Specifically, we propose to add a subparagraph to this definition saying: Fugitive emissions shall not be included in determining for any of the purposes of this section whether a physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source is a major modification, unless the source belongs to one of the source categories listed in [the section 302(j) list that appears in the definition of “major stationary source”]. This new language is proposed for §§ 51.165(a)(1)(v)(G), 51.166(b)(2)(v), and 52.21(b)(2)(v). We are proposing to revise the definition of “net emissions increase” to preclude an unlisted major source from including contemporaneous increases and decreases in fugitive emissions in the “netting analysis” for a physical or operational change. We do not believe that an unlisted source (which does not include fugitive emissions in determining the increase in emissions from the current physical or operational change) should be able to use decreases in fugitive emissions to “net out” of major NSR. Rather, we believe that unlisted sources should treat fugitive emissions consistently for all purposes related to determining the applicability of major NSR to physical or operational changes. Accordingly, we propose to add the following language regarding “creditable” emissions increases and decreases at §§ 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(C)( *4* ), 51.166(b)(3)(iii)( *d* ), and 52.21(b)(3)(iii)( *c* ): For an increase or decrease in fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable), it occurs at an emissions unit that belongs to one of the source categories listed in [the section 302(j) list that appears in the definition of “major stationary source”] or the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories. The final definition change we are proposing in this action is for “fugitive emissions.” For this term, we propose to add subparagraphs to summarize how fugitive emissions are to be addressed in each section and to refer the reader to the relevant provisions. We believe that the added subparagraphs will aid understanding of our intentions regarding fugitive emissions. These revisions are proposed for §§ 51.165(a)(1)(ix), 51.166(b)(20), and 52.21(b)(20). The December 2002 NSR Improvement rulemaking added provisions to the major NSR regulations to clarify the two-step process for determining whether a physical or operational change is a major modification. Step 1 is the evaluation of the proposed change to determine whether it will cause a significant increase in emissions of a regulated NSR pollutant. If so, the source goes on to Step 2, which is a “netting analysis” to determine whether the change will result in a significant net emissions increase when taken together with any contemporaneous, creditable emissions increases or decreases that have occurred at the source. In this action we are proposing revisions to the provisions for Step 1 to clarify that fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable) are only included for listed emissions units and source categories. (Clarifications for Step 2 are handled in the proposed revisions to the definitions that are discussed above.) The proposed revision appears in §§ 51.165(a)(2)(ii)(B), 51.166(a)(7)(iv)( *b* ), and 52.21(a)(2)(iv)( *b* ). The December 2002 NSR Improvement rulemaking also added provisions for monitoring and reporting the emissions that actually occur after a physical or operational change in cases where the change was determined, prior to construction, not to be a major modification. We are proposing minor revisions to these provisions to be explicit that fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable) need only be monitored and reported if the emissions unit or major stationary source in question is on the section 302(j) list. This revision provides for consistent treatment of fugitive emissions before and after the physical or operational change. The proposed revision affects §§ 51.165(a)(6)(iii) and (iv), 51.166(r)(6)(iii) and (iv), and 52.21(r)(6)(iii) and (iv). Finally, we are proposing to delete a paragraph in each of the major NSR regulations that is no longer necessary. These were the original paragraphs placed in the rules to implement section 302(j) of the Act. However, after the definition of “major stationary source” was revised to include the section 302(j) list, and we finalized our policy (proposed to be reversed by this action) that fugitive emissions must be counted for all source categories in major modification determinations, these paragraphs tended to confuse the issue. With our proposal to make uniform the approach to fugitive emissions for major source and major modification determinations, these paragraphs have become completely unnecessary. Accordingly, in this action we propose to remove and reserve these paragraphs, §§ 51.165(a)(4), 51.166(i)(1)(ii), and 52.21(i)(vii). C. What is the effect of this proposed action on the minor NSR program? Major NSR programs are very similar across the United States, prescribed as they are by the Act and the implementing federal regulations. In contrast, State and local minor NSR programs are subject only to general requirements and, as a consequence, may vary significantly from area to area. 4 As a result, we do not know with certainty how such programs typically address fugitive emissions in minor NSR permitting. We request comment on this topic. How do existing State and local minor NSR programs address fugitive emissions? Do these programs clearly specify how fugitive emissions are to be considered for all aspects of the program (e.g., applicability, control technology requirements, impacts analysis, etc.)? 4 There are currently no approved tribal minor NSR programs. We believe that it is important for minor NSR programs to be clear regarding the treatment of fugitive emissions in all areas of the program. This will afford all sources consistent treatment and a “level playing field.” In addition, a common understanding of program requirements from the outset is important to avoid controversy and wasted resources during the permitting process. In light of the importance of clear requirements, we propose in this action that each implementation plan as a minimum element must be explicit in specifying how fugitive emissions are to be accounted for in all aspects of the minor NSR program. We recently proposed minor NSR and nonattainment major NSR regulations for sources in those areas of Indian country where tribes do not have an EPA-approved implementation plan. ( *See* 71 FR 48703.) We proposed in the minor NSR rule to require minor sources to include fugitive emissions to the extent quantifiable for applicability purposes for all sources, or include them only for source categories listed pursuant to section 302(j), or exclude them for all sources. In the final tribal minor NSR rule, we will adopt one of these proposed approaches. Since we will be explicitly addressing fugitive emissions in the final minor NSR rule in Indian country, we will be acting consistently with the approach for minor NSR programs that we are proposing in this action. We solicit comment on all aspects of our proposal regarding minor NSR. We also solicit comment on whether we should include rule language in 40 CFR 51.160 (for example, at § 51.160(e)) to require State, local, and tribal minor NSR programs to directly address fugitive emissions in minor NSR rules. D. What is the rationale for this action? 1. The Newmont Petition The thrust of Newmont's petition for reconsideration is twofold: • The EPA did not comply with the requirements of section 302(j) of the Act when we included fugitive emissions in the definitions of “baseline actual emissions” and “projected actual emissions” for purposes of determining whether a change at a facility constitutes a “major modification.” • The EPA did not provide notice or an opportunity for comment on this approach, since these definitions were not proposed in the 1996 proposed major NSR revisions ( *see* 61 FR 38250, July 23, 1996). As we noted in the 1984 and 1989 **Federal Register** notices where we proposed and finalized the interpretive ruling that established our existing approach to fugitive emissions for major modifications, the language of the Act does not resolve the issue of whether the fugitive emissions provisions of section 302(j) were intended by Congress to apply to major modifications as well as major sources. On its face, section 302(j) mandates rulemaking only for determining whether a new source is to be considered a “major stationary source,” and does not explicitly address major modifications. Neither does the definition of “modification” in section 111(a)(4) address the issue. As discussed above, in our 1989 notice we also noted that interpreting section 302(j) to exempt fugitive emissions from modification calculations ran counter to our longstanding practice, and reasoned that if Congress meant the 302(j) rulemaking provision to cover major modifications, it would have said so. We believe this interpretation remains a permissible construction of the statute, and that since the time we finalized the interpretive ruling in 1989, we required that fugitive emissions be included in major modification determinations. For these reasons, we disagree with petition on both counts. We now believe, however, that the absence of reference to “major modification” in section 302(j) simply does not dispose of the issue. For PSD at least, Congress only added major modifications to the program in “technical and conforming amendments” after enacting the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and even as to nonattainment major NSR, defined “modification” only by cross-reference. Similarly, the legislative history is scant; Congress simply adverted to its desire to “conform [the PSD definition of construction] to usage in other parts of the Act.” ( *See* 123 Cong. Rec. 36331 (Nov. 1, 1977).) We cannot conclude from the statutory text or the legislative history what Congress explicitly intended on this point; the evidence is simply too ambiguous. Accordingly, we believe that we continue to have discretion under the second prong of *Chevron, USA* v. *NRDC,* 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984), to adopt “a permissible construction of the statute.” 2. Proposed Actions We believe that Section 302(j) evinces, at a minimum, an intent by Congress to require a special look at fugitive emissions for purposes of calculating a source's emissions. The statute is silent or ambiguous on the applicability of section 302(j) to the question of whether a physical or operational change is a modification. That is, we do not believe that the Act precludes us from applying the section 302(j) restrictions on counting fugitive emissions to the methodology for determining whether a physical and operation change constitutes a major modification. Moreover, although no authoritative conference or committee report addresses the issue of how fugitive emissions should be covered, there are numerous examples in committee hearings on the bills that led up to the 1977 Amendments of industry testimony to the effect that in many cases fugitive emissions would not be susceptible to control or would be exceedingly costly to control, or would be infeasible to measure. *See e.g* Hearings on Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Subcomm. on Health and the Environment, House Comm. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, March 11, 1977, H.R. Rep. No. 95-59 at 1327 (statement of Earl Mallick, American Iron and Steel Inst.) (high costs of controlling fugitive emissions); id., Part 2, March 18, 1975, H.R. Rept. No. 94-25 at 690 (testimony of Fred Tucker, National Steel Corp.) (impossible to comply with state implementation plan limits on fugitive emissions); Hearings on Implementation of the Clean Air Act—1975, Subcomm. on Environmental Pollution, Sen. Comm. on Public Works, Apr. 22, 1975, S. Rept. No. 94-H10, Pt. 1 at 757 (statement of David M. Anderson, Bethlehem Steel Corp. to effect that control of fugitive emissions would be enormously costly but would have “a net negative environmental impact”); id., Pt. 2, App. A at 2026 (statement of Cast Metals Federation) (fugitive emissions control at nonferrous metals smelters extremely costly with adverse energy impacts and no improvement in air quality). But *see* id., App. B at 2232-33 (EPA written responses to Committee questions) (for some industries fugitive control can be critical to attainment of standards). In light of this legislative history, it is reasonable to read section 302(j) of the Act as reflecting a decision by Congress that it simply did not know enough to make the critical decisions regarding the extent to which fugitive emissions should be included in threshold applicability determinations both for purpose of determining whether a source is a major source, and whether a physical or operational change constitutes a modification. Rather, we believe Congress assigned the resolution of these complex issues to EPA. As noted above, EPA's earliest, most nearly contemporaneous construction of the statute in the 1980 rules took it for granted that the treatment of fugitive emissions for purposes of modification calculations would be addressed identically with the same issue for major source determinations. For policy and programmatic reasons, we now believe that it is better to adopt a uniform approach to these threshold determinations. Analyzing 302(j) functionally, we conclude that it is reasonable to interpret section 302(j) to require EPA to conduct rulemaking to identify source categories that should include their fugitive emissions for all threshold applicability purposes. The concerns appearing in the legislative history relating to fugitive emissions are the same when evaluating whether a project at an existing source is a modification as they are when evaluating whether a source is a major source. Our current, differentiated approach can lead to incongruous results. For example, at an existing source in a source category not on the section 302(j) list that is undergoing a physical or operational change, the fugitive emissions from the source would not be counted in determining whether the source is a major source (the first major NSR applicability criterion), yet the increase in fugitive emissions resulting from the change would be counted to determine whether the project qualifies as a major modification (the second criterion). Furthermore, if an existing major source in a source category not listed under section 302(j) engages in a physical or operational change that creates a significant volume of fugitive emissions, consideration of its fugitive emissions when calculating whether the change constitutes a modification may be a crucial factor in the determination. Thus, we believe our assertion in the 1984 notice ( *see* 49 FR 43213-14) that the interpretation that we proposed then “likely would not impose new regulatory burdens” was not correct; our interpretation proposed in 1984 and finalized in 1989 imposed a new regulatory burden on major sources in a source category not on the section 302(j) list, since their fugitive emissions would be counted in determining whether they had made a change constituting a modification. In summary, the proposed rules that we are publishing in this action eliminate the existing requirement that fugitive emissions be counted in major modification determinations for all source categories, whether or not listed pursuant to section 302(j). We are proposing that only source categories that we list pursuant to section 302(j) would be required to count fugitive emissions when evaluating whether a project is a major modification. We solicit comment on all aspects of this proposed approach and our rationale for it. IV. When would these proposed changes take effect in the Federal PSD Program, and Must States revise their State Implementation Plans

(SIPs)to incorporate this proposed action? We propose that these changes take effect in the Federal PSD permit program within 60 days from when we promulgate the final rule. This means that we would apply these rules in any area without a SIP-approved PSD Program for which we are the reviewing authority, or for which we delegated our authority to issues permits to a State, local or tribal reviewing authority. We also propose to establish these proposed requirements as minimum program elements of the PSD and nonattainment NSR programs. Notwithstanding this requirement, it may not be necessary for a State or local authority to revise its SIP begin to implement these changes. 5 Some State or local authorities may be able to adopt these changes through a change in interpretation of existing language in the approved SIP without the need to revise the SIP. 5 Currently, there are no tribal permitting agencies with an approved TIP to implement the major NSR permitting program. For any State or local authority that can implement the changes without revising its approved SIP, we propose that the changes become effective when the reviewing authority publicly announces that it accepts these changes by interpretation. Although no SIP change may be necessary in certain areas that adopt these changes by interpretation, we encourage State and local authorities in such areas to make such SIP changes in the future to enhance the clarity of the existing rules. For areas that would revise their SIPs to adopt these changes, the changes would not be effective in such areas until we approve the SIP revision. We propose to require that such State and local authorities submit revisions to SIPs to reflect requirements that are at least as stringent as the minimum program elements we adopt in a final rule within 3 years after the rule's promulgation date. We also propose that State and local authorities may maintain NSR program elements that have the effect of making their regulations more stringent than the final rules, but that a State and local authority submit an explanation for that conclusion to EPA by the SIP submission deadline. We also propose to require that State, local, and subject tribal authorities explicitly specify in their implementation plans how the reviewing authority will treat fugitive emissions in all aspects of their minor NSR program. Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act provides us with authority to specify the inclusion of this minimum element in State, local, and tribal minor NSR programs. We further propose to require State, local, and subject tribal authorities to submit this information within 3 years from the promulgation date of the final rule. We acknowledge that some States and localities may need to regulate additional fugitive emissions under the implementation plan for attainment purposes. We do not intend to preclude such regulation in either major or minor NSR where necessary to achieve the purposes of the Act. Our proposed action would not prohibit a reviewing authority from requiring control of fugitive emissions or modeling of quantifiable fugitive emissions, regardless of source category, where such measures might be considered necessary for compliance with a NAAQS or for other environmental protection purposes. We solicit comment on this proposal for revising implementation plans and specifically on the ability of State, local, and tribal authorities to implement this approach through interpretation, without rulemaking. V. Guiding Principles for Determining Fugitive Emissions In our major NSR and Title V permit rules, “fugitive emissions” means “those emissions which could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening.” In practice, we interpret the phrase “could not reasonably pass” by determining whether such emissions can be reasonably collected or captured (e.g. enclosures or hoods). Under this interpretation, it is axiomatic that any emissions actually collected or captured by the source are non-fugitive emissions. The answer is less clear when the source is not currently collecting or capturing the emissions. In these circumstances, we make case-by-case determinations as to whether a source could reasonably collect or capture such emissions. Our past determinations articulate a number of principles we use in making these case-by-case determinations, though none may express the entirety of our policy. Moreover, some EPA memoranda, when viewed in isolation, may appear to provide divergent positions. Accordingly, we rearticulate our guiding principles in making these case-by-case determinations, and expand the explanation of these principles to enhance the understanding of the regulated community. Specifically, EPA proposes to use the following guiding principles in determining whether emissions qualify as fugitive: 1. Determining which emissions could “reasonably pass” is a case-by-case decision based on whether or not the emissions can be reasonably collected or captured. 2. Because another similar facility collects, captures, or controls emissions does not mean that it is reasonable for others to do the same, but it is a factor in each consideration.

(a)If a source already collects or captures and discharges the emissions through a stack, chimney, vent or other functionally equivalent opening, then such emissions are non-fugitive at that source.

(b)If we establish a national emissions standard or regulation that requires some sources in the source category to collect or capture and control such emissions, then this weighs heavily towards a finding that the emissions are non-fugitive at other sources in this category; and,

(c)The more common collection or capture of such emissions is by other similar sources the more heavily this factor should weigh toward a finding that collection is reasonable. 3. The cost to collect or capture emissions is a factor when considering what is “reasonable.”

(a)The combined costs to collect or capture and control emissions can be used as an alternative measure for the costs of emissions capture or collection alone in the case-by-case analysis;

(b)The surrounding air quality (e.g., nonattainment areas) is a consideration when deciding if costs (collection, capture, control) are reasonable, and,

(c)If it is not technically or economically feasible to control the emissions, then collection or capture of such emissions may not be reasonable. We believe that the three overarching principles represent our existing policy on defining fugitive emissions. Moreover, we believe that these proposed expansions on these basic concepts represent a reasonable interpretation of our existing regulatory language to be applied to future fugitive emission determinations. Accordingly, we are not proposing specific changes to the existing regulatory language to accommodate this proposal. Nonetheless, we request comment on the specific ideas expressed in our expanded explanations, and on whether this approach should be implemented under the existing regulatory language, or whether regulatory changes to the specific definition of fugitive emissions are needed or desired to implement this proposal. Our second principle relates to a concept we established in one of our initial guidance memorandums defining fugitive emissions. Specifically, we indicated that a consideration in the case-by-case analysis is whether emissions are “ordinarily” collected or captured by other sources in the source category. In subsequent memoranda, we interchanged the term “ordinarily” for “commonly.” 6 In a more recent memorandum, we describe this element in terms of a presumption. 7 We view these presumptions as no more than suggesting a starting point for the case-by-case analysis. 8 These guiding principles recognize that our existing guidance does not establish a non-rebuttable presumption, and does not attempt to establish a specific methodology States must use in conducting the case-by-case analysis. However, the expanded principles explain how States should weigh collection or capture of emissions by other similar sources in that analysis. 6 *Compare* Memo from Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to David P. Howekamp, Director, Air Management Division, Region IX, *Emissions from Landfills* (Oct. 6, 1987) (landfills are not ordinarily constructed with gas collection systems) *to* Memo from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region I and V, *et al., Classification of Emissions from Landfills for NSR Applicability Purposes* (Oct. 21, 1994) (* * * use of systems has become more common). 7 *See e.g.* Memo from Thomas C. Curran, Director, Information Transfer and Program Integration Division, to Judith M. Katz, Director, Air Protection Division, *Interpretation of the Definition of Fugitive Emissions in Parts 70 and 71* (Feb. 10, 1999). 8 Recent case law suggests that the Agencies posses a limited ability to establish presumptions through guidance. *See e.g.* General Elec. Co. v. EPA, 290 F.3d 377 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (document stating without qualification that a certain value may be used to satisfy regulation was substantive rule; created norm or safe harbor that private parties can rely on). In conducting this analysis, we expect that a reviewing authority could reach different conclusions depending on whether it conducts the analysis for a new or existing emissions unit. For example, costs and technical feasibility may outweigh the consideration that other sources in the source category are subject to a national emissions standard or regulation as outlined in criteria 2(b) above, and a reviewing authority could conclude that such emissions are fugitive for an existing source even when they would find that they are non-fugitive at a new source. Although costs have always been a consideration in determining whether emissions are fugitive, we historically focused on the cost of collection or capture and not the cost of control. Notwithstanding our past practice, we believe that it is reasonable to consider the cost and economic feasibility of control in determining whether emissions can be reasonably captured or collected. For example, the cost of controlling emissions may be helpful in the analysis if cost data on collection, capture and control in the aggregate is more available or more easily calculated than cost data on collection or capture alone. Thus, we propose that the *reviewing authority* may consider the reasonableness of the combined costs of capture or collection and control as an alternative to considering only the cost of collection or capture. Notably, however, we expect permitting authorities to find higher costs reasonable when considering combined costs as an alternative compared to what would be reasonable if considering capture or collection costs alone. We also believe that accounting for the differences in attainment status is appropriate, because permitting authorities tend to accept higher collection, capture, and control costs as reasonable in areas where air quality problems are more severe. Finally, as technology improved, the technical feasibility to collect or capture virtually any source of emissions likewise evolved. For example, it is technically feasible to build a large capture device to collect virtually any type of process emissions. Yet, these captured emissions may contain air pollutants in such small concentrations that there is no technically or economically feasible method to control the emissions once captured. Yet, under a strict interpretation of whether emissions are “reasonably collected,” we could find that such emissions are non-fugitive because they are reasonably collectable. Nonetheless this would fail to provide meaning to the term “fugitive emissions” as intended by Congress. As expressed by the *Alabama Power* court, In the general definitional section of the Act, section 302(j), Congress employed the term “fugitive emissions” to refer to one manner of emission of any air pollutant. As commonly understood, emissions, from an “industrial point source” include emissions emanating from a stack or from a chimney. By contrast, “fugitive emissions” are emissions from a facility that escape from other than from a point source.” 9 9 *Alabama Power* v. *Costle* , 636 F.2d at 368. In our proposed 1979 major NSR rule, we followed this common understanding of the term “fugitive emissions.” When we finalized our rule in 1980, we changed the definition of fugitive emissions from those emissions “which do not reasonably pass” through a stack or vent, to those that “could not reasonably pass” to avoid creating a disincentive for a source to collect and control emissions when technically and economically feasible. It was not our intent to interpret the term in a way that could eliminate the distinction between fugitive and non-fugitive emissions. Accordingly, we believe that when the only reason to collect or capture such emissions would be to control the emissions, and there is no technical or economically feasible means to control the emissions, then collecting the emissions is nonsensical, and thus, may not be reasonable. Although this aspect of our principles may expand on how we historically considered costs in a case-by-case analysis, we believe that this interpretation remains fully consistent with Congress' intent in distinguishing fugitive emissions from non-fugitive emissions in the Act. The promulgated 302(j) list includes the source categories listed in section 169(1) of the Act, which is the definition of “major emitting facility” for purposes of PSD. In the preamble to the 1980 major NSR rules, we noted that the *Alabama Power* court stated that Congress' intention in establishing the list of source categories in section 169(1) of the Act was to identify facilities which, due to their size, are financially able to bear the substantial regulatory costs imposed by the PSD provisions and which, as a group, are primarily responsible for emission of the deleterious pollutants that befoul our nation's air. 45 FR 52691. Thus, the purpose of the fugitive emissions inquiry is to determine which emissions should count for determining source size with a view towards requiring large sources to install pollution controls. If the emissions cannot be controlled, then it is reasonable to consider this factor in determining whether such emissions can be “reasonably” collected or captured. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order

(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action.” This action is likely to raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* We are not promulgating any new paperwork requirements (e.g., monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping) as part of this proposed action. The OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR parts 51 and 52) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003, EPA ICR number 1230.17. A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request

(ICR)may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202)566-1672. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed action on small entities, small entity is defined as:

(1)A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's

(SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;

(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant *adverse* economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. A Regulatory Flexibility Act Screening Analysis (RFASA) developed as part of a 1994 draft Regulatory Impact Analysis

(RIA)and incorporated into the September 1995 ICR renewal analysis, showed that the changes to the NSR program due to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments would not have an adverse impact on small entities. This analysis encompassed the entire universe of applicable major sources that were likely to also be small businesses (approximately 50 “small business” major sources). Because the administrative burden of the NSR program is the primary source of the NSR program's regulatory costs, the analysis estimated a negligible “cost to sales” (regulatory cost divided by the business category mean revenue) ratio for this source group. Currently, and as reported in the current ICR, there is no economic basis for a different conclusion. We believe the proposed rule changes in this proposed rule will reduce the regulatory burden associated with the major NSR program for sources, including small businesses, that are not included in the section 302(j) list. The proposed rule will not affect sources, including small businesses, that are included in the section 302(j) list; regulatory requirements for these sources will be unchanged. The proposed rule changes will improve the clarity of the requirements for unlisted major sources, and may prevent some physical or operational changes at such sources from qualifying as major modifications when they would have been major modifications under the currently existing rules. Thus, the effect of the proposed rule changes will be to improve the operational flexibility of unlisted major sources. We have therefore concluded that this proposed action will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The change in this rule is expected to result in a small, one-time increase in the burden imposed upon reviewing authorities in order for the revised rules to be included in the State's SIP (except in States that determine that they can implement the approach in this proposed action without a SIP revision). In addition, we believe the proposed rules changes will actually reduce the regulatory burden associated with the major NSR program by improving the operational flexibility of owners and operators (with an attendant decrease in the number of major modification applications that reviewing authorities must process). Thus, this proposed action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, for the same reasons stated above. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. In addition, we believe the proposed rule changes will actually reduce the regulatory burden associated with the major NSR program by improving the operational flexibility of owners and operators, with an attendant decrease in the number of major modification applications that reviewing authorities must process. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. These proposed changes will benefit reviewing authorities and the regulated community, including any major source owned by a tribal government or located in or near tribal land, by providing increased certainty as to when to count fugitive emissions within the NSR program. In addition, some physical or operational changes that would be considered major modifications under the existing rules may not be treated as such under the revised rules, providing greater operational flexibility to sources. We anticipate that the changes in this proposed rule will result in a small decrease in the burden imposed upon reviewing authorities. These revisions will ultimately provide greater operational flexibility to permitted sources, which will in turn reduce the overall burden of the program on permitting authorities by reducing the number of required major NSR permits for major modifications. No tribal government currently has an approved tribal implementation plan

(TIP)under the Act to implement the NSR program; therefore the Federal government is currently the NSR reviewing authority in Indian country. Thus, tribal governments should not experience added burden from this proposed rule, nor should their laws be affected with respect to implementation of this rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:

(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866; and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. We believe the proposed rule changes may actually reduce the regulatory burden associated with the major NSR program, and may therefore have a positive effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, by improving the operational flexibility of owners and operators. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. VII. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 101, 107, 110, and 301 of the Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7407, 7410, and 7601). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 51 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Transportation, Volatile organic compounds, Fugitive emissions. 40 CFR Part 52 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Transportation, Volatile organic compounds, Fugitive emissions. Dated: November 5, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 51—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows: Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q Subpart I—[Amended] 2. Section 51.165 is amended as follows: a. By adding paragraph (a)(1)(v)(G). b. By removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(1)(vi)(C)( *3* ) and adding “; and” in its place. c. By adding paragraph (a)(1)(vi)(C)( *4* ). d. By revising paragraph (a)(1)(ix). e. By revising paragraphs (a)(1)(xxviii)(B)( *2* ) and (a)(1)(xxviii)(B)( *4* ). f. By revising paragraphs (a)(1)(xxxv)(A)( *1* ), (a)(1)(xxxv)(B)( *1* ), (a)(1)(xxxv)(C), and (a)(1)(xxxv)(D). g. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B). h. By removing and reserving paragraph (a)(4). i. By revising paragraphs (a)(6)(iii) and (a)(6)(iv). j. By revising paragraph (f)(4)(i)(D). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 51.165 Permit requirements.

(a)* * *

(1)* * *

(v)* * *

(G)Fugitive emissions shall not be included in determining for any of the purposes of this section whether a physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source is a major modification, unless the source belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section.

(vi)* * *

(C)* * * ( *4* ) For an increase or decrease in fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable), it occurs at an emissions unit that belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section or the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories.

(ix)*Fugitive emissions* means those emissions which could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent or other functionally equivalent opening. Fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, are addressed as follows for the purposes of this section:

(A)In determining whether a stationary source or modification is major, fugitive emissions from an emissions unit are included only if the unit or stationary source belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section. (See paragraphs (a)(1)(iv)(C) and (a)(1)(v)(G) of this section.)

(B)For purposes of determining the net emissions increase associated with a project, an increase or decrease in fugitive emissions is creditable only if it occurs at an emissions unit that belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section or the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories. (See paragraph (a)(1)(vi)(C)( *4* ) of this section.)

(C)For purposes of determining the projected actual emissions of an emissions unit after a project, fugitive emissions are included only if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories. (See paragraph (a)(1)(xxviii)(B)( *2* ) of this section.

(D)For purposes of determining the baseline actual emissions of an emissions unit, fugitive emissions are included only if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories, except that, for a PAL, fugitive emissions shall be included regardless of the source category. (See paragraphs (a)(1)(xxx)(A)( *1* ), (a)(1)(xxx)(B)( *1* ), (a)(1)(xxx)(C), and (a)(1)(xxx)(D) of this section.)

(E)In calculating whether a project will cause a significant emissions increase, fugitive emissions are included only for those emissions units that belong to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section, or for all emissions units if the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories. (See paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.)

(F)For purposes of monitoring and reporting emissions from a project after normal operations have been resumed, fugitive emissions are included only for those emissions units that belong to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section, or for all emissions units if the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories. (See paragraphs (a)(6)(iii) and

(iv)of this section.)

(G)For all other purposes of this section, fugitive emissions are treated in the same manner as other, non-fugitive emissions. This includes, but is not limited to, the treatment of fugitive emissions for offsets (see paragraph (a)(3) of this section) and for PALs (see paragraph (f)(4)(i)(D) of this section). (xxviii) * * *

(B)* * * ( *2* ) Shall include emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions; and, for an emissions unit that belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories, shall include fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable); and ( *4* ) In lieu of using the method set out in paragraphs (a)(1)(xxviii)(B)( *1* ) through ( *3* ) of this section, may elect to use the emissions unit's potential to emit, in tons per year, as defined under paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section. For this purpose, if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories, the unit's potential to emit shall include fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable).

(xxxv)* * *

(A)* * * ( *1* ) The average rate shall include emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions; and, for an emissions unit that belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories, shall include fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable).

(B)* * * ( *1* ) The average rate shall include emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions; and, for an emissions unit that belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories, shall include fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable).

(C)For a new emissions unit, the baseline actual emissions for purposes of determining the emissions increase that will result from the initial construction and operation of such unit shall equal zero; and thereafter, for all other purposes, shall equal the unit's potential to emit. In the latter case, fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, shall be included only if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories.

(D)For a PAL for a major stationary source, the baseline actual emissions shall be calculated for existing electric utility steam generating units in accordance with the procedures contained in paragraph (a)(1)(xxxv)(A) of this section, for other existing emissions units in accordance with the procedures contained in paragraph (a)(1)(xxxv)(B) of this section, and for a new emissions unit in accordance with the procedures contained in paragraph (a)(1)(xxxv)(C) of this section, except that fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable) shall be included regardless of the source category.

(2)* * *

(ii)* * *

(B)The procedure for calculating (before beginning actual construction) whether a significant emissions increase ( *i.e.* , the first step of the process) will occur depends upon the type of emissions units being modified, according to paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(C) through

(F)of this section. For these calculations, fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable) are included only if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section or the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories. The procedure for calculating (before beginning actual construction) whether a significant net emissions increase will occur at the major stationary source ( *i.e.* , the second step in the process) is contained in the definition in paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section. Regardless of any such preconstruction projections, a major modification results if the project causes a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase.

(4)[Reserved]

(6)* * *

(iii)The owner or operator shall monitor the emissions of any regulated NSR pollutant that could increase as a result of the project and that is emitted by any emissions units identified in paragraph (a)(6)(i)(B) of this section; and calculate and maintain a record of the annual emissions, in tons per year on a calendar year basis, for a period of 5 years following resumption of regular operations after the change, or for a period of 10 years following resumption of regular operations after the change if the project increases the design capacity or potential to emit of that regulated NSR pollutant at such emissions unit. For purposes of this paragraph (a)(6)(iii), fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable) shall be monitored if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section or the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories.

(iv)If the unit is an existing electric utility steam generating unit, the owner or operator shall submit a report to the reviewing authority within 60 days after the end of each year during which records must be generated under paragraph (a)(6)(iii) of this section setting out the unit's annual emissions, as monitored pursuant to paragraph (a)(6)(iii) of this section, during the year that preceded submission of the report.

(f)* * *

(4)* * *

(i)* * *

(D)The PAL shall include fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, from all emissions units that emit or have the potential to emit the PAL pollutant at the major stationary source, regardless of whether the emissions unit or major stationary source belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C) of this section. 3. Section 51.166 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraph (a)(7)(iv)( *b* ). b. By adding paragraph (b)(2)(v). c. By removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(3)(iii)( *c* ) and adding “; and” in its place. d. By adding paragraph (b)(3)(iii)( *d* ). e. By revising paragraph (b)(20). f. By revising paragraphs (b)(40)(ii)( *b* ) and (b)(40)(ii)( *d* ). g. By revising paragraphs (b)(47)(i)( *a* ), (b)(47)(ii)( *a* ), (b)(47)(iii), and (b)(47)(iv). h. By removing and reserving paragraph (i)(1)(ii). i. By revising paragraphs (r)(6)(iii) and (r)(6)(iv). j. By revising paragraph (w)(4)(i)( *d* ). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 51.166 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

(a)* * *

(7)* * *

(iv)* * * ( *b* ) The procedure for calculating (before beginning actual construction) whether a significant emissions increase ( *i.e.* , the first step of the process) will occur depends upon the type of emissions units being modified, according to paragraphs (a)(7)(iv)( *c* ) through ( *f* ) of this section. For these calculations, fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable) are included only if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories. The procedure for calculating (before beginning actual construction) whether a significant net emissions increase will occur at the major stationary source ( *i.e.* , the second step in the process) is contained in the definition in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. Regardless of any such preconstruction projections, a major modification results if the project causes a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase.

(b)* * *

(2)* * *

(v)Fugitive emissions shall not be included in determining for any of the purposes of this section whether a physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source is a major modification, unless the source belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.

(3)* * *

(iii)* * * ( *d* ) For an increase or decrease in fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable), it occurs at an emissions unit that belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories.

(20)*Fugitive emissions* means those emissions which could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening. Fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, are addressed as follows for the purposes of this section:

(i)In calculating whether a project will cause a significant emissions increase, fugitive emissions are included only for those emissions units that belong to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, or for all emissions units if the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories. (See paragraph (a)(7)(iv)( *b* ) of this section.)

(ii)In determining whether a stationary source or modification is major, fugitive emissions from an emissions unit are included only if the unit or stationary source belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. (See paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(v) of this section.)

(iii)For purposes of determining the net emissions increase associated with a project, an increase or decrease in fugitive emissions is creditable only if it occurs at an emissions unit that belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories. (See paragraph (b)(3)(iii)( *d* ) of this section.)

(iv)For purposes of determining the projected actual emissions of an emissions unit after a project, fugitive emissions are included only if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories. (See paragraph (b)(40)(ii)( *b* ) and ( *d* ) of this section.

(v)For purposes of determining the baseline actual emissions of an emissions unit, fugitive emissions are included only if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories, except that, for a PAL, fugitive emissions shall be included regardless of the source category. (See paragraphs (b)(47)(i)( *a* ), (b)(47)(ii)( *a* ), (b)(47)(iii), and (b)(47)(iv) of this section.)

(vi)For purposes of monitoring and reporting emissions from a project after normal operations have been resumed, fugitive emissions are included only for those emissions units that belong to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, or for all emissions units if the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories. (See paragraphs (r)(6)(iii) and

(iv)of this section.)

(vii)For all other purposes of this section, fugitive emissions are treated in the same manner as other, non-fugitive emissions. This includes, but is not limited to, the treatment of fugitive emissions for the application of best available control technology (see paragraph

(j)of this section), source impact analysis (see paragraph

(k)of this section), additional impact analyses (see paragraph

(o)of this section), and PALs (see paragraph (w)(4)(i)( *d* ) of this section).

(40)* * *

(ii)* * * ( *b* ) Shall include emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions; and, for an emissions unit that belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories, shall include fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable); and ( *d* ) In lieu of using the method set out in paragraphs (b)(40)(ii)( *a* ) through ( *c* ) of this section, may elect to use the emissions unit's potential to emit, in tons per year, as defined under paragraph (b)(4) of this section. For this purpose, if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories, the unit's potential to emit shall include fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable).

(47)* * *

(i)* * * ( *a* ) The average rate shall include emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions; and, for an emissions unit that belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories, shall include fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable).

(ii)* * * ( *a* ) The average rate shall include emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions; and, for an emissions unit that belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories, shall include fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable).

(iii)For a new emissions unit, the baseline actual emissions for purposes of determining the emissions increase that will result from the initial construction and operation of such unit shall equal zero; and thereafter, for all other purposes, shall equal the unit's potential to emit. In the latter case, fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, shall be included only if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories.

(iv)For a PAL for a major stationary source, the baseline actual emissions shall be calculated for existing electric utility steam generating units in accordance with the procedures contained in paragraph (b)(47)(i) of this section, for other existing emissions units in accordance with the procedures contained in paragraph (b)(47)(ii) of this section, and for a new emissions unit in accordance with the procedures contained in paragraph (b)(47)(iii) of this section, except that fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable) shall be included regardless of the source category.

(i)* * *

(1)* * *

(ii)[Reserved]

(r)* * *

(6)* * *

(iii)The owner or operator shall monitor the emissions of any regulated NSR pollutant that could increase as a result of the project and that is emitted by any emissions unit identified in paragraph (r)(6)(i)( *b* ) of this section; and calculate and maintain a record of the annual emissions, in tons per year on a calendar year basis, for a period of 5 years following resumption of regular operations after the change, or for a period of 10 years following resumption of regular operations after the change if the project increases the design capacity or potential to emit of that regulated NSR pollutant at such emissions unit. For purposes of this paragraph (r)(6)(iii), fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable) shall be monitored if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories.

(iv)If the unit is an existing electric utility steam generating unit, the owner or operator shall submit a report to the reviewing authority within 60 days after the end of each year during which records must be generated under paragraph (r)(6)(iii) of this section setting out the unit's annual emissions, as monitored pursuant to paragraph (r)(6)(iii) of this section, during the calendar year that preceded submission of the report.

(w)* * *

(4)* * *

(a)* * *

(2)* * *

(iv)* * * ( *b* ) The procedure for calculating (before beginning actual construction) whether a significant emissions increase ( *i.e.* , the first step of the process) will occur depends upon the type of emissions units being modified, according to paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)( *c* ) through ( *f* ) of this section. For these calculations, fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable) are included only if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories. The procedure for calculating (before beginning actual construction) whether a significant net emissions increase will occur at the major stationary source ( *i.e.* , the second step in the process) is contained in the definition in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. Regardless of any such preconstruction projections, a major modification results if the project causes a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase.

(b)* * *

(2)* * *

(3)* * *

(iii)* * * ( *c* ) For an increase or decrease in fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable), it occurs at an emissions unit that belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or the major stationary source belongs to one of the listed source categories.

(v)For purposes of determining the baseline actual emissions of an emissions unit, fugitive emissions are included only if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories, except that, for a PAL, fugitive emissions shall be included regardless of the source category. (See paragraphs (b)(48)(i)( *a* ), (b)(48)(ii)( *a* ), (b)(48)(iii), and (b)(48)(iv) of this section.)

(iv)of this section.)

(j)of this section), source impact analysis (see paragraph

(k)of this section), additional impact analyses (see paragraph

(o)of this section), and PALs (see paragraph (aa)(4)(i)( *d* ) of this section).

(41)* * *

(ii)* * * ( *b* ) Shall include emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions; and, for an emissions unit that belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories, shall include fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable); and ( *d* ) In lieu of using the method set out in paragraphs (b)(41)(ii)( *a* ) through ( *c* ) of this section, may elect to use the emissions unit's potential to emit, in tons per year, as defined under paragraph (b)(4) of this section. For this purpose, if the emissions unit belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or is located at a major stationary source that belongs to one of the listed source categories, the unit's potential to emit shall include fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable).

(48)* * *

(iv)For a PAL for a major stationary source, the baseline actual emissions shall be calculated for existing electric utility steam generating units in accordance with the procedures contained in paragraph (b)(48)(i) of this section, for other existing emissions units in accordance with the procedures contained in paragraph (b)(48)(ii) of this section, and for a new emissions unit in accordance with the procedures contained in paragraph (b)(48)(iii) of this section, except that fugitive emissions (to the extent quantifiable) shall be included regardless of the source category.

(i)* * *

(1)* * *

(vii)[Reserved]

(r)* * *

(6)* * *

(iv)If the unit is an existing electric utility steam generating unit, the owner or operator shall submit a report to the Administrator within 60 days after the end of each year during which records must be generated under paragraph (r)(6)(iii) of this section setting out the unit's annual emissions, as monitored pursuant to paragraph (r)(6)(iii) of this section, during the calendar year that preceded submission of the report.

(aa)* * *

(4)* * *

(i)* * * ( *d* ) The PAL shall include fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, from all emissions units that emit or have the potential to emit the PAL pollutant at the major stationary source, regardless of whether the emissions unit or major stationary source belongs to one of the source categories listed in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. [FR Doc. E7-22131 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-4312; MB Docket No. 07-220; RM-11403] Radio Broadcasting Services; Ash Fork and Paulden, AZ AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document sets forth a proposal to amend the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 73.202(b). The Commission requests comment on a petition filed by Sierra H Broadcasting, Inc. (“Petitioner”). Petitioner proposes channel substitutions for two vacant allotments contained in the FM Table of Allotments, in order to accommodate the allotment of Channel 266C at Cordes Lakes, Arizona. Petitioner proposes the substitution of Channel 259A for vacant FM Channel 267A at Ash Fork, Arizona, and the substitution of Channel 228C3 for vacant FM Channel 263C3 at Paulden, Arizona. Channel 259A can be allotted at Ash Fork in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 7.4 km (4.6 miles) northwest of Ash Fork. The proposed coordinates for Channel 259A at Ash Fork are 35-16-13 North Latitude and 112-32-31 West Longitude. Channel 228C3 can be allotted at Paulden in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 7.7 km (4.8 miles) west of Paulden. The proposed coordinates for Channel 228C3 at Paulden are 34-52-16 North Latitude and 112-33-00 West Longitude. *See* Supplementary Information *infra* . DATES: Comments must be filed on or before December 10, 2007, and reply comments on or before December 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Barry A. Friedman, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP, Suite 800, 1920 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau

(202)418-7072. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 07-220, adopted October 17, 2007, and released October 19, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554,

(800)378-3160, or via the company's Web site, *www.bcpiweb.com* . This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4). The Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. *See* 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contacts. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Arizona, is amended by removing Channel 267A and by adding Channel 259A at Ash Fork, and by removing Channel 263C3 and by adding Channel 228C3 at Paulden. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-22119 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-4307; MB Docket No. 07-221; RM-11402] Radio Broadcasting Services; Susanville, CA AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed by Hilltop Church (“Petitioner”), the licensee of noncommercial educational station KHGQ(FM), Quincy, California. Petitioner has filed an application requesting the substitution of Channel 262A for existing Channel 265A at Station KHGQ(FM), Quincy, California. To accommodate the foregoing application, the Commission has issued a *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* proposing to substitute Channel 264A for Channel 262A at Susanville, California. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before December 10, 2007, and reply comments on or before December 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve Petitioner's counsel as follows: John S. Neely, Esq.; Miller and Neely, P.C.; 6900 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 704; Bethesda, Maryland 20815. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* , MB Docket No. 07-221, adopted October 17, 2007, and released October 19, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *www.BCPIWEB.com* . This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. *See* 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contact. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, *see* 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under California is amended by removing Channel 262A and by adding Channel 264A at Susanville. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-22120 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-4311; MB Docket No. 07-226; RM-11406] Radio Broadcasting Services; Tecopa, CA AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a Petition for Rule Making filed by Shamrock Communications, Inc. (“Petitioner”) proposing the allotment of new Channel 288A at Tecopa, California. The instant Petition for Rule Making was filed concurrently with and contingent upon the grant of an FCC Form 301 Auction 68 long form application for a new FM station on Channel 291A at Tecopa, which seeks a one-step upgrade from Channel 291A to Channel 290C1 and a change in the community of license from Tecopa, California, to Amargosa Valley, Nevada. Action on the foregoing application will be taken separately from action on the instant Petition for Rule Making. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before December 10, 2007, and reply comments on or before December 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve Petitioner's counsel as follows: Kenneth E. Satten, Esq., Wilkinson Barker Knauer, L.L.P.; 2300 N Street, NW., Suite 700; Washington, DC 20037. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* , MB Docket No. 07-226, adopted October 17, 2007, and released October 19, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *www.BCPIWEB.com* . This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. *See* 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contact. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, *see* 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under California, is amended by removing Channel 291A and by adding Channel 288A at Tecopa. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-22121 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-4309; MB Docket No. 07-227; RM-11405] Radio Broadcasting Services; Clayton, OK AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by North Texas Radio Group, L.P., requesting the substitution of Channel 262A for vacant Channel 241A at Clayton, Oklahoma. The reference coordinates for Channel 262A at Clayton, Oklahoma, are 34-32-48 NL and 95-29-45 WL. There is a site restriction 14 kilometers (8.7 miles) west of the community. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before December 10, 2007, and reply comments on or before December 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: Anne Goodwin Crump, Esq., c/o North Texas Radio Group, L.P., Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C., 1300 N. 17th Street, Eleventh Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 07-227, adopted October 17, 2007, and released October 19, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or via e-mail *www.BCPIWEB.com* . This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contacts. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, *see* 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Oklahoma, is amended by removing Channel 241A and by adding Channel 262A at Clayton. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-22123 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 90 [WT Docket No. 02-55; DA 07-4489] Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment on Post-Reconfiguration 800 MHz Band Plan for the U.S.-Canada Border Regions AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on post-reconfiguration 800 MHz band plans for the U.S.-Canada border regions. The Bureau, by this action, affords interested parties an opportunity to submit comments and reply comments on proposals for establishing a reconfigured 800 MHz band plan in the U.S.-Canada border region in order to accomplish the Commission's goals for band reconfiguration. DATES: Comments are due on or before December 3, 2007 and Reply Comments are due on or before December 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Marenco, Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,

(202)418-0838. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DA 07-4489, released on November 1, 2007. The complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone

(800)378-3160 or

(202)863-2893, facsimile

(202)863-2898, or via e-mail at *http://www.bcpiweb.com* . It is also available on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov* . 1. In a July 2004 Report and Order, the Commission reconfigured the 800 MHz band to eliminate interference to public safety and other land mobile communication systems operating in the band, 69 FR 67823 (November 22, 2004). However, the Commission deferred consideration of band reconfiguration plans for the border areas, noting that “implementing the band plan in areas of the United States bordering Mexico and Canada will require modifications to international agreements for use of the 800 MHz band in the border areas.” The Commission stated that “the details of the border plans will be determined in our ongoing discussions with the Mexican and Canadian governments.” 2. In a Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, adopted in May 2007, the Commission delegated authority to Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to propose and adopt border area band plans once agreements are reached with Canada and Mexico, 72 FR 39756 (July 20, 2007). Specifically, the Commission noted that “once those discussions are completed, and any necessary modifications to our international agreements have been made, we will need to amend our rules to implement the agreements and identify the portions of the 800 MHz band that will be available to U.S. licensees on a primary basis. In addition, we will need to adopt a band plan for the border regions that specifies the ESMR and non-ESMR portions of the band and the distribution of channels to public safety, B/ILT, and SMR licensees.” 3. In July 2007, the U.S. and Canada reached an agreement on a process that will enable the U.S. to proceed with band reconfiguration in the border region. Consequently, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to seek comment on specific proposals for reconfiguring the eight U.S.-Canada border regions. The goal is to separate—to the greatest extent possible—public safety and other non-cellular licensees from licensees who employ cellular technology. 4. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates listed on the first page of this summary. All filings related to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should refer to WT Docket No. 02-55. 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. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998). Procedural Matters A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 5. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Bureau has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the proposals considered in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). The text of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix A of the FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the FNPRM, and they should have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Bureau will send a copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 6. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the first page of the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 8. In the FNPRM, we consider proposals submitted by the Consensus Parties, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and representatives from regional planning committees in Ohio, New York, and Washington State for reconfiguring the 800 MHz band in the U.S.-Canada border regions. These parties propose relocating public safety licensees to U.S. primary spectrum in the lower portion of the band while placing B/ILT and ESMR systems higher in the band on U.S. primary spectrum above 815/860 MHz. These proposals also include region-specific variations. The reconfiguration of the 800 MHz band in the U.S.-Canada border regions is in the public interest because it will allow the Commission to eliminate interference in these regions to public safety and other land mobile communication systems. Interference is eliminated by separating—to the greatest extent possible—public safety and other non-cellular licensees from licensees that employ cellular technology in the 800 MHz band. B. Legal Basis 9. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is contained in sections 4(i) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 332. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 10. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and

(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 11. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entities—applicants and licensees—that may be affected by the proposals, if adopted, in this FNPRM. 12. *Public Safety Radio Licensees* . Public safety licensees who operate 800 MHz systems in the U.S.-Canada border region would be required to relocate their station facilities according to the band plans proposed in the FNPRM. As indicated above, all governmental entities with populations of less than 50,000 fall within the definition of a small entity. 13. *Business, I/LT, and SMR licensees* . Business and Industrial Land Transportation (B/ILT) and Special Mobile Radio

(SMR)licensees who operate 800 MHz systems in the U.S.-Canada border region would be required to relocate their station facilities according to the band plans proposed in the FNPRM. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small businesses directed specifically toward these licensees. 14. *Wireless Service Providers* . Wireless Service Providers who operate 800 MHz systems in the U.S.-Canada border region would be required to relocate their station facilities according to the band plans proposed in the FNPRM. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under both categories, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. 15. Also, Sprint Corporation will be affected by the band plan proposals in this FNPRM but it is not a small carrier. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 16. *The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* does not propose a rule that will entail additional reporting, recordkeeping, and/or third-party consultation or other compliance efforts. As noted in Section C, *supra* , public safety, B/ILT, SMR licensees, and wireless service providers who operate 800 MHz systems in the U.S.-Canada border region would be required to relocate their station facilities according to the band plans proposed in the FNPRM. Also, Sprint Corporation will pay the cost of relocating incumbent licensees. E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;

(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and

(4)and exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.” 18. In the FNPRM, the Bureau seeks comment on proposals to relocate public safety systems to U.S. primary spectrum in the lower portion of the band while placing B/ILT and ESMR systems higher in the band on U.S. primary spectrum above 815/860 MHz. These proposals also contain certain region-specific variations. Because the reconfiguration of the 800 MHz band in the U.S.-Canada border regions seeks to eliminate interference to public safety and other land mobile communication systems, these proposals, if adopted, minimize the cost that licensees would otherwise incur to resolve interference. Further, Sprint Corporation will pay the cost of relocating incumbent licensees. Additionally, the Bureau specifically seeks comment on alternatives to the proposed band plans and will consider such alternatives as may be recommended in comments to the FNPRM. F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 19. None. Ordering Clauses 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 332, that this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* , including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on December 3, 2007, and reply comments on December 18, 2007. Federal Communications Commission. Derek K. Poarch, Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-22128 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 RIN 0648-AV62 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish, Crab, Salmon, and Scallop Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Availability of amendments to fishery management plans; request for comments. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 88 to the Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, Amendment 23 to the FMP for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs, Amendment 12 to the FMP for the Scallop Fishery Off Alaska, and Amendment 9 to the FMP for Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Off the Coast of Alaska. These amendments, if approved, would revise the boundaries of the Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation Area (AIHCA) described in each FMP. This action is necessary to ensure the boundaries of the AIHCA accurately reflect the Council's intent to prohibit nonpelagic trawling in those areas with minimal or no fishing and sensitive habitat, and to allow nonpelagic trawling in areas historically fished by this gear type. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMPs, and other applicable laws. Comments from the public are welcome. DATES: Comments on the amendments must be received by close of business on January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AV62, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* ; • Mail: Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802; Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; • Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK; or • Fax: 907-586-7557, Attention: Sue Salveson. Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Copies of FMP amendments, maps of the AIHCA and proposed revisions, and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for this action may be obtained from the same address or from the Alaska Region NMFS website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or *melanie.brown@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the Council submit any FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish a notice in the **Federal Register** that the amendment is available for public review and comment. If approved by NMFS, these amendments would revise the FMPs by revising the boundaries of the AIHCA. The AIHCA consists of the entire Aleutian Islands subarea except for specified areas that have supported the highest groundfish catches in the past. The AIHCA is closed to all nonpelagic trawling to protect relatively undisturbed habitats. The Council determined that the AIHCA would provide a balance between continued fishing in the Aleutian Islands subarea and protection of sensitive habitats such as cold-water corals. After implementation of the AIHCA (71 FR 36694, June 28, 2006), the Council received information from the fishing industry that two locations in the AIHCA should be adjusted. The Council recommended adjustments to the boundaries near Agattu Island and Buldir Island. Waters near Agattu Island were historically fished by nonpelagic trawl gear, and no evidence of sensitive habitat exists for this area. This area currently is closed to nonpelagic trawling under the AIHCA and is proposed to be opened under this action. Waters open to nonpelagic trawling near Buldir Island were identified as not extensively fished. These waters also contain sensitive coral and sponge habitat. This proposed action would close waters near Buldir Island to protect coral and sponge habitat from the potential effects of nonpelagic trawling. This proposed action would ensure the boundaries of the AIHCA are consistent with the Council's intent to protect sensitive habitat from the potential effects of nonpelagic trawling and allow fishing in areas historically fished. NMFS is soliciting public comments on the proposed amendments through January 14, 2008. A proposed rule that would implement the amendments will be published in the **Federal Register** for public comment at a later date, following NMFS' evaluation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendments in order to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments. All comments received on the amendments by the end of the comment period, whether specifically directed to the amendments or to the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments. To be considered, comments must be received—not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted—by close of business on the last day of the comment period. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: November 6, 2007. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-22107 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 218 Tuesday, November 13, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0074] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Hass Avocados From Michoacan, Mexico AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of Hass avocados from Michoacan, Mexico. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0074 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0074, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0074. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on regulations for the importation of avocados from Michoacan, Mexico, contact Mr. David Lamb, Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;

(301)734-4312. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS* Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Importation of Hass Avocados from Michoacan, Mexico. *OMB Number:* 0579-0129. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 *et seq.* ) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests, including avocado stem weevils, seed weevils, and seed moths, into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. Regulations authorized by the PPA concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world are contained in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-47). Under these regulations, avocados from Michoacan, Mexico, are subject to certain conditions before entering the United States. These requirements include, among other things, trust fund agreements, work plans, phytosanitary certificates, stickers, truck and container seals, and box marking. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.0015266 hours per response. *Respondents:* Importers, shippers, distributors, and handlers of Hass avocados from Mexico; Mexican national plant protection organization officials. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 2,223. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 32,713.735. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 72,722,635. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 111,024 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of November 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-22094 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No: APHIS-2007-0118] Imported Fire Ant; Availability of an Environmental Assessment AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that a draft environmental assessment has been prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service relative to the proposed release into areas quarantined for imported fire ant of five additional species of phorid flies for use as biological control agents. We are making the environmental assessment available to the public for review and comment. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before December 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0118 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0118, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0118. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on the environmental assessment in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Charles L. Brown, Imported Fire Ant Quarantine Program Manager, Pest Detection and Management Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;

(301)734-4838. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The imported fire ant ( *Solenopsis invicta* Buren, *Solenopsis richteri* Forel, and hybrids of these species) is an aggressive, stinging insect that, in large numbers, can seriously injure and even kill livestock, pets, and humans. The imported fire ant, which is not native to the United States, feeds on crops and builds large, hard mounds that damage farm and field machinery. The imported fire ant regulations (contained in 7 CFR 301.81 through 301.81-10 and referred to below as the regulations) are intended to prevent the imported fire ant from spreading throughout its ecological range within the country. The regulations quarantine infested States or infested areas within States and restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles to prevent the artificial spread of the imported fire ant. In addition to the movement restrictions in the regulations, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and its State cooperators release phorid flies ( *Pseudacteon* species), a natural enemy of the imported fire ant, into quarantined areas. These flies parasitize the imported fire ant, killing those that are parasitized. Those ants that are not parasitized are affected behaviorally by the presence of the flies because their presence reduces fire ant foraging. A decrease in foraging activity facilitates competition from native fire ants that might otherwise be excluded from food sources in fire ant territory. Currently, APHIS uses three species of phorid flies ( *Pseudacteon curvatus, P. litoralis,* and *P. tricuspis* ) as biological control agents. We are now proposing to release five more species ( *P. cultellatus, P. nocens, P. nudicornis, P. obtusus,* and P. sp. near *obtusus* ) into areas quarantined for imported fire ant within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the following States: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with releasing these additional species of phorid flies into the environment, we have prepared a draft environmental assessment entitled “Field Release of Phorid Flies ( *Pseudacteon* species) for the Biological Control of Imported Fire Ants” (July 2007). The environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with:

(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),

(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),

(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1), and

(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of November 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-22092 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-840] Certain Orange Juice from Brazil; Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3874. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 27, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 20986 (Apr. 27, 2007). The period of review is August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007, and the preliminary results are currently due no later than December 3, 2007. The review covers three producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend the 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. We determine that it is not practicable to complete this administrative review within the time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act because of technical issues contained in supplemental questionnaire responses. Analysis of these issues requires additional time. Therefore, we have fully extended the deadline for completing the preliminary results until March 31, 2008, the next business day after 365 days from the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The deadline for the final results of the review continues to be 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This extension notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: November 5, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-22185 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States. Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and

(4)of the regulations and be postmarked on or before December 3, 2007. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 2104. Docket Number: 07-062. Applicant: Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division, 902 Battelle Blvd., Richland, WA 99354. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model FIB/SEM. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used for all science disciplines from biological to material science samples. The Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory, where the instrument will be housed, is a National Scientific User Facility and any scientist may use the laboratory and this instrument for free as long as they agree to publish their findings. The instrument will be used to support the ongoing science of interfacial phenomena, nanotechnology and catalysts interaction, along with other studies. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 26, 2007. Docket Number: 07-063. Applicant: University of California San Diego, National Center for Microscopy and Image Research, 9500 Gilman Drive, MC 0608, Basic Science Building, Room 1000, La Jolla, CA 92093-0608. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Titan 80-300 C-Twin STEM. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to study biological specimens prepared for electron microscopic imaging and involves the elucidation of the 3D structural information of target materials. Project investigations span basic and translational science, including neuroscience, neurodegenerative diseases, heart disease, stroke, etc. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: November 2, 2007. Docket Number: 07-066. Applicant: St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, 332 North Lauderdale, Memphis, TN 38105. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G 2 F20 TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to study the intracellular components of biological samples obtained from mice, rats, cell cultures, viruses, bacteria and particulate material. The study will perform experiments using genetically altered mice and rats to better understand the mechanism involved in cancer at the intracellular level. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 29, 2007. Docket Number: 07-067. Applicant: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45226. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-2100F. Manufacturer: Jeol Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used for multiple research projects throughout the Institute. Applications include analysis of asbestos and other fiber types, nanotechnology-related materials (e.g., carbon nanotubes and fibers, tungsten fibers, metal oxides), aerosol research, ultrafine particles emissions, general support for laboratory and field research, methods development, and evaluation of engineering controls and personal protective equipment. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 30, 2007. Dated: November 6, 2007. Faye Robinson, Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E7-22151 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-911] Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances; and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe from the People's Republic of China. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. The Department further determines preliminarily that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the subject merchandise. This notice also serves to align the final countervailing duty determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe from the People's Republic of China. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Salim Bhabhrawala, Damian Felton, or Shane Subler, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1784,

(202)482-0133, or

(202)482-0189, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The following events have occurred since the publication of the Department of Commerce's (the Department) notice of initiation in the **Federal Register** . *See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 36668 (July 5, 2007) ( *Initiation Notice* ). On July 26, 2007, the Department selected the three largest Chinese producers/exporters of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (CWP), Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd. (Shuangjie), Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (East Pipe), and Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. (Kingland), as mandatory respondents. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Respondent Selection” (July 26, 2007). This memorandum is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Department building (CRU). On July 27, 2007, we issued the countervailing duty

(CVD)questionnaire to the Government of the People's Republic of China (GOC), East Pipe, Kingland, and Shuangjie. On July 31, 2007, the International Trade Commission

(ITC)issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of allegedly subsidized imports of CWP from the People's Republic of China (PRC). *See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the PRC* , Investigation Nos. 701-TA-447 and 731-TA-1116, 72 FR 43295 (Preliminary) (August 3, 2007). On August 2, 2007, we published a postponement of the preliminary determination of this investigation until November 5, 2007. *See Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation* , 72 FR 42399 (August 2, 2007). The Ad Hoc Coalition for Fair Pipe Imports from the PRC and the United States Steel Workers (collectively, petitioners) filed a new subsidy allegation on August 21, 2007. On September 7, 2007, the Department determined to investigate aspects of the newly alleged subsidy relating to currency retention. *See* Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, “New Subsidy Allegation” (September 7, 2007). The GOC submitted comments responding to petitioners' new subsidy allegation on September 10, 2007. Questions regarding this newly alleged subsidy were sent to the GOC and the respondent companies on September 11, 2007. The petitioners alleged that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of CWP from the PRC on September 17, 2007. *See* 19 CFR 351.206. Shuangjie submitted comments responding to petitioners' allegations of critical circumstances on September 24, 2007. Petitioners responded to Shuangjie's comments on September 27, 2007. The Department issued questionnaires to the respondent companies regarding the critical circumstances allegation on October 24, 2007. Responses to these questionnaires were received from Kingland and East Pipe on October 31, 2007, and November 1, 2007, respectively. As explained further below, Shuangjie did not respond. We address the allegation of critical circumstances below. On September 24, 2007, petitioners requested that the Department extend the deadline for the submission of new subsidy allegations beyond September 26, the normal deadline established in the Department's regulations. *See* 19 CFR 351.301(d)(4)(i)(A). The Department granted an extension of the deadline to October 5, and on that date received additional new subsidy allegations from the petitioners. The Department intends to address those allegations in the near future. We received responses to our CVD questionnaires from the GOC and the respondent companies on September 17, 2007, September 24, 2007, September 25, 2007, and October 19, 2007. The petitioners filed comments on these responses as follows: GOC - September 24, 2007, October 1, 2007 and October 11, 2007; East Pipe - September 25, 2007, September 27, 2007, and October 1, 2007; Kingland - September 25, 2007, and October 1, 2007; and, Shuangjie - September 25, 2007, and October 1, 2007. We issued supplemental questionnaires to: East Pipe, Kingland and Shuangjie on October 4, 2007; the GOC on October 9, 2007 and October 10, 2007; and Shuangjie on October 25, 2007. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires from the GOC on October 23, 2007; East Pipe on October 18 and 19, 2007; and Kingland and Shuangjie on October 18, 2007. Petitioners filed comments on these supplemental responses as follows: Shuangjie on October 23, 2007, and East Pipe, Kingland and Shuangjie on October 25, 2007. On October 26, 2007, the petitioners submitted comments for consideration in the preliminary determination. On October 31, 2007, Shuangjie withdrew from the investigation and requested that the Department return all of its proprietary fillings. On August 20, 2007, Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Yulong”), requested that the Department reconsider its mandatory respondent selection in this investigation. In addition, Yulong requested that if the Department declined to revisit its mandatory respondent selection process, that Yulong be allowed to participate as a voluntary respondent. On August 23, 2007, the Department declined Yulong's request that the Department revisit its mandatory respondent selection process. However, the Department did state that it would consider accepting Yulong as a voluntary respondent at a later date. Yulong filed timely responses to the Department's CVD questionnaires on September 17, 2007, and September 24, 2007. Even though Shuangjie has withdrawn from the investigation, we were unable to analyze Yulong's voluntary responses for consideration in this preliminary determination. Shuangjie's October 31, 2007 withdrawal came five days before the preliminary determination and, thus, the Department was unable to complete the necessary analyses of Yulong's submissions and issue the necessary supplemental questionnaires in sufficient time for the preliminary determination. Furthermore, the Department will not have sufficient time or resources to analyze Yulong's responses during the remainder of this investigation. Based on our experiences with the mandatory respondents in this investigation, it is likely that detailed supplemental questionnaires will be required in order to gather the information necessary to calculate an CVD rate for Yulong. At this point in the proceeding, analyzing Yulong's responses and issuing detailed supplemental questionnaires prior to the final determination would be extremely burdensome and would likely inhibit the timely completion of the investigation. Consequently, the Department is not accepting Yulong as a voluntary respondent and will not calculate an individual countervailing duty rate for Yulong. On November 2, 2007, petitioners requested that the final determination of this countervailing duty investigation be aligned with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We address this request below. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, we set aside a period of time in our *Initiation Notice* for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of that notice. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties* , 62 FR 27296, 27323, (May 19, 1997) and *Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 36669. On July 19, 2007, the petitioners submitted comments concerning the scope of the CWP antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. MAN FERROSTAAL INC., MACSTEEL SERVICE CENTERS USA, and SUNBELT GROUP L.P. (collectively, FERROSTAAL) also submitted comments concerning the scope of these investigations on July 19, 2007. The petitioners and FERROSTAAL both submitted rebuttal comments on July 26, 2007. We have analyzed the comments of the interested parties regarding the scope of this investigation. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Re: Scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, “Analysis of Comments and Recommendation for Scope of Investigations” (November 5, 2007). Our position on these comments is reflected below. Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers certain welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, and with an outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish ( *e.g.* , black, galvanized, or painted), end finish ( *e.g.* , plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification ( *e.g.* , ASTM, proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe and structural pipe (they may also be referred to as circular, structural, or mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which

(a)iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;

(b)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

(c)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:

(i)1.80 percent of manganese;

(ii)2.25 percent of silicon;

(iii)1.00 percent of copper;

(iv)0.50 percent of aluminum;

(v)1.25 percent of chromium;

(vi)0.30 percent of cobalt;

(vii)0.40 percent of lead;

(viii)1.25 percent of nickel;

(ix)0.30 percent of tungsten;

(x)0.15 percent of molybdenum;

(xi)0.10 percent of niobium;

(xii)0.41 percent of titanium;

(xiii)0.15 percent of vanadium; or

(xiv)0.15 percent of zirconium. Standard pipe is made primarily to American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specifications, but can be made to other specifications. Standard pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A-53, A-135, and A-795. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A-252 and A-500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications. This is often the case, for example, with fence tubing. Pipe multiple-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to any other specification, such as the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) API-5L or 5L X-42 specifications, is also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical description set forth above and also satisfies one or more of the following characteristics: is a single random length; less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish. The scope of this investigation does not include:

(a)pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, condensers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn;

(b)mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn;

(c)finished electrical conduit;

(d)finished scaffolding;

(e)tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;

(f)oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications; and

(g)line pipe produced to only API specifications. The pipe products that are the subject of this investigation are currently classifiable in HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.10.00, 7306.50.50.50, 7306.50.50.70, 7306.19.10.10, 7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and 7306.19.51.50. However, the product description, and not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of whether merchandise imported into the United States falls within the scope of the investigation. Use of Facts Otherwise Available Sections 776(a)(1) and

(2)of the Act provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” *if, inter alia* , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person:

(A)withholds information that has been requested;

(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding; or

(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. In this case, Shuangjie did not provide information we requested that is necessary to determine a countervailing duty rate for this preliminary determination. Specifically, Shuangjie did not respond to the Department's October 24, 2007, request for shipment data relating to the allegation of critical circumstances, did not respond to the Department's October 25, 2007, supplemental questionnaire and, finally, on October 31, 2007, withdrew all of its proprietary information from the record. Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), and

(C)of the Act, we have based Shuangjie's countervailing duty rate on facts otherwise available. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available

(AFA)information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See Statement of Administrative Action*

(SAA)accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session

(1994)at 870. Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. *See* SAA at 869. In selecting from among the facts available, the Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act because, in addition to not responding to all of our requests for information, Shuangjie has withdrawn all of its proprietary information and has withdrawn from all participation in the investigation thereby precluding verification of the public information remaining on the record. Thus, Shuangjie failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability, and our preliminary determination is based on AFA. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from

(1)the petition,

(2)a final determination in the investigation,

(3)any previous review or determination, or

(4)any information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the proceeding. *See, e.g., Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Analysis of Programs.” The Department's practice when selecting an adverse margin from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan* ; 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA at 870. In choosing the appropriate balance between providing a respondent with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Because Shuangjie failed to act to the best of its ability, as discussed above, for each program examined, we made the adverse inference that Shuangjie benefitted from the program unless the record evidence made it clear that Shuangjie could not have received benefits from the program because, for example, we have preliminarily found the program not countervailable. *See, e.g., Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea; Final Affirmative CVD Determination* , 67 FR 62102 (October 3, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Methodology and Background Information.” To calculate the program rates, we have generally relied upon the highest program rate calculated for any responding company in this investigation as adverse facts available. *See Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Analysis of Programs.” Thus, for programs based on the provision of goods at less than adequate remuneration, we have used the Kingland rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration. For value added tax (“VAT”) programs, we are unable to utilize company-specific rates from this proceeding because neither respondent received any countervailable subsidies from these subsidy programs. Therefore, for VAT programs we are applying the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance is Kingland's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration. Similarly, for the grant programs, we are not relying on the highest calculated preliminary subsidy rate because it is *de minimis* . Instead, we are applying the highest calculated preliminary subsidy rate, which in this instance is Kingland's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration. Finally, for the seven alleged income tax programs pertaining to either the reduction of the income tax rates or the payment of no income tax, we have applied an adverse inference that Shuangjie paid no income tax during the period of investigation ( *i.e.* , calendar year 2006). The standard income tax rate for corporations in the PRC is 30 percent, plus a 3 percent provincial income tax rate. Therefore, the highest possible benefit for these seven income tax rate programs is 33 percent. We are applying the 33 percent AFA rate on a combined basis ( *i.e.* , the seven programs combined provided a 33 percent benefit). This 33 percent AFA rate does not apply to income tax deduction or credit programs. For income tax deduction or credit programs we are applying the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance is Kingland's rate for provisions of hot-rolled-steel at less than adequate remuneration. *See* Memorandum to the File, entitled “Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate for Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.” (November 5, 2007) (this memorandum is on file in the Department's CRU). We do not need to corroborate the calculated subsidy rates we are using as AFA because they are not considered secondary information as they are based on information obtained in the course of this investigation. *See* section 776(c) of the Act; *see also* the SAA at 870. We have also identified certain instances in which the GOC has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in providing requested information. First, in our questionnaire, we asked the GOC to provide information about the hot-rolled steel industry in the PRC (including a description of the industry, users of hot rolled steel in the PRC, and whether hot-rolled steel producers are state-owned enterprises). The GOC limited its response to the “hot-rolled steel narrow strip” industry, arguing that this narrow strip industry was separate from the hot-rolled steel industry. In our supplemental questionnaire, we asked the GOC to provide the requested information for the hot-rolled steel industry as a whole. While some limited information was provided in the GOC's supplemental questionnaire response (October 23, 2007), the GOC stated, “We hope to prove ( *sic* ) the Department a broader analysis of hot-rolled steel producers at a later date.” Similarly, in response to our supplemental questionnaire seeking additional information on rates charged for water in Tianjin (where Shuangjie is located), the GOC responded that it had contacted the local agencies and was awaiting their reply (this rate information had also been requested in our initial questionnaire). The failure to provide this information within the established deadlines has impeded our investigation. Moreover, the GOC has not provided us with any plausible explanation as to why it cannot provide us with the information within the established deadlines. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the GOC has failed to act to the best of its ability and we are applying facts available with an adverse inference to address these omissions. With respect to hot-rolled steel, the Department is preliminarily rejecting prices in the PRC as possible benchmarks for determining whether hot-rolled steel is being provided for less than adequate remuneration. With respect to water, we are preliminarily finding that this input is being provided for less than adequate remuneration for Shuangjie, as AFA. Critical Circumstances On September 17, 2007, petitioners requested that the Department make an expedited finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of CWP from the PRC. Section 703(e)(1) of the Act states that if the petitioner alleges critical circumstances, the Department will determine, on the basis of information available to it at the time, if there is a reason to believe or suspect the alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the SCM Agreement) and whether there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), because the petitioners submitted a critical circumstances allegation more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the Department must issue a preliminary critical circumstances determination not later than the date of the preliminary determination. *See, e.g., Policy Bulletin 98/4 regarding Timing of Issuance of Critical Circumstances Determinations* , 63 FR 55364 (October 15, 1998). Due to resource constraints, we were unable to accommodate petitioners' request that the Department make an expedited determination with respect to critical circumstances. Specifically, given the complex issues inherent to this investigation, *i.e.* , the second countervailing duty investigation of imports from the PRC, as well as the multiple other ongoing antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Department was unable to make a critical circumstances determination prior to the preliminary results of this investigation. We preliminarily find that East Pipe received no countervailable subsidies inconsistent with the SCM Agreement. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(e)(1) of the Act, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of CWP from East Pipe. As discussed in the *Analysis of Programs* section below, the Department has preliminarily determined that Kingland received countervailable export subsidies during the POI. These export subsidies are inconsistent with the SCM Agreement. Although the countervailable subsidy rate for these export subsidies is *de minimis* , use of an export subsidy program is sufficient to make an affirmative preliminary determination of critical circumstances under section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act. *See Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 66 FR 43186, 43189-90 (August 17, 2001); and *Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 67 FR 36070 (May 22, 2002) (the unchanged final determination). Regarding Shuangjie, we have made an adverse inference that Shuangjie benefitted from countervailable export and import substitution subsidy programs pursuant to our determination to apply AFA to this company. For “all other” exporters, we are basing our finding on the experience of Kingland and, therefore, find that “all others” benefitted from export subsidies. In determining whether there are “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to section 703(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import volume of the subject merchandise for three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition ( *i.e.* , the base period) with the three months following the filing of the petition ( *i.e.* , the comparison period). Section 351.206(h)(1) of our regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” the Department normally will examine:

(i)the volume and value of the imports;

(ii)seasonal trends; and

(iii)the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during the “relatively short period” of time may be considered “massive.” Finally, 19 CFR 351.206(i) defines “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins ( *i.e.* , the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. On October 31, 2007, Kingland filed its monthly shipment data for subject merchandise exported to the United States for calendar years 2005 and 2006, and for January through September 2007. Based upon these data, we preliminarily find that Kingland's CWP imports increased more than 15 percent during the “relatively short period.” *See* Memorandum to the File Re “Critical Circumstances Analysis for Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. Import Shipment Analysis for Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. and “All Others” (November 5, 2007) (Import Analysis Memorandum) (this memorandum is on file in the Department's CRU). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the requirements of section 703(e)(1)(B) of the Act have been satisfied, and that critical circumstances exist for Kingland. Regarding Shuangjie, as part of our adverse facts available determination we have made an adverse inference that there were massive imports from Shuangjie over a relatively short period. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons from Japan* , 68 FR 71072, 71076-77 (December 22, 2003); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons from Japan* , 69 FR 11834 (March 12, 2004) (the unchanged final determination). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the requirements of section 703(e)(1)(B) of the Act have been satisfied, and that critical circumstances exist for Shuangjie. For “all others,” we preliminarily determine that there were massive imports over a relatively short period based on import statistics from the ITC's Dataweb (adjusted to remove East Pipe's and Kingland's shipments). *See* Import Analysis Memorandum. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the requirements of section 703(e)(1)(B) of the Act have been satisfied, and that critical circumstances exist for “all others.” Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination On July 5, 2007, the Department initiated the countervailing duty and antidumping duty investigations on CWP from the PRC. *See Initiation Notice and Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 36663 (July 5, 2007). The countervailing duty investigation and the antidumping duty investigation have the same scope with regard to the merchandise covered. On November 2, 2007, petitioners submitted a letter, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, requesting alignment of the final countervailing duty determination with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of CWP from the PRC. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final countervailing duty determination with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of CWP from the PRC. The final countervailing duty determination will be issued on the same date as the final antidumping duty determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued on or about March 18, 2008. *See* Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China (signed, November 1, 2007) (this memorandum is on file in the Department's CRU). Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Imports from the PRC On October 25, 2007, the Department published *Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination* , 72 FR 60645 (October 25, 2007) ( *CFS from the PRC* ). In that determination, the Department found, ”. . . given the substantial differences between the Soviet-style economies and the PRC's economy in recent years, the Department's previous decision not to apply the CVD law to these Soviet-style economies does not act as a bar to proceeding with a CVD investigation involving products from China.” *CFS from the PRC* , and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; *see also* Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China - Whether the Analytical Elements of the Georgetown Steel Opinion are Applicable to China's Present-day Economy at 2 (March 29, 2007) (Georgetown Steel Memo). The GOC, in an October 11, 2007 submission in this proceeding, argues that the Department should not investigate certain newly alleged subsidies that occurred before 2005, the period of investigation in the *CFS from the PRC* proceeding. Citing the Georgetown Steel Memo, the GOC claims that the Department found that “it is possible to determine whether the PRC Government has bestowed a benefit upon a Chinese producer ( *i.e.* , the subsidy can be identified and measured) and whether any such benefit is specific,” as of 2005. *See* Georgetown Steel Memo at 2. The GOC additionally points to *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary* , 67 FR 60223 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (September 25, 2003) ( *Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary* ), in which the Department declined to countervail capital infusions received by the respondent in the year prior to Hungary's transition to a market economy, when Hungary also became subject to the countervailing duty law. Finally, the GOC notes that in the preamble to the Department's countervailing duty regulations, the Department states that it intends to continue its practice of only countervailing subsidies bestowed after a country's status is changed to market economy. *See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 63 FR 65348, 65360 (November 25, 1998) (CVD Preamble). We have carefully reviewed *CFS from the PRC* , the Georgetown Steel Memo, and the CVD Preamble, and do not agree with the GOC that we are precluded from investigating subsidies bestowed prior to 2005. In particular, although 2005 served as the period of investigation in *CFS from the PRC* , we found loans given prior to 2005 under the Policy Lending Program to be countervailable. *See CFS from the PRC* and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12. More importantly, although we found that we could apply the CVD law to imports from the PRC, we did not squarely address the issue of how far back in time we should find countervailable subsidies. Now that this issue has been clearly presented in this investigation, we preliminarily determine that it is appropriate and administratively desirable to identify a uniform date from which the Department will identify and measure subsidies in the PRC for purposes of the CVD law. We preliminarily determine that date to be December 11, 2001, the date on which the PRC became a member of the WTO. Prior to this date, many changes were occurring in the PRC's economy. Many of the obligations undertaken by the PRC pursuant to its accession to the WTO were in line with the PRC's objective of economic reform. *See* Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China, WT/ACC/CHN/49 (October 1, 2001), for example, at paragraph 4. Taken together, these changes would permit the Department to determine whether the GOC has bestowed a countervailable subsidy on Chinese producers. *See Georgetown Steel Memo; CFS from the PRC* at Comments 1 and 6. Finally, the GOC acknowledged the changing nature of its economy in so far as its Accession Protocol contemplates the application of the CVD law to the PRC, even while it remains a non-market economy (NME). *See* Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China, WT/L/432 (November 23, 2001) at Section 15(b); *see also, CFS* at Comment 1. Therefore, for this preliminary determination, we have selected the date of December 11, 2001, as the date from which we will measure countervailable subsidies in the PRC. Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or the period of investigation (POI), is calendar year 2006. Subsidies Valuation Information *Allocation Period* The average useful life (“AUL”) period in this proceeding as described in 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2) is 15 years according to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System for assets used to manufacture primary steel mill products. No party in this proceeding has disputed this allocation period. *Attribution of Subsidies* The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i) state that the Department will normally attribute a subsidy to the products produced by the corporation that received the subsidy. However, 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii) directs that the Department will attribute subsidies received by certain other companies to the combined sales of those companies if

(1)cross-ownership exists between the companies, and

(2)the cross-owned companies produce the subject merchandise, are a holding or parent company of the subject company, produce an input that is primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream product, or transfer a subsidy to a cross-owned company. The Court of International Trade

(CIT)has upheld the Department's authority to attribute subsidies based on whether a company could use or direct the subsidy benefits of another company in essentially the same way it could use its own subsidy benefits. *See Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi v. United States* , 166 F. Supp. 2d. 593, 604 (CIT 2001). According to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), cross-ownership exists between two or more corporations where one corporation can use or direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially the same ways it can use its own assets. This regulation states that this standard will normally be met where there is a majority voting interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two (or more) corporations. *East Pipe* : In its response, East Pipe reported that it is affiliated with East Pipe Transportation Facility Co., Ltd. (East Highway). East Pipe states that East Highway's primary business is to install highway guardrails in the PRC and that East Highway did not produce subject merchandise during the POI. East Pipe further contends that East Highway cannot be considered the holding company of East Pipe because its ownership interest in East Pipe is nominal (the details of the relationship between these two companies are proprietary). Given the unusual nature of the ownership relation between these companies, we preliminarily agree that any subsidies to East Highway should not be attributed to East Pipe under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii). Moreover, because East Highway does not produce subject merchandise, we preliminarily determine that any subsidies it receives should not be attributed to East Pipe under 19 CFR 351.5252(b)(6)(ii). See Memorandum from Salim Bhabhrawala to Susan Kuhbach Re: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China; Calculations for the Preliminary Determination for Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (November 5, 2007). East Pipe acknowledges a second company with which it is legally affiliated by virtue of a long-term investment, but which East Pipe views as commercially independent (the details of the relationship between these two companies are also proprietary). According to East Pipe, the company does not produce the subject merchandise and does not provide inputs to East Pipe. Because the company does not produce subject merchandise or otherwise fall within the situations described in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii)-(v), we do not need to reach the issue of whether this company and East Pipe are cross-owned within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), and we are not attributing any subsidies received by this company to East Pipe. Consequently, we are limiting our investigation to subsidies received by East Pipe. *Kingland* : Kingland has responded to the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires on behalf of itself; its parent company, Kingland Group Co., Ltd. (Kingland Group); Beijing Kingland Century Technologies Co. (Kingland Century); Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd. (Kingland Industry); and Shanxi Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd. (Shanxi Kingland). According to Kingland, Kingland Group and Kingland Century do not produce the subject merchandise. However, because Kingland Group is the parent company of Kingland, we are preliminarily attributing subsidies received by Kingland Group to Kingland, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii). With respect to Kingland Century, this company is a domestic trading company and does not produce any merchandise. Instead, it purchased and provided inputs to Kingland during the POI. Because it is not an input producer, we are not treating Kingland Century as an input supplier as described in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv) (which refers to subsidies received by the input producer). Instead, for the preliminary determination, we are treating these inputs as being provided directly to Kingland. *See* Memorandum from Shane Subler to Susan Kuhbach Re: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China; Calculations for the Preliminary Determination for Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd.; Kingland Group Co., Ltd., and Beijing Kingland Century Technologies Co. (November 5, 2007) ( *Kingland Calculation Memorandum* ). Kingland Industry and Shanxi Kingland produced and sold subject merchandise domestically during the POI. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii), we are preliminarily including Kingland Industry and Shanxi Kingland in the subsidy calculation. Kingland also identified other affiliated companies whose names indicated that they might be involved in the production or sales of CWP. In response to our supplemental questionnaire, Kingland reported that these companies do not produce or sell the subject merchandise. *See* Kingland's supplemental questionnaire response (October 19, 2007) at pages 1-6. For one of these companies, CNOOC Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd. (CNOOC Kingland), Kingland stated it produces certain casings tube and steel pipes that are outside the scope of the investigation. Furthermore, Kingland provided evidence on CNOOC Kingland's shareholder voting rights, board of directors, and management to demonstrate that cross-ownership did not exist between Kingland and CNOOC Kingland during the POI. After reviewing the current record, we preliminarily determine that cross-ownership did not exist between Kingland and CNOOC Kingland during the POI. Moreover, we have preliminarily accepted Kingland's claims that CNOOC Kingland Pipeline does not produce subject merchandise. Finally, Kingland's organization chart shows several additional companies that appear to be service companies with no relationship to the subject merchandise or companies in which the responding companies held a very limited share of ownership during the POI. We have discussed these companies in a separate, proprietary memorandum, entitled “Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd.: Cross-owned Companies” (November 5, 2007) (this memorandum is on file in the Department's CRU). We have preliminarily excluded these companies from the subsidy calculation. Therefore, based on information currently on the record, we preliminarily determine that cross-ownership within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) exists between Kingland, Kingland Group, Kingland Century, Kingland Industry, and Shanxi Kingland. Because we preliminarily determine that Kingland, Kingland Industry, and Shanxi Kingland are cross-owned producers of the subject merchandise, as addressed in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii), we are attributing the subsidies received by the three companies to their combined sales. We also preliminarily determine that subsidies received by Kingland Group should be attributed to the consolidated sales of the parent company and its subsidiaries. *See* 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii). *Benchmark* Petitioners alleged that Baosteel received countervailable loans and that it was uncreditworthy ( *see, Initiation Notice* , 72 FR at 36671). Because we did not select Baosteel as a mandatory respondent in this investigation, we are making no finding regarding that company's creditworthiness. *Analysis of Programs* Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our questionnaires, we determine the following: I. *Programs Preliminarily Determined to Be Countervailable* A. *Provision of Inputs for Less than Adequate Remuneration* Hot-rolled Steel The Department initiated an investigation into whether state-owned steel producers in the PRC provide hot-rolled steel to CWP producers for less than adequate remuneration. In response to the Department's questions on the PRC's hot-rolled steel industry in the original questionnaire, the GOC provided information on the hot-rolled steel narrow strip industry, as discussed in *the Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate* section, above. Citing information from market observer MYSTEEL and industry journal articles, the GOC claims that the hot-rolled steel narrow strip industry does not compete with other hot-rolled steel products because narrow strip has a lower market price, is used primarily to produce CWP and light section steel, and has a production process that is different from hot-rolled steel sheet. The GOC argues further that pipe producers incur additional cost in slitting hot-rolled steel sheet into a narrow strip product. In their pre-preliminary comments, the petitioners reject the GOC's argument that hot-rolled steel narrow strip production is a separate industry. Referring to price information provided by the GOC, the petitioners contend that prices for hot-rolled steel narrow strip and hot-rolled wide coil move in tandem. Moreover, citing the respondents' reported purchase information, petitioners argue that the respondents use both products in their production of subject merchandise. Therefore, the petitioners argue that the Department should analyze the hot-rolled steel industry as a whole, not only the production of hot-rolled steel narrow strip. We preliminarily agree with petitioners and do not find the producers of hot-rolled steel narrow strip to be an industry separate from the wider hot-rolled steel industry because there is no clear distinction between hot-rolled steel narrow strip and other hot-rolled steel. The GOC relies on price information provided by MYSTEEL to define hot-rolled steel narrow strip as having a width of less than 1000 millimeters and hot-rolled steel sheet as having a width of no less than 1250 millimeters. However, these definitions leave out a classification for products between 1000 millimeters and 1250 millimeters wide. Therefore, there is no specific width that distinguishes hot-rolled steel narrow strip from other hot-rolled steel sheet. Moreover, all of the products are hot-rolled steel, which is the input product on which the Department initiated an investigation. Therefore, we are basing our preliminary analysis on the hot-rolled steel industry as a whole. Kingland reported that it purchased hot-rolled steel for its CWP from GOC-owned hot-rolled steel producers and suppliers. East Pipe reported that it purchased its steel input for CWP entirely from privately owned suppliers. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the GOC did not provide East Pipe with hot-rolled steel for CWP during the POI and our analysis is limited to Kingland. In its response, the GOC listed the industries that use hot-rolled steel: “construction, automobile, electronic appliance, machineries, chemical industries, and long transmission pipelines, etc.” *See* GOC questionnaire response at 56 (September 17, 2007). We preliminarily find that these industries are “limited in number” and, hence, that the provision of hot-rolled steel is *de facto* specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. *See also Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Flat Steel Products from the Republic of Korea* , 67 FR 62102 (October 3, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 and Comment 2, where the Department found that Posco's provision of hot-rolled coil was countervailable. We further determine preliminarily that the GOC's provision of hot-rolled steel through its state-owned producers is a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(iii) and that it confers a benefit on CWP producers because the good is being sold for less than adequate remuneration as described in section 771(5)(E)(iv). In determining what constitutes adequate remuneration, the Department is not relying on prices in the PRC, as explained in the *Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate* section, above. Instead, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), we have used a world market price as a benchmark to compare to the respondents' reported purchase prices from state-owned steel suppliers. Specifically, we used the “World Export Price” from *Steel Benchmarker* , as provided in Exhibit 38 of the petitioners' pre-preliminary comments (October 26, 2007). To calculate the benefit, we compared the monthly weighted-average price paid by Kingland for hot-rolled steel purchased from state-owned enterprises

(SOEs)to the average monthly prices reported in *Steel Benchmarker* . *Steel Benchmarker* does not include prices for January - March 2006; therefore, we have used the April 2006 price as a surrogate. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Kingland received a countervailable benefit of 16.57 percent *ad valorem* . For certain of Kingland's suppliers, we did not have information about their ownership and did not have time to request it for this preliminary determination, therefore, it is unclear what portion of this steel is provided by SOEs. We intend to seek this supplier information for our final determination. For the preliminary determination, we have relied on neutral facts available and treated this pool of steel as having been provided by suppliers in the same proportion as reported for known SOE and non-SOE suppliers. *See* Kingland Calculation Memorandum. B. *Other Subsidies (Kingland)* Kingland, Kingland Group, and Kingland Industry reported that they received different city, district, and provincial grants related to export assistance, research and development, and other business activities in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Kingland only identified two of these programs, the “Electromechanical Products Technologies Renovation Project Fund” and “Superstar Enterprise” award, as public information. Kingland designated information about the other programs as business proprietary. Therefore, we have addressed these programs in more detail in the *Kingland Calculation Memorandum* . Current information on the record does not indicate that these grants are tied to any of the programs discussed in this notice. We preliminarily determine that all the grants received in 2004 and 2005 should be expensed in those years, *i.e.* , prior to the POI because even if they were treated as non-recurring, the total amount received was less than 0.5 percent of the relevant sales in those years ( *see* 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2)). Hence, they would confer no benefit in the POI. For the export assistance grants received in 2006, certain of them pertained to markets other than the United States. We have not included these in our analysis pursuant to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(4). For the remaining export assistance grant, we preliminarily determine the grant is a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. It is a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(i), and it provides a benefit in the amount of the grant ( *see* 19 CFR 351.504(a)). Finally, because it is contingent upon export performance, it is specific under section 771(5A)(B). To calculate the benefit, we divided the amount received by Kingland's export sales in 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that a countervailable subsidy of less than .005 percent *ad valorem* exists for Kingland. Where the countervailable subsidy rate for a program is less than .005 percent, the program is not included in the total countervailing duty rate. *See, e.g., Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France* , 70 FR 39998 (July 12, 2005), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Purchases at Prices that Constitute 'More than Adequate Remuneration'” (citing *Final Results of Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 69 FR 75917 (December 20, 2004)). Kingland Group reported that it received a Super Star Enterprise award from Huzhou City. Kingland Group explained that Huzhou City granted this award based on the total value of a company's sales. The company met the relevant sales threshold for 2005 and received this award in 2006. We preliminarily determine that Kingland received a countervailable subsidy under the Huzhou City Super Star Enterprises award program. We find that this grant is a direct transfer of funds within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, providing a benefit in the amount of the grant. *See* 19 CFR 351.504(a). We further preliminarily determine that the grant provided under this program is limited as a matter of law to certain enterprises, *i.e.* , enterprises that exceed certain sales values during a year. Hence, we preliminarily find that the subsidy is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. To calculate the countervailable subsidy, we used our standard methodology for non-recurring grants. *See* 19 CFR 351.524(b). Because the award was not tied to any specific product, we attributed the subsidy to the consolidated sales of the Kingland Group. Also, because the benefit was less than 0.5 percent, the entire amount was attributed to the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy to be 0.02 percent *ad valorem* for Kingland. For the remaining grants, we intend to seek further information for our final determination. II. *Programs Preliminarily Determined to Be Not Countervailable* A. *Government Policy Lending Program* In *CFS from the PRC* , the Department found Government Policy Lending to provide a countervailable subsidy because record evidence indicated that:

(i)the GOC had a policy in place to encourage and support the growth and development of the forestry and paper industry through preferential financing initiatives as illustrated in the GOC's five-year plans and industrial policies; and

(ii)the GOC's policy toward the paper industry was carried out by the central and local governments through the provision of loans extended by GOC Policy Banks and state-owned commercial banks. *See CFS from the PRC* and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8. In this investigation, the evidence submitted to date does not support a finding that the CWP industry in the PRC received preferential financing pursuant to the GOC's Iron and Steel Policy. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that producers and exporters of CWP in the PRC did not receive government policy loans. We will, however, continue to investigate whether the GOC's Iron and Steel Policy or other plans apply to the CWP industry, and, if so, the purpose of those policies and whether preferential lending was provided to the CWP industry pursuant to those policies. B. *Provision of Inputs for Less than Adequate Remuneration* *Electricity* : According to the GOC, electricity in the PRC is produced by numerous power plants and it is transmitted for local distribution by two state-owned transmission companies, State Grid and China South Power Grid. Generally, prices for uploading electricity to the grid and transmitting it are regulated by the GOC, as are the final sales prices. *See, e.g., Circular on Implementation Measures Regarding Reform of Electricity Prices* , (FAGAIJIAGE {2005} No. 514, National Development and Reform Commission) at Appendix 3 of the *Provisional Measures on Prices for Sales of Electricity* at Article 29 (“Government departments in charge of pricing at various levels shall be responsible for the administration and supervision of electricity sales prices.”), provided within the GOC response at Exhibit 114 (September 17, 2007). Electricity consumers are divided into broad categories such as residential, commercial, large-scale industry and agriculture. The rates charged vary across customer categories and within customer categories based on the amount of electricity consumed. Moreover, among industrial users, certain industries are specifically broken out and these industries receive special, discounted rates. Based on our review of the rate schedules submitted for two of the three provinces in which the respondents are located, discounted rates are established for producers of calcium carbide, electrolyte caustic alkali, synthetic ammonia, yellow phosphorus with electric furnace, and chemical fertilizer producers. For the third province, discounted rates are established for the production of chlor alkali, electrolyte aluminum, and chemical fertilizer. Thus, there is not a discounted rate for CWP producers and, according to the GOC, the number of customers in the large-scale enterprise category (which includes the CWP producers) ranges from over 400 to more than 2200, across these three localities. Based on the record evidence, we preliminarily determine that the provision of electricity to large-scale enterprises in the PRC is neither *de jure* nor *de facto* specific. Although producers in a few particular industries are eligible for discounts under the law, all other large-scale enterprises within a locality pay the same rate for their electricity. Moreover, the absence of price discrimination among most users may also support a preliminary finding that electricity is not being provided to CWP producers for less than adequate remuneration. *See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 63 FR 65348, 65378 (November 25, 1998) (discussing that, where the government is the sole provider of a good or service, especially in the case of electricity, land or water, the Department may assess whether the government price was set in accordance with market principles, which may include an analysis of whether there is price discrimination among the users of the good or service that is provided and that “{w}e would only rely on a price discrimination analysis if the government good or service is provided to more than a specific enterprise or industry, or group thereof.”). On this basis, we preliminarily determine that the GOC's provision of electricity does not confer a countervailable subsidy. *Water* : According to the GOC, water suppliers in the PRC are highly localized. Many suppliers are SOEs, particularly in cities, but there is also private ownership. Water prices generally are regulated by the local governments. *See, e.g., the Regulation on Administration of City Water Supply* (Decree 158 of the State Council, 1994), provided within the GOC response at Exhibit 118 (September 17, 2007). East Pipe's water supplier, Weifang Treated Water Company, Ltd., is a majority privately owned company. Therefore, for East Pipe, we preliminarily determine that water is not provided by an “authority” and, hence, that no countervailable subsidy is bestowed. *See* section 771(5)(b) of the Act. We will continue to examine whether East Pipe's water supplier is a private entity during the course of this investigation. Regarding Shuangjie, the GOC did not provide water rate schedules. For Kingland, the GOC has provided the *Circular on Adjusting the Water Resource Charge Rate* ZHEJAIFEI {2004} No. 209 and *Circular of Huzhou City People's Government on Approving and Forwarding the Provisional Regulation on the Collection of River Network Water Supply Fee Issued by City Water Resource Bureau* HUZHENGFA {2002} No. 39, provided within the GOC supplemental response as exhibits S - 5 and S - 6 (October 23, 2007). These two schedules show that uniform rates are charged, with no discounts for any industry groups. Therefore, for the same reasons described above for electricity, we preliminarily determine that record evidence demonstrates that the provision of water in Zhejiang Province and Huzhou City (location of Kingland Pipe) is neither *de jure* nor *de facto* specific. Consequently, we preliminarily find that the government's provision of water does not confer a countervailable subsidy on Kingland. Because the GOC has failed to provide the requested rate information for water purchased by Shuangjie, we are preliminarily treating this program as countervailable for this company. *See Selection of Adverse Facts Available Rate* section, above. C. *VAT Rebates* (originally referred to as “Export Incentive Payments Characterized as “VAT Rebates”) According to the GOC, the “exemption, deduction and refund” of VAT applies if a manufacturer exports its self-produced goods by itself or via a trading company. *See* Article 1 of the *Circular on Further Promotion of Methodology of “Exemption, Deduction, and Refund” of Tax for Exported Goods* (CAISHUI

(2002)No. 7) provided within the GOC response at Exhibit 98. Under the “VAT refund system,” when a producer/exporter purchases inputs ( *e.g* ,, raw materials, components, fuel and power) it pays a VAT based on the purchase price of inputs. The GOC reported the VAT rates paid by CWP producers/exports for inputs are as follows: hot-rolled steel strips, zinc and electricity power at a rate of 17 percent; fuel at 13 percent; and water at 6 percent. Once the exporter/producer exports subject merchandise, a VAT payment and tax exemption form is prepared and filed with the relevant state tax authority. CWP exporters receive a VAT refund of 13 percent of the export price. The Department's regulations state that in the case of an exemption upon export of indirect taxes, a benefit exists only to the extent that the Department determines that the amount exempted “exceeds the amount levied with respect to the production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic consumption.” 19 CFR 351.517(a); *see also* 19 CFR 351.102 (for a definition of “indirect tax”). Information in the company responses shows that East Pipe and Kingland paid the VAT on their inputs, and applied for and received a VAT refund on their export sales. To determine whether a benefit was provided under this program, the Department analyzed whether the amount of VAT exempted during the POI exceeded the amount levied with respect to the production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic consumption. Because the VAT rate levied on CWP in the domestic market (17 percent) exceeded the amount of VAT exempted upon the export of CWP (13 percent), the Department preliminarily determines that, for the purposes of this investigation, the VAT refund received upon the export of CWP does not confer a countervailable benefit. III. Post-POI Programs E. *Government Restraints on Exports* *Hot-rolled Steel and Zinc* : Petitioners alleged that the GOC restrains exports of hot-rolled steel and zinc by means of export taxes, which artificially suppress the price a producer in the PRC can charge for these inputs into CWP. In its response, the GOC provided the *Announcement on Adjustments of Provisional Import or Export Duty for Certain Merchandises* (PRC Customs Announcement No. 22, 2007) *See* Exhibit 122 of the GOC questionnaire response (September 17, 2007). This document shows that on May 30, 2007, the GOC announced a provisional export duty rate for hot-rolled steel of five percent and an increase in the provisional export duty rate for zinc from five percent to ten percent. These changes were implemented retroactively to begin on July 1, 2006. The POI for this investigation is January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, and the export restraints allegedly giving rise to a subsidy were announced on May 30, 2007, *i.e.* , after the POI. Although the export duties were implemented retroactively, there is no basis to conclude that the export duties affected the prices paid by the respondents for hot-rolled steel and zinc prior to May 30, 2007, because those purchases had already been made. Therefore, any subsidy conferred by the export duties on hot-rolled steel and zinc would properly be addressed under our Program-wide Change regulation, 19 CFR 351.526(a). That regulation states that the Department may take a program-wide change into account in establishing the estimated countervailing duty cash deposit rate if:

(1)the Department determines that subsequent to the period of investigation or review, but before a preliminary determination in an investigation, a program-wide change has occurred; and

(2)the Department is able to measure the change in the amount of countervailable subsidies provided under the program in question. In this investigation, East Pipe and Kingland submitted their monthly purchase prices for hot-rolled steel and zinc for periods prior to and following the May 30, 2007, announcement. The data show fluctuations in the prices of these inputs both before and after the announcement of the export duties. Moreover, the data available for the months after the announcement are limited. For these reasons, we cannot measure the subsidy, if any, arising from the imposition of the export duties, and we are not including these alleged subsidy programs in our cash-deposit rates. IV. *Programs Determined To Be Terminated* *A.Exemption from Payment of Staff and Worker Benefits for Export-oriented Industries* The Department has determined that this program was terminated on January 1, 2002, with no residual benefits. *See CFS from the PRC* and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Programs Determined to be Terminated.” V. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used By East Pipe and Kingland We preliminarily determine that East Pipe and Kingland did not apply for or receive benefits during the POI under the programs listed below. A.Loans and Interest Subsidies Provided Pursuant to the Northeast Revitalization Program B. The “Two Free, Three Half” Program C. Reduced Income Tax Rates for Foreign Invested Enterprises

(FIEs)Based on Location D. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Program for “Productive” FIEs E. Income Tax Exemption Program for Export-oriented FIEs F. Corporate Income Tax Refund Program for Reinvestment of FIE Profits in Export-oriented Enterprises G. Reduced Income Tax Rate for Technology and Knowledge Intensive FIEs H. Reduced Income Tax Rate for High or New Technology FIEs I. Preferential Tax Policies for Research and Development at FIEs J. Income Tax Credits on Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment by Domestically Owned Companies K. Income Tax Credits on Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment by FIEs L. Program to Rebate Antidumping Legal Fees in Shenzen and Zhejiang Provinces M. Funds for “Outward Expansion” of Industries in Guangdong Province N. Export Interest Subsidy Funds for Enterprises Located in Shenzhen and Zhejiang Provinces O. Loans Pursuant to Liaoning Province's Five-year Framework P. VAT and Tariff Exemptions on Imported Equipment Q. VAT Rebates on Domestically Produced Equipment R. The State Key Technologies Renovation Project Fund S. Grants to Loss-making State-owned Enterprises T. Provision of Inputs for Less Than Adequate Remuneration: Natural Gas U. Foreign Currency Retention Program For purposes of this preliminary determination, we have relied on the GOC's and respondent companies' responses to preliminarily determine non-use of the programs listed above. During the course of verification, the Department will further investigate whether these programs were used by respondent companies during the POI. VI. *Programs for Which More Information is Required* A. *Provision of Land for Less than Adequate Remuneration* Citing Article 29 of the *Implementation Rules of the Law on Administration of Land* , land-use rights can be obtained from the government in one of three ways: 1) purchase; 2) lease; and 3) as an equity investment ( *see* GOC response at Exhibit 121 (September 17, 2007)). The GOC further states that the price of land-use rights may be determined by means of public bidding, auction, independent appraisal, and negotiation. East Pipe reported that it obtained its land-use rights through the management buy-out of Maite Steel in 2001 and East Pipe has provided appraisals which, it claims, demonstrate that adequate remuneration was paid for the land. Kingland Group purchased its land use rights in 2000 and transferred a portion of these to Kingland Pipeline in 2002. Kingland provided reference prices contemporaneous with its purchase of land-use rights for similar industrial land. The GOC has indicated, and the company responses appear to confirm, that the administration of state-owned lands is highly decentralized with the authority to sell, lease, or invest land-use rights left to local authorities. At this time, we do not have sufficient information from the local governments to determine whether their provision of land-use rights to East Pipe and Kingland confers a countervailable subsidy. In particular, we do not know how prices for land-use rights are set or the methods for transferring land-use rights. We intend to seek further information on these questions and to issue an interim analysis describing our preliminary findings with respect to this program before the final determination so that parties will have the opportunity to comment on our findings before the final determination. *Other Subsidies (Kingland)* As explained in the *Programs Preliminarily Determined to Be Countervailable* section, above, Kingland received grants from various city, district, and provincial governments. We have preliminarily determined certain of these grants to be countervailable. However, for the other grants, we intend to seek further information regarding the programs under which they were given. Verification In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final determination. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated an individual rate for each exporter/manufacturer of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be: Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy Rate Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd., Tianjin Wa Song Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Shuanglian Galvanizing Products Co., Ltd. 264.98 Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 0 Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd., Kingland Group Co., Ltd, Beijing Kingland Centruy Technologies Co., Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd., and Shanxi Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd. 16.59 All Others 16.59 Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act state that for companies not investigated, we will determine an “all others” rate by weighting the individual company subsidy rate of each of the companies investigated by each company's exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. However, the “all others” rate may not include zero and *de minimis* rates or any rates based solely on the facts available. In this investigation, because we have only one rate that can be used to calculate the “all others” rate, Kingland's rate, we have assigned that rate to “all others.” In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and

(2)of the Act, we are directing CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of CWP from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , and to require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Moreover, in accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A), for Kingland, Shuangjie, and for “all other” Chinese exports of CWP, we are directing CBP to apply the suspension of liquidation to any unliquidated entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date 90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Neither the suspension of liquidation nor the requirement for a cash deposit or bond will apply to merchandise produced and exported by East Pipe because the Department has preliminarily determined that East Pipe did not receive any countervailable subsidies. *ITC Notification* In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination. Disclosure and Public Comment In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), we will disclose to the parties the calculations for this preliminary determination within five days of its announcement. Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than one week after the issuance of the last verification report. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c) (for a further discussion of case briefs). Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities relied upon, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain:

(1)the party's name, address, and telephone;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: November 5, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-22144 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free-Trade Agreement, Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of First Request for Panel Review. SUMMARY: On November 6, 2007, Holcim Apasco, S.A. de C.V. filed a First Request for Panel Review with the United States section of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Panel review was requested of the Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Changed Circumstances Review made by the International Trade Administration, respecting Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico. This determination was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 61863) on November 1, 2007. The NAFTA Secretariat has assigned Case Number USA-MEX-2007-1904-02 to this request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,

(202)482-5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent bi-national panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination. Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews* (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the **Federal Register** on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on November 6, 2007, requesting panel review of the Notice of Final Antidumping Changed Circumstances Review described above. The Rules provide that:

(a)A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is December 6, 2007);

(b)a Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is December 21, 2007); and

(c)the panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review. Dated: November 7, 2007. Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. E7-22174 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD80 Nominations for the 2008 Annual Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for nominations. SUMMARY: In 2006, NOAA established the Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards Program to annually recognize outstanding performances, achievements and leadership by industries, organizations and individuals who promote best stewardship practices for the sustainable use of living marine resources and ecosystems, and who have fostered change and inspired a stewardship ethic within their community. This notice solicits nominations of qualified individuals for the third annual Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards in six award categories listed in this Notice. NMFS has partnered with the Fish for the Future Foundation for this awards program. DATES: Nomination forms and required supporting materials must be received on or before February 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent electronically to the Fish for the Future Foundation, *nominations@fish4thefuturefoundation.org* . Nominations can also be mailed to Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards, ℅ Fish for the Future Foundation, 3382 Gunston Road, Alexandria, VA 22302, or faxed to

(703)379-5777. All information and official nomination forms can be accessed electronically at the Fish for the Future Foundation website *www.fish4thefuturefoundation.org* or NMFS website *www.nmfs.noaa.gov/awards/* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Shea, Fish for the Future Foundation,

(703)379-6101, *Michele.Shea@fish4thefuturefoundation.org* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Established by NMFS, the Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards reflect the values and principles of NOAA and its mission to ensure sustainable management of U.S. fishery resources for the benefit of our Nation. NMFS has partnered with the Fish for the Future Foundation, an Internal Revenue Service-approved non-profit organization, to assist with the awards program. The Fish for the Future Foundation is dedicated to promoting education among the American public on the need for and importance of a vibrant, sustainable fishing industry. The Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards Program is open to fishing industry sectors, organizations, individuals, and state, local and federal government agencies and their employees. Organizations, individuals and agencies cannot nominate themselves. A nominee cannot be nominated for more than one award category. International entities or employees of NMFS are not eligible to receive an award under any category. Presenting an award under each of the six categories will be entirely dependent on the pool nominations received and NMFS' determination of their qualifications. As such, there may be years in which an award is not presented under one or more of the categories. Nominated through a public process, nominees will be considered for the following categories: Special Recognition Award, Stewardship & Sustainability Award, Conservation Partnership Award, Science, Research & Technology Award, Coastal Habitat Restoration Award, and Public Education, Community Service & Media Award. Nominations must be submitted on the official nomination form available at *www.nmfs.noaa.gov/awards/* or *www.fish4thefuturefoundation.org* , and submitted electronically, mailed or faxed to Fish for the Future Foundation (see DATES and ADDRESSES ). Relevant supporting materials, not to exceed 10 pages in length, may be submitted along with the nomination form. At least one reference is required however no more than three references or endorsements will be accepted or considered by the review panel. Nominations will be reviewed by the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (a federal advisory group established to advise the Secretary of Commerce on living marine resource issues) as well as NMFS leadership, making recommendations to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. Final selection of award recipients is made by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. The following award categories are open for nominations: Special Recognition Award — This award honors an individual who has demonstrated a life time achievement in innovative management and outstanding leadership for the stewardship and sustainable use of living marine resources. Stewardship & Sustainability Award — This award recognizes excellence in promoting responsible stewardship and innovative management for long-term social, economic and biological sustainability of living marine resources. Conservation Partnership Award — This award recognizes outstanding achievement in cooperative and collaborative work among stakeholder groups to foster best practices in sustainable living marine resources management. Science, Research & Technology Award — This award recognizes excellence in the field of applied fisheries research. Nominations will be considered for advancements in technology to improve fisheries monitoring, reduce bycatch, protect habitat, conserve protected species, and enhance fishing operations as well as other technological advances that reduce the impacts of human activity on the marine environment. Coastal Habitat Restoration Award — This award recognizes significant achievements made in coastal habitat restoration, including the development of innovative approaches and community based support necessary to accomplish the ambitious goals inherent with these projects. Public Education, Community Service & Media Award — This award recognizes efforts to inform the general public about marine fisheries and living marine resources in the United States, or efforts to support the nation's fishing communities through community service. Evaluation of nominations will include but are not limited to the following criteria: Leadership — the individual or the overall team effort that has been demonstrated over a sustained period of time in support of the stewardship and sustained use of living marine resources. Impact on Stewardship — the degree of stewardship and conservation ethics and practices fostered within the larger community of living marine fisheries stakeholders and users. Ecological Significance — the impact and benefit to the overall health and abundance provided to living marine resources. Long-term Significance — the impact to the science, management and economic sustainability of living marine resources. These awards are presented annually. This is the third year of the Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards. Information on last year's awards and award recipients can be found at *www.nmfs.noaa.gov/awards* . Dated: November 6, 2007. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-22145 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD51 Stock Assessment of Small Coastal Sharks in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of a final stock assessment report on small coastal sharks

(SCS)in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The report summarizes the consensus of review panel assessments, describes methodologies used to determine SCS complex stock status, and details relevant working documents, including copies of Data and Assessment workshop reports. ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the SCS final stock assessment report should be sent to Robert Smith, Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or may be sent via facsimile

(fax)to (301)713-1917 or phone (301)713-2347. Electronic copies of the stock assessment and all supporting documents may also be obtained on the internet at: *http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the methods, data, and results of the stock assessment, contact Enric Cortes by phone at

(850)234-6541 or by fax at

(850)235-3559. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This assessment for SCS was conducted, as close as possible, to the procedures of the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process to ensure the best available data and techniques were used. SEDAR is a cooperative Fishery Management Council process initiated in 2002 to improve the quality and reliability of fishery stock assessments in the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean. SEDAR emphasizes constituent and stakeholder participation in assessment development, transparency in the assessment process, and a rigorous and independent scientific review of completed stock assessments. SEDAR is organized around three workshops. The first in the series for the SCS assessment, the Data Workshop, was held in Panama City, FL, February 5 through February 9, 2007, and reviewed and compiled fisheries, monitoring, and life history data. An Assessment Workshop, the second workshop in the series, was held in Panama City, FL, May 7 through May 11, 2007, and developed assessment models and estimated population parameters using the information provided from the Data Workshop. The Review Workshop was the final workshop, in which a panel of independent experts met in Panama City, FL, from August 6 through August 10, 2007, and reviewed the data and assessments and recommended the most appropriate values of critical population and management quantities. All workshops were open to the public. More information on the SEDAR process can be found at *http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/* . Additionally, the final stock assessment report and all supporting documents can be found at that website under the heading “SEDAR 13 - Small Coastal Sharks.” The assessment reviewed data and models for the SCS complex and for each individual within the SCS complex, as per recommendations in previous assessments. This allowed individual analyses, discussions, and stock status determinations for five separate assessments: 1) SCS complex, 2) Atlantic sharpnose shark, 3) bonnethead shark, 4) blacknose shark, and 5) finetooth sharks. These assessments are included in one report as many of the indices, data, and issues overlap among assessments. The Review Panel found that the data and methods used were appropriate and the best available. The Review Panel also endorsed recommendations for future research contained in the Data Assessment workshop reports, added additional recommendations, and provided comments on the SEDAR process to consider in the future. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 *et seq.* and 1801 *et seq.* Dated: November 5, 2007. Emily H. Menashes Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-22115 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD78 Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Applications for three scientific research permits and three permit renewals. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received six scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)and to help guide management and conservation efforts. DATES: Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES ) no later than 5 p.m. Pacific standard time on December 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the applications should be sent to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5441 or by e-mail to *resapps.nwr@NOAA.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2005, Fax: 503-230-5441, e-mail: *Garth.Griffin@noaa.gov* ). Permit application instructions are available from the address above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Species Covered in This Notice The following listed species are covered in this notice: Chinook salmon ( *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha* ): threatened lower Columbia River (LCR), threatened upper Willamette River (UWR), endangered upper Columbia River (UCR), threatened Snake River

(SR)spring/summer (spr/sum), threatened SR fall, threatened Puget Sound (PS). Chum salmon ( *O. keta* ): threatened Columbia River (CR). Steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ): threatened LCR, threatened UWR, threatened middle Columbia River (MCR), threatened SR, endangered UCR, threatened PS. Coho salmon ( *O. kisutch* ): threatened LCR, threatened Southern Oregon Northern California Coasts (SONCC). Sockeye salmon ( *O. nerka* ): endangered SR. Sturgeon: Threatened green ( *Acipenser medirostris* ). Authority Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits:

(1)are applied for in good faith;

(2)if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and

(3)are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS. Applications Received Permit 1119 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking to renew research permit 1119 for another five years. The permit currently covers five studies that, among them, would annually take adult and juvenile endangered UCR spring chinook salmon (natural and artificially propagated) and UCR steelhead (natural and artificially propagated) at various points in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Yakima River watersheds and other points in eastern Washington State. The ongoing research projects are: Study 1 Peshastin Creek Salmonid Production and Life History Investigations; Study 2 Entiat Basin Spawning Ground Surveys; Study 3 Snorkel Surveys in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Yakima Watersheds and Other Waterways of Eastern Washington; Study 4 Fish Salvage Activities in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Yakima Watersheds and other Waterways of Eastern Washington. Study 5 would be changed from “Icicle Creek Salmonid Production and Life History Investigations” to “Capture of Bull Trout, Lamprey, and Other Species in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Yakima Watersheds.” Under the proposal, listed adult and juvenile salmon and steelhead would be variously

(a)captured (using nets, traps, and electrofishing equipment) and anesthetized;

(b)sampled for biological information and tissue samples;

(c)tagged with PIT tags or other identifiers;

(d)marked and recaptured to determine trap efficiency, and

(e)released. The research has many purposes and would benefit listed salmon and steelhead in different ways. In general, the purposes of the research are to

(a)gain current information on the status and productivity of various fish populations (to be used in determining the effectiveness of restoration programs);

(b)collect data on the how well artificial propagation programs are helping salmon recovery efforts (looking at hatchery and wild fish interactions);

(c)support the aquatic species restoration goals found in several regional plans; and

(d)fulfill ESA requirements for several fish hatcheries. The fish would benefit through improved recovery actions, better designs for hatchery supplementation programs, and by being rescued outright when they are stranded by low flows in Eastern Washington streams. The FWS does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may die as an unintentional result of the research activities. Permit 1124 The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is seeking to renew Permit 1124 for another five years. The receipt of this permit request was originally noticed in August of 2007 (72 FR 43628). Since then, the applicant has determined that they will seek approval for the majority of their research though another process under section 4(d) of the ESA. The remaining portions of the current permit would only affect juvenile and adult endangered sockeye salmon. The remaining research would cover two projects directed at monitoring natural and hatchery Chinook salmon (during which sockeye may rarely be captured), one project centered on sockeye salmon reintroduction in Idaho lakes, and a general provision for rescuing and salvaging sockeye salmon. The purposes of the research are to monitor listed salmonid health, help guide sockeye salmon recovery operations, and outrightly rescue sockeye salmon in need of help due to circumstances such as being trapped by low flows in Idaho Streams. The benefits to the salmon will come in the form of information to help guide resource managers in restoring the listed fish and, as stated, in rescuing them from peril. The fish would be captured by various methods screw trap, electrofishing, hook-and-line-angling, mid-water trawl and most would immediately be released. A few of the fish may die as a result of the research. Permit 1406 NMFS' Northwest Fisheries Science Center is seeking to renew its 5 year permit to annually take juvenile (and precocious male) threatened SR spring/ summer chinook salmon (naturally produced) and juvenile threatened SR steelhead at various places in the Salmon River drainage in Idaho, at Little Goose Dam on the lower Snake River, and at multiple subbbasins in Northeast Oregon, Southeast Washington, and Idaho including the Clearwater and Grande Ronde Rivers. The research is a continuation of long-term, ongoing studies that have been in place for more than 15 years. The current permit covers two studies: Monitoring the Migrations of wild Snake River Spring/ summer Chinook Salmon Smolts and Monitoring and Evaluating the Genetic Characteristics of Supplemented Salmon and Steelhead. The applicant is asking that only the first of these studies be renewed. Under this study, the listed fish would be variously captured (using seines, dipnets, and electrofishing), re-captured at a smolt bypass facility, anesthetized, tagged with PIT tags or otherwise marked, tissue sampled, weighed, measured, and released. The research has many purposes and would benefit listed salmon and steelhead in different ways. In general, the purpose of the research is to continue monitoring juvenile outmigration behavior among steelhead and spring/summer chinook salmon populations in Idaho. The research will benefit the fish by continuing to supply managers with the information they need to budget water releases at hydropower facilities in ways that will help protect migrating juveniles. The applicant does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but small percentage may die as an unintended result of the research. Permit 10020 The City of Bellingham Environmental Resources Division is requesting a 5-year research permit to take PS Chinook salmon and steelhead. The purpose of the research is to assess the effectiveness of habitat restoration measures implemented as part of the Whatcom Creek long-term Restoration Plan. In June of 1999, aquatic and wetland habitats in Whatcom Creek were severely affected by a fuel leak and subsequent explosion. The information gathered by this research would benefit listed salmonids by helping resource managers evaluate the effectiveness of the habitat restoration efforts. The applicant proposes to capture fish using a smolt trap. Listed fish would be captured, identified, measured, and released. The applicant does not intend to kill any listed fish species, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities. Permit 10042 The U.S. Geological Survey is requesting a 5-year research permit to conduct studies of interactions between American shad ( *Alosa sappidissima* ) and salmonid restoration efforts in the lower Columbia River. The applicant proposes to capture a few adults and juveniles of all species listed at the beginning of this notice except for those found in the Puget Sound, Washington. The purpose of the study is to determine how shad are benefitted by or detract from salmonid restoration programs in the Columbia River basin. The listed fish will benefit from these efforts as managers learn how the non-native shad affect both the local salmonids and the programs designed to restore them. The applicant proposes to capture the fish using a variety of methods: gillnetting, electrofishing, angling, seines, cast nets, etc. All listed fish captured during the research would be immediately returned to the water at the point of capture. The applicant does not propose to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities. Permit 10077 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office is requesting a 1-year research permit to take PS Chinook salmon and steelhead. The purposes of the study are to

(1)provide the City of Seattle, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle District), and the Washington Department of Transportation with information on juvenile Chinook salmon movement patterns and habitat use in Lake Washington and the Lake Washington Ship Canal; and

(2)collect habitat use information on two key predators of juvenile Chinook salmon: smallmouth bass and northern pikeminnow. The information gathered by this research would benefit listed salmonids by helping resource managers

(1)determine the relationship between habitat use and shoreline development,

(2)guide the city's efforts to improve habitat conditions,

(3)predict the effects of habitat modifications,

(4)help Lake Washington municipalities with their shoreline management programs, and

(5)determine how fish pass through the Ballard Locks and identify ways to improve fish passage. For the habitat use study, the applicant proposes to obtain juvenile Chinook salmon from a screw trap operated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. An acoustic tag would be surgically implanted in the captured juvenile Chinook salmon and the fish would be released into Lake Washington. In the predator sampling study, the applicant would capture fish by using hook and line fishing, beach seines, and gill nets. Listed fish captured during the predator sampling study would be released immediately. The applicant does not intend to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the **Federal Register** . Dated: November 6, 2007. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-22108 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Membership of the Defense Information Systems Agency Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board AGENCY: Defense Information Systems Agency, Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of Membership of the Defense Information Systems Agency Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; correction. SUMMARY: On October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60322) the Department of Defense published a notice announcing the appointment of members to the Defense Information Systems Agency

(DISA)Performance Review Board. The listing published was incorrect. This notice announces the correct members. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 24, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Patti Wai, SES Program Manager, Defense Information Systems Agency, P.O. Box 4502, Arlington, Virginia 22204-4502,

(703)607-4411. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4214(c)(4), the following are the names and titles of DISA career executives appointed to serve as members of the DISA Performance Review Board. Appointees will serve one-year terms, effective upon publication of this notice. RADM Elizabeth A. Hight, USN, Vice Director, DISA, Chairperson. Ms. Diann L. McCoy, Component Acquisition Executive, DISA, Member. Mr. John J. Garing, Director for Strategic Planning and Information/Chief Information Officer, DISA, Member. Mr. John J. Penkoske, Jr., Director for Manpower, Personnel, and Security, DISA, Member. Dated: November 5, 2007. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD. [FR Doc. E7-22106 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Extension of Public Scoping Period and Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy

(DON)published a notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental EIS to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for “Developing Home Port Facilities for Three NIMITZ Class Aircraft Carriers in Support of the U.S. Pacific Fleet” dated July 1999 with its Record of Decision signed on 28 January 2000 and published in the **Federal Register** on 8 February 2000 (65 FR 6181) and announced public comment period in the **Federal Register** , 72 FR 59085 on October 18, 2007. This notice announces the extension of the public scoping period from November 19, 2007 to December 3, 2007. DATES AND ADDRESSES: The agency must receive comments on or before December 3, 2007. Comments may be submitted by mail or electronically through the project Web site. Comments may be mailed to the following address: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, *Attention:* Ms. Ann Rosenberry (Code OPME.AR), 2730 McKean St., Building 291, San Diego, CA 92136. Comments may be submitted electronically at the project Web site at: *http://www.nimitzcarriersseis.com* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ann Rosenberry, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2730 McKean St., Building 291, San Diego, CA 92136; telephone: 619-556-7368, facsimile: 619-556-0195. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to the recent wildfires in the San Diego area, the Department of the Navy has decided to extend the public scoping period for this proposed action. Accordingly, the public scoping period is hereby extended for 15 days. To receive full consideration, comments must be received on or before December 3, 2007. Dated: November 7, 2007. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-22172 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Partially Closed Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors will meet to make such inquiry, as the Board shall deem necessary into the state of morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods of the Naval Academy. The meeting will include discussions of personnel issues at the Naval Academy, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The executive session of this meeting will be closed to the public. DATES: The open session of the meeting will be held on Monday, December 10, 2007, from 8 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. The closed Executive Session will be held from 10:45 a.m. to 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the United States Naval Academy Alumni Hall; United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Andrew B. Koy, USN, Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000, telephone: 410-293-1503. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The executive session of the meeting will consist of discussions of personnel issues at the Naval Academy and internal Board of Visitors matters. The proposed closed session from 1110-1200 will include a discussion of new and pending courts-martial and state criminal proceedings involving the Midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include an update on the pending/ongoing sexual assault cases, rape cases, etc. The proposed closed session from 1045-1200 will include a discussion of new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and nonjudicial punishments involving the Midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade. Discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because it will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(5), (6), and

(7)of title 5, United States Code. Dated: November 6, 2007. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate Generals Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-22113 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Electro-Optic Instruments, Inc. AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Electro-Optic Instruments, Inc., a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the fields of use of an array of four

(4)or more fiber optic sensors for the detection of sub-sonic, sonic, and ultra-sonic pressure waves, said field to exclude any and all medical applications; and one or more fiber optic pressure sensors for use in catheters for pressure sensing for medical applications in the United States and certain foreign countries, the Government-owned inventions described in U.S. Patent No. 7,020,354: Intensity Modulated Fiber Optic Pressure Sensor, Navy Case No. 84,638.//U.S. Patent No. 7,149,374: Fiber Optic Pressure Sensor, Navy Case No. 84,557.//U.S. Patent Application No. 11/250,708: Intensity Modulated Fiber Optic Static Pressure Sensor System, Navy Case No. 97,279.//U.S. Patent Application No. 11/250,709: Multiplexed Fiber Optic Sensor System, Navy Case No. 97,488 and any continuations, divisionals or re-issues thereof. DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than November 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita Manak, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone: 202-767-3083. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax: 202-404-7920, e-mail: *rita.manak@nrl.navy.mil* or use courier delivery to expedite response. (Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404.) Dated: November 5, 2007. T. M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-22097 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Correction Notice. SUMMARY: On November 5, 2007, the Department of Education published a comment period notice in the **Federal Register** (Page 62446, Column 2) for the information collection, “Online and Distance Education Courses at Postsecondary Institutions.” The title of the notice is hereby corrected to “After School Programs at Public Elementary Schools.” The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Dated: November 5, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. [FR Doc. E7-22085 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Mathematics Advisory Panel AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education, National Mathematics Advisory Panel. ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting and Public Hearing. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming meeting, including a public hearing, with members of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. The notice also describes the functions of the Panel. Notice of this meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of their opportunity to attend. DATES: Wednesday, November 28, 2007. *Time:* 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m. ADDRESSES: Baltimore-Washington International

(BWI)Airport Marriott, 1743 West Nursery Road, Baltimore, MD 21240. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyrrell Flawn, Executive Director, National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202; telephone:

(202)260-8354. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panel was established by Executive Order 13398. The purpose of this Panel is to foster greater knowledge of and improved performance in mathematics among American students, in order to keep America competitive, support American talent and creativity, encourage innovation throughout the American economy, and help State, local, territorial, and tribal governments give the nation's children and youth the education they need to succeed. The meeting will be held at the Baltimore-Washington International

(BWI)Airport Marriott in Baltimore, MD, on Wednesday, November 28, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. From 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and again from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. the Panel will discuss the Final Report draft. Individuals interested in attending the meeting are advised to register in advance to ensure space availability. Please contact Jennifer Graban at *Jennifer.Graban@ed.gov* by Wednesday, November 21, 2007. This meeting will not include a public comment session, as the Panel will be concluding its work on the Final Report. However, if you would like to provide comments to the Panel, please do so in written form, via e-mail at *NationalMathPanel@ed.gov* , by Wednesday, November 21, 2007. Written comments will also be accepted at the meeting site. Please note that comments submitted to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel in any format are considered to be part of the public record of the Panel's deliberations, and will be posted on the Web site. The Panel has submitted its Preliminary Report to the President, through the U.S. Secretary of Education. The Preliminary Report is available at *http://www.ed.gov/mathpanel.* The Final Report will be submitted not later than February 28, 2008, and will, at a minimum, contain recommendations on improving mathematics education based on the best available scientific evidence. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who will need accommodations in order to attend the meeting, such as interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or materials in alternative format, should notify Jennifer Graban at *Jennifer.Graban@ed.gov* no later than Wednesday, November 21, 2007. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date, but cannot guarantee their availability. Records are kept of all Panel proceedings and are available for public inspection at the staff office for the Panel, from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister/index.html.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: November 7, 2007. Margaret Spellings, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education. [FR Doc. E7-22132 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY: United States Election Assistance Commission. ACTION: Notice of public meeting for EAC Board of Advisors. Date and Time: Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. and Thursday, December 13, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. and Friday, December 14, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Place: Omni Hotel Downtown, 700 San Jacinto Boulevard at 8th Street, Austin, TX 78701, Phone number

(512)476-3700. Purpose: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission

(EAC)Board of Advisors, as required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, will meet to consider and receive presentations on the proposed next iteration of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), as were submitted to EAC from the commission's Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC). The Board of Advisors will formulate recommendations to EAC regarding the guidelines and consider other administrative matters. The EAC Standards Board will meet at the same time and some of the Board of Advisors sessions will be held jointly with the Standards Board. This meeting will be open to the public. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Whitener, Telephone:

(202)566-3100. Thomas R. Wilkey, Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission. [FR Doc. 07-5636 Filed 11-7-07; 4:24 pm]

Connectionstraces to 43

Traces to 43 documents