Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

24,490 words·~111 min read·/register/2007/11/15/07-5669

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

BILLING CODE 4120-01-P 72 220 Thursday, November 15, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Parts 305 and 318 [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0050] RIN 0579-AC62 Interstate Movement of Fruit From Hawaii AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the Hawaiian fruits and vegetables regulations to allow mangosteen, dragon fruit, melon, pods of cowpea and its relatives, breadfruit, jackfruit, and fresh moringa pods to be moved interstate from Hawaii under certain conditions.

This action would allow the movement of these tropical fruits from Hawaii to the continental United States while continuing to provide protection against the spread of plant pests from Hawaii to the continental United States. 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-2007-0050 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-2007-0050, 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-2007-0050. *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: Mr. David B. Lamb, Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;

(301)734-8758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Hawaiian fruits and vegetables regulations, contained in 7 CFR 318.13 through 318.13-17 (referred to below as the regulations), govern, among other things, the interstate movement of fruits and vegetables from Hawaii to the continental United States. The regulations are necessary to prevent the spread of plant diseases and pests that occur in Hawaii but not in the continental United States. The regulations in § 318.13-4f identify specific fruits and vegetables that are allowed to be moved interstate from Hawaii if, among other things, they are treated with irradiation in accordance with our phytosanitary treatments regulations in 7 CFR part 305. The regulations in part 305 require that: 1. Irradiation treatment must be carried out only in Hawaii or in non-fruit-fly supporting areas of the United States (i.e., States other than Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, or Virginia); 2. The irradiation treatment facility and treatment protocol must be approved by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); 3. In order to be approved, a facility must be able to administer the minimum absorbed ionizing radiation doses specified in paragraph

(a)of § 305.34 to the articles, be constructed so as to provide physically separate locations for treated and untreated fruits and vegetables, complete a compliance agreement with APHIS, and be certified by Plant Protection and Quarantine, APHIS, for initial use and annually for subsequent use; 4. Irradiation treatment must be monitored by an inspector, who may be either an APHIS employee or a designated State plant regulatory official; 5. If treated in Hawaii, the fruits and vegetables must be packaged in pest-proof cartons and must be sealed with seals that will visually indicate if the cartons have been opened. Then, the pallet-load of pest-proof cartons must be wrapped, before leaving the irradiation facility, in one of the following ways:

(1)With polyethylene sheet wrap;

(2)with net wrapping; or

(3)with strapping so that each carton on an outside row of the pallet load is constrained by a metal or plastic strap. In addition, pallet loads must be labeled before leaving the irradiation facility with treatment lot numbers, packaging, and treatment facility identification and location, and dates of packing and treatment; 6. If moving to the mainland for treatment, the untreated fruits and vegetables must be shipped in shipping containers sealed prior to interstate movement with seals that will visually indicate if the shipping containers have been opened; 7. The fruits and vegetables must receive the minimum absorbed ionizing radiation doses specified in paragraph

(a)of § 305.34; 8. Dosimetry systems in the irradiation facility must map, control, and record the absorbed doses; 9. The absorbed dose must be measured by a dosimeter that can accurately measure the absorbed doses specified in paragraph

(a)of § 305.34; 10. The number and placement of dosimeters must be in accordance with American Society of Testing and Materials standards; 11. The irradiation facility must keep records or invoices for each treatment lot for a period that exceeds the shelf life of the irradiated food product by 1 year and must make those records available to an inspector for inspection; and 12. An inspector will issue a certificate for the interstate movement of fruits and vegetables treated and handled in Hawaii in accordance with the regulations in § 305.34. An inspector will issue a limited permit for the interstate movement of untreated fruits and vegetables from Hawaii for irradiation treatment on the continental United States in accordance with the regulations in § 305.34. Paragraphs

(c)and

(d)of § 305.34 set forth procedures for applying for approval and inspection of a treatment facility, and procedures for denial and withdrawal of approval. Paragraph

(e)of § 305.34 further provides that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its inspectors are not responsible for any loss or damage resulting from any treatment prescribed or supervised. The State of Hawaii has requested that APHIS amend the regulations to allow the interstate movement of commercial shipments of Hawaiian breadfruit ( *Artocarpus altilis* ), fresh pods of cowpea ( *Vigna unguiculata* ) and its relatives, dragon fruit (species of *Hylocereus* and *Selenicereus* ), jackfruit ( *Artocarpus heterophyllus* ), mangosteen ( *Garcinia mangostana* ), melon ( *Cucumis melo* ), and fresh moringa pods ( *Moringa oleifera* ) following irradiation treatment. All of these tropical fruits are currently prohibited from being moved to the continental United States from the State of Hawaii. As part of our evaluation of that request, we have prepared pest risk assessments

(PRAs)for the commodities under consideration and a risk management document that proposes risk mitigation measures to prevent the plant pests associated with each fruit from being introduced into the continental United States. Copies of the PRAs and the risk management document can be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov). The risk management document considered the protections that would be afforded by compliance with the provisions of § 305.34 (i.e., the requirements described previously), determined that they were appropriate to address the risks presented by some of the pests of concern, and suggested some additional mitigations to address the remaining identified risks. Based on those suggestions in the risk management document, we propose the following measures be applied to breadfruit, fresh pods of cowpea and its relatives, dragon fruit, jackfruit, mangosteen, melon, and fresh moringa pods moved from the State of Hawaii to the continental United States. Breadfruit and Jackfruit The PRA for breadfruit and jackfruit identified 13 quarantine pests which could potentially follow the pathway from Hawaii to the continental United States. These included several species of fruit fly, scale insects, mealybugs, and thrips. The PRA also identified the fungus *Phytophthora tropicalis* as a pathogen likely to follow the pathway. We have found that irradiation at the 150 gray dose is effective against all fruit flies and certain other pests. 1 To protect against the introduction of other insect pests into the continental United States, we would require that breadfruit and jackfruit to be treated with the 150 gray dose would have to either receive a post-harvest dip in accordance with treatment schedule T102-c (warm soapy water and brushing) as provided in § 305.42(b), or originate from an orchard or growing area that was previously treated with a broad-spectrum insecticide during the growing season and a pre-harvest inspection of the orchard or growing area found the fruit free of any surface pests as prescribed in a compliance agreement. The fruit would also have to be inspected after harvest by an APHIS inspector in Hawaii and found free of spiraling whitefly ( *Aleurodicus disperses* ), inornate scale ( *Aonidiella inornata* ), green scale ( *Coccus viridis* ), red wax scale ( *Ceroplastes rubens* ), gray pineapple mealybug ( *Dysmicoccus neobrevipes* ), pink hibiscus mealybug ( *Maconellicoccus hirsutus* ), spherical mealybug ( *Nipaecoccus viridis* ), citrus mealybug ( *Pseudococcus cryptus* ), and melon thrips ( *Thrips palmi* ). The fruit would also have to be inspected for signs of thrip damage. 1 There is no data regarding the radio-tolerance of breadfruit and jackfruit at the dose levels used by USDA approved irradiation treatments. The 400 gray dose has been found to be effective against all insect pests, excluding adults and pupae of the order Lepidoptera, which are the stages that generally do not feed on fruit or pods. The PRA for breadfruit and jackfruit did not identify any quarantine significant Lepidopteran pests likely to follow the pathway. Therefore, breadfruit and jackfruit receiving treatment at the 400 gray dose in Hawaii would not be required to undergo additional inspection in Hawaii for insect pests. Fruit to be moved interstate for treatment on the mainland would have to be treated with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 gray. However, neither the 150 gray nor the 400 gray dose has been determined to be effective against the fungus *Phytophthora tropicalis* . Therefore, in addition to irradiation, breadfruit and jackfruit would have to receive a post-harvest fungicidal dip appropriate for the fungus *Phytophthora tropicalis* or originate from an orchard that was previously treated with an appropriate fungicide during the growing season and a pre-harvest inspection of the orchard found the fruit free of symptoms of the fungus. Regardless of the irradiation dose applied, the fruit would have to be free of leaves and stems. Breadfruit and jackfruit moved into the continental United States after treatment in Hawaii would be subject to inspection upon arrival in accordance with § 318.13-8 if inspectors determine that such inspection is necessary. Cowpea and Its Relatives The PRA for fresh pods of cowpea and its relatives identified 11 quarantine pests which could potentially follow the pathway from Hawaii to the continental United States. These included several species of fruit flies, mealybugs, and thrips, as well as cassava red mite ( *Oligonychus biharensis* ) and several Lepidopteran pests. Fresh pods of cowpea and its relatives would have to be treated with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 gray because the 150 gray dose is not known to be effective against the internal stages of pests of the order Lepidoptera. The 400 gray dose is effective against all insect pests, excluding adults and pupae of the order Lepidoptera. However, neither the 150 gray nor the 400 gray dose have been determined to be effective against the cassava red mite. Therefore, fresh pods of cowpea and its relatives would have to be inspected after harvest by an APHIS inspector in Hawaii and found free of adults and pupae of the order Lepidoptera and the cassava red mite. The pods would have to be free of leaves and stems. Pods moved into the continental United States after treatment in Hawaii would be subject to inspection upon arrival in accordance with § 318.13-8 if inspectors determine that such inspection is necessary. Dragon Fruit The PRA for dragon fruit identified five quarantine significant pests which could potentially follow the pathway from Hawaii to the continental United States. These included two species of fruit fly, Oriental fruit fly ( *Bactrocera dorsalis* ), and Mediterranean fruit fly ( *Ceratitis capitata* ), and three species of mealybug. We have found that irradiation at the 150 gray dose is effective against all fruit flies and certain other pests. To protect against the introduction of other insect pests into the continental United States, we would require that dragon fruit to be treated with the 150 gray dose would have to either receive a post-harvest dip in accordance with treatment schedule T102-c (warm soapy water and brushing) as provided in § 305.42(b), or originate from an orchard or growing area that was previously treated with a broad-spectrum insecticide during the growing season and a pre-harvest inspection of the orchard or growing area found the fruit free of any surface pests as prescribed in a compliance agreement. We would also require dragon fruit to be treated with the 150 gray dose to be inspected after harvest by an APHIS inspector in Hawaii and found free of gray pineapple mealybug, pink hibiscus mealybug, and citrus mealybug. Sepals, if present on the fruit sampled for inspection, would have to be removed during the pre-departure inspection. The 400 gray dose is effective against all insect pests, excluding adults and pupae of the order Lepidoptera. The PRA for dragon fruit did not identify any Lepidopteran quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway. Dragon fruit receiving treatment at the 400 gray dose in Hawaii would not be required to undergo additional inspection in Hawaii for insect pests. Fruit to be moved interstate for treatment on the continental would have to be treated with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 gray. Regardless of the irradiation dose applied, the fruit would have to be free of leaves and stems. Dragon fruit moved into the continental United States after treatment in Hawaii would be subject to inspection upon arrival in accordance with § 318.13-8 if inspectors determine that such inspection is necessary. Mangosteen The PRA for mangosteen identified six quarantine pests which could potentially follow the pathway from Hawaii to the continental United States, including fruit flies, mealybugs, and *Thrips florum* . We have found that irradiation at the 150 gray dose is effective against all fruit flies and certain other pests. To protect against the introduction of other insect pests into the continental United States, we would require that mangosteen to be treated with the 150 gray dose would have to either receive a post-harvest dip in accordance with treatment schedule T102-c (warm soapy water and brushing) as provided in § 305.42(b), or originate from an orchard or growing area that was previously treated with a broad-spectrum insecticide during the growing season and a pre-harvest inspection of the orchard or growing area found the fruit free of any surface pests as prescribed in a compliance agreement. We would also require mangosteen to be inspected after harvest by an APHIS inspector in Hawaii and found free of gray pineapple mealybug, pink hibiscus mealybug, citrus mealybug, and *Thrips florum* . Sepals, if present on the fruit sampled for inspection, would have to be removed during the pre-departure inspection. The 400 gray dose is effective against all insect pests, excluding adults and pupae of the order Lepidoptera. The PRA for mangosteen did not identify any quarantine significant Lepidopteran pests likely to follow the pathway. Mangosteen receiving treatment at the 400 gray dose in Hawaii would not be required to undergo additional inspection for insect pests. Fruit to be moved interstate for treatment on the continental would have to be treated with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 gray. Regardless of the irradiation dose applied, the fruit would have to be free of leaves and stems. Mangosteen moved into the continental United States from Hawaii would be subject to inspection upon arrival in accordance with § 318.13-8 if inspectors determine that such inspection is necessary. Melon The PRA for melon identified four quarantine significant pests which could potentially follow the pathway from Hawaii to the continental United States, including fruit flies and spiraling whitefly. We have found that irradiation at the 150 gray dose is effective against all fruit flies and certain other pests. To protect against the introduction of other insect pests into the continental United States, we would require that melons to be treated with the 150 gray dose would have to either receive a post-harvest dip in accordance with treatment schedule T102-c (warm soapy water and brushing) as provided in § 305.42(b), or originate from an orchard or growing area that was previously treated with a broad-spectrum insecticide during the growing season and a pre-harvest inspection of the orchard or growing area found the fruit free of any surface pests as prescribed in a compliance agreement. We would also require Hawaiian melons to be inspected after harvest by an APHIS inspector in Hawaii and found free of spiraling whitefly. The 400 gray dose is effective against all insect pests, excluding adults and pupae of the order Lepidoptera. The PRA for melon did not identify any quarantine significant Lepidopteran pests likely to follow the pathway. Melons receiving treatment at the 400 gray dose in Hawaii would not be required to undergo additional inspection for insect pests. Fruit to be moved interstate for treatment on the continental would have to be treated with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 gray. Regardless of the irradiation dose applied, the fruit would have to be washed to remove dirt and be free of leaves and stems. Melons moved into the continental United States after treatment in Hawaii would be subject to inspection upon arrival in accordance with § 318.13-8 if inspectors determine that such inspection is necessary. Moringa Pods The PRA for fresh moringa pods identified seven quarantine significant pests which could potentially follow the pathway from Hawaii to the continental United States, including fruit flies, spiraling whitefly, scale insects, and citrus mealybug. We have found that irradiation at the 150 gray dose is effective against all fruit flies and certain other pests. To protect against the introduction of other insect pests into the continental United States, we would require that moringa pods to be treated with the 150 gray dose would have to be either receive a post-harvest dip in accordance with treatment schedule T102-c (warm soapy water and brushing) as provided in § 305.42(b), or originate from an orchard or growing area that was previously treated with a broad-spectrum insecticide during the growing season and a pre-harvest inspection of the orchard or growing area found the fruit free of any surface pests as prescribed in a compliance agreement. We would also require moringa pods to be inspected after harvest by an APHIS inspector in Hawaii and found free of spiraling whitefly, inornate scale, green scale, and citrus mealybug. The 400 gray dose is effective against all insect pests, excluding adults and pupae of the order Lepidoptera. The PRA for moringa pods did not identify any Lepidopteran quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway. Moringa pods receiving treatment at the 400 gray dose in Hawaii would not be required to undergo additional inspection or treatment for insect pests. Moringa pods to be moved interstate for treatment on the continental would have to be treated with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 gray. Regardless of the irradiation dose applied, moringa pods moved into the continental United States would be subject to inspection upon arrival in accordance with § 318.13-8 if inspectors determine that such inspection is necessary. We believe the mitigations described above will allow these tropical fruits to move from Hawaii to the continental United States while continuing to prevent plant pests from entering the continental United States from Hawaii. Irradiation Treatments for Three Additional Pests Paragraph

(a)of § 305.31 currently provides approved irradiation doses against the specific plant pests that may be present on fruits and vegetables that are imported into the United States. Studies by the Department's Agricultural Research Service have found that a minimum absorbed dose of 150 gray is adequate to treat commodities in which coconut scale ( *Aspidiotus destructor* ) 2 and white peach scale ( *Pseudaulacaspis pentagona* ) 3 may be present, and that a minimum absorbed dose of 100 gray is adequate to treat commodities in which *Copitarsia decolora* (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) 4 may be present. Therefore, we propose to amend § 305.31(a) to add these irradiation doses for these three plant pests. 2 Follett, P.A. “Irradiation as a phytosanitary treatment for *Aspidiotus destructor* Signoret (Homoptera: Diaspididae).” *Journal of Economic Entomology* 99: 1138-1142. 3 Follett, P.A. “Irradiation as a phytosanitary treatment for White Peach Scale (Homoptera: Diaspididae).” *Journal of Economic Entomology* 99: 1974-1978. 4 Maldonado, Marisela Huamán. “Final report: Gamma irradiation as a quarantine treatment against *Copitarsia decolora* (Guenée) in fresh asparagus.” Copies of this technical report can be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov). Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule would allow the interstate movement mangosteen, dragon fruit, melon, fresh pods of cowpea and its relatives, breadfruit, jackfruit, and moringa pods from Hawaii after irradiation treatment. As a condition of entry, these fruits would have to meet certain other inspection and treatment requirements. This action would allow for the interstate movement of these fruits into the continental United States while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests. Tropical specialty fruit production in Hawaii has been increasing rapidly in recent years. 5 Hawaii's growers produced and sold an estimated 1.5 million pounds of tropical specialty fruit in 2005, the highest sales on record and 50 percent more than was produced and sold in 2004. 6 Higher yields from maturing orchards and expansion of the harvested area have contributed to the increased production. Sales in 2005 were valued at $2.7 million, 40 percent more than in 2004. 5 Tropical specialty fruits include: Abiu, atemoya, breadfruit, caimito, canistel, cherimoya, durian, jaboticaba, jackfruit, langsat, longan, loquat, litchi, mango, mangosteen, persimmon, poha, rambutan, rollina, sapodilla, soursop, starfruit, and white sapote. 6 The statistics in this paragraph are taken from USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), “Hawaii Tropical Specialty Fruits,” released August 8, 2006. *http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/fruit/tropfrt.pdf.* This proposed rule, if finalized, is not expected to result in significant economic effects on mainland U.S. producers. The tropical specialty fruits included in this proposed rule are not commercially grown in the continental United States. The proposed rule would benefit Hawaiian producers by providing a broader market for these fruits. Their movement from Hawaii would compete against imports from other countries, and the only effects for U.S. producers would be the benefits that accrue to Hawaiian producers. Melons and cowpeas are produced in the continental United States, but effects of allowing the interstate movement of melons from Hawaii on U.S. mainland producers of these products are expected to be minimal. Melons The predominant U.S. melon varieties are cantaloupes, honeydews, and watermelons, for which the value of U.S. production was approximately $866 million in 2006 (table 1). Over 80 percent of melon production takes place in five States. California is the leading domestic producer of all melons, accounting for 33 percent of total acreage; followed by Texas, with 15 percent; Georgia, with 12 percent; Arizona, with 11 percent, and Florida, with 10 percent. The United States is a net importer of melons. In 2006, the total value of melons imported into the United States was $350 million, compared to $189 million worth of melons exported. 7 Nearly all (99 percent) melon farmers have receipts of not more than $750,000 annually, and are therefore classified by the Small Business Administration

(SBA)as small entities. 7 World Trade Atlas 2006. Table 1.—Value of U.S. Melon Production, 2004-2006 Commodity 2004 2005 2006 Cantaloupe $322,188,000 $335,818,000 $340,677,000 Honeydews 92,133,000 91,569,000 90,600,000 Watermelons 313,217,000 445,917,000 434,861,000 Total 727,538,000 873,304,000 866,138,000 Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service. We do not know the quantity or type of melons that would be moved from Hawaii to the continental United States under this rule, but we do not expect the quantity to be significant in relation to our total domestic supply. For example, the most recent NASS data on the farm value of watermelon produced in Hawaii show a value of $2.4 million in 2004, which is less than 1 percent of the value of U.S. melon imports of all types. Entry of Hawaiian melons into markets in the continental United States is not expected to have a significant economic impact on mainland prices or production, especially given the irradiation treatment costs and transport costs that merchants of Hawaiian melons would have to bear. Moreover, depending on the type of melon, relative prices, and quality, shipments from Hawaii to the continental United States may at least partially substitute for imports, thereby further reducing any effects on mainland producers. Fresh Cowpea Pods The 2002 Census of Agriculture (the most recent year for which data are available) states that 151 farms harvested 13,651 acres of cowpeas in 2002. Cowpeas, also known as southern peas, blackeye peas, or crowder, are not routinely harvested as fresh cowpea pods but are allowed to dry before harvesting. Nearly all (99 percent) cowpea farmers have receipts of not more than $750,000 annually, and therefore are small entities according to SBA standards. Fresh cowpea pods are not sold commercially by producers in the continental United States; only dried cowpea pods are marketed. Since fresh cowpea pods are not generally used as a substitute for dried cowpeas, interstate movement of fresh cowpea pods from Hawaii would not significantly impact the mainland's commercial production of cowpeas. Rather, the fresh cowpea pods from Hawaii are expected to be sold as a fresh or frozen vegetable. Immature snapped cowpea pods are used in the same way as snap beans, often mixed with other foods. 8 Green cowpea seeds can be boiled as a fresh vegetable. 8 Alternative Field Crops Manual, “Cowpea,” *http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/cowpea.html.* Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12372 This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.) Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted:

(1)All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted;

(2)no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and

(3)administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. National Environmental Policy Act To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with importation of tropical fruits from Hawaii into the continental United States, we have prepared an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment was 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 1b), and

(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). The environmental assessment may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this proposed rule.) In addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0050. Please send a copy of your comments to:

(1)Docket No. APHIS-2007-0050, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and

(2)Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule. This proposed rule would amend the Hawaiian fruit and vegetable regulations to allow mangosteen, dragon fruit, pods of cowpea and its relatives, breadfruit, jackfruit, and fresh moringa pods to be moved interstate from Hawaii under certain conditions. This action would allow the movement of these tropical fruits from Hawaii to the continental United States while continuing to provide protection against the spread of plant pest from Hawaii to the continental United States. We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

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

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

(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses). *Estimate of burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.2000 hours per response. *Respondents:* Importers of fruits and vegetables. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 110. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 24.7636. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 2,724. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 545 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.) Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. E-Government Act Compliance The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. Lists of Subjects 7 CFR Part 305 Irradiation, Phytosanitary treatment, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 7 CFR Part 318 Cotton, Cottonseeds, Fruits, Guam, Hawaii, Plant diseases and pests, Puerto Rico, Quarantine, Transportation, Vegetables, Virgin Islands. Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR parts 305 and 318 to read as follows: PART 305—PHYTOSANITARY TREATMENTS 1. The authority citation for part 305 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 U.S.C. 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 2. In § 305.31, paragraph (a), the table is amended by adding new entries, in alphabetical order, for “ *Aspidiotus destructor* ”, “ *Copitarsia decolora* ”, and “ *Pseudaulacaspis pentagona* ” to read as follows: § 305.31 Irradiation treatment of imported regulated articles for certain plant pests.

(a)* * * Irradiation for Certain Plant Pests in Imported Regulated Articles 1 Scientific name Common name Dose

(gray)* * * * * * * *Aspidiotus destructor* Coconut scale 150 * * * * * * * *Copitarsia decolora* (No common name) 100 * * * * * * * *Pseudaulacaspis pentagona* White peach scale 150 * * * * * * * 1 There is a possibility that some cut flowers could be damaged by such irradiations. See paragraph

(n)of this section. 3. Section 305.34 is amended as follows: a. By adding, in alphabetical order, new entries to the table in paragraph

(a)for breadfruit, cowpea pods (and its relatives), dragon fruit, jackfruit, mangosteen, melon, and moringa pods to read as set forth below. b. In the table in paragraph (a), by revising footnote 1 and adding a new footnote 2 to read as set forth below. c. By revising paragraph (b)(7) to read as set forth below. § 305.34 Irradiation treatment of certain regulated articles from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

(a)* * * Irradiation for Plant Pests in Hawaiian Fruits and Vegetables Commodity Dose

(gray)* * * * * Breadfruit 1 2 400 or 150. * * * * * Cowpea pods (and its relatives) 1 400. * * * * * Dragon fruit 1 2 400 or 150. * * * * * Jackfruit 1 2 400 or 150. * * * * * Mangosteen 1 2 400 or 150. Melon 1 2 400 or 150. * * * * * Moringa pods 1 2 400 or 150. * * * * * 1 Breadfruit, cowpea pods, dragon fruit, jackfruit, litchi, mangosteen, melon, moringa pods, and sweetpotato are also subject to the additional inspection and treatment requirements in paragraph (b)(7) of this section. 2 Breadfruit, dragon fruit, jackfruit, mangosteen, melon, and moringa pods moving to the continental United States for treatment under limited permit in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (b)(7)(ii) of this section must be treated with the 400 gray dose.

(b)* * * (7)(i) *Certification on basis of treatment.* A certificate shall be issued by an inspector for the movement of articles from Hawaii that have been treated and handled in accordance with this section.

(A)To be certified for interstate movement under this section, litchi from Hawaii must be inspected in Hawaii and found free of the litchi fruit moth ( *Cryptophlebia* spp.) and other plant pests by an inspector before undergoing irradiation treatment in Hawaii for fruit flies.

(B)To be certified for interstate movement under this section, sweetpotato from Hawaii must be inspected in Hawaii and found free of the gray pineapple mealybug ( *Dysmicoccus neobrevipes* ), and the Kona coffee-root knot nematode ( *Meloidogyne konaensis* ) by an inspector before undergoing irradiation treatment in Hawaii. In addition, sweetpotato from Hawaii to be treated with irradiation at a dose of 150 Gy must be sampled, cut, and inspected in Hawaii and found to be free of the ginger weevil ( *Elytrotreinus subtruncatus* ) by an inspector before undergoing irradiation treatment in Hawaii. Sampling, cutting, and inspection must be performed under conditions that will prevent any pests that may emerge from the sampled sweetpotatoes from infesting any other sweetpotatoes intended for interstate movement in accordance with this section.

(C)To be certified for interstate movement under this section, breadfruit and jackfruit from Hawaii must be inspected in Hawaii and found free of spiraling whitefly ( *Aleurodicus dispersus* ), inornate scale ( *Aonidiella inornata* ), red wax scale ( *Ceroplastes rubens* ), green scale ( *Coccus viridis* ), gray pineapple mealybug ( *Dysmicoccus neobrevipes* ), pink hibiscus mealybug ( *Maconellicoccus hirsutus* ), spherical mealybug ( *Nipaecoccus viridis* ), citrus mealybug ( *Pseudococcus cryptus* ), melon thrips ( *Thrips palmi* ) and signs of thrip damage before undergoing irradiation treatment in Hawaii at the 150 gray dose. Fruit receiving the 150 gray dose also must either receive a post-harvest dip in accordance with treatment schedule T102-c as provided in § 305.42(b) or originate from an orchard or growing area that was previously treated with a broad-spectrum insecticide during the growing season and a pre-harvest inspection of the orchard or growing area found the fruit free of any surface pests as prescribed in a compliance agreement. Post-treatment inspection in Hawaii is not required if the fruit undergoes irradiation treatment at the 400 gray dose. Regardless of irradiation dose, the fruit must be free of stems and leaves and must originate from an orchard that was previously treated with a fungicide appropriate for the fungus *Phytophthora tropicalis* during the growing season and the fruit must be inspected prior to harvest and found free of the fungus or, after irradiation treatment, must receive a post-harvest fungicidal dip appropriate for *Phytophthora tropicalis* .

(D)To be certified for interstate movement under this section, fresh pods of cowpea and its relatives from Hawaii must be inspected in Hawaii and found free of the cassava red mite ( *Oligonychus biharensis* ) and adults and pupae of the order Lepidoptera before undergoing irradiation treatment. The pods must be free of stems and leaves.

(E)To be certified for interstate movement under this section, dragon fruit from Hawaii presented for inspection must have the sepals removed and must be inspected in Hawaii and found free of gray pineapple mealybug ( *Dysmicoccus neobrevipes* ), pink hibiscus mealybug ( *Maconellicoccus hirsutus* ), and citrus mealybug ( *Pseudococcus cryptus* ) before undergoing irradiation treatment in Hawaii at the 150 gray dose. Fruit receiving the 150 gray dose also must either receive a post-harvest dip in accordance with treatment schedule T102-c as provided in § 305.42(b) or originate from an orchard or growing area that was previously treated with a broad-spectrum insecticide during the growing season and a pre-harvest inspection of the orchard or growing area found the fruit free of any surface pests as prescribed in a compliance agreement. Post-treatment inspection in Hawaii is not required if the fruit undergoes irradiation treatment at the 400 gray dose. Regardless of irradiation dose, the fruit must be free of stems and leaves.

(F)To be certified for interstate movement under this section, mangosteen from Hawaii must have the sepals removed and must be inspected in Hawaii and found free of gray pineapple mealybug ( *Dysmicoccus neobrevipes* ), pink hibiscus mealybug ( *Maconellicoccus hirsutus* ), citrus mealybug ( *Pseudococcus cryptus* ), and *Thrips florum* before undergoing irradiation treatment in Hawaii at the 150 gray dose. Fruit receiving the 150 gray dose also must either receive a post-harvest dip in accordance with treatment schedule T102-c as provided in § 305.42(b) or originate from an orchard or growing area that was previously treated with a broad-spectrum insecticide during the growing season and a pre-harvest inspection of the orchard or growing area found the fruit free of any surface pests as prescribed in a compliance agreement. Post-treatment inspection in Hawaii is not required if the fruit undergoes irradiation treatment at the 400 gray dose. Regardless of irradiation dose, the fruit must be free of stems and leaves.

(G)To be certified for interstate movement under this section, melon from Hawaii must be inspected in Hawaii and found free of spiraling whitefly ( *Aleurodicus dispersus* ) before undergoing irradiation treatment in Hawaii at the 150 gray dose. Fruit receiving the 150 gray dose also must either receive a post-harvest dip in accordance with treatment schedule T102-c as provided in § 305.42(b) or originate from an orchard or growing area that was previously treated with a broad-spectrum insecticide during the growing season and a pre-harvest inspection of the orchard or growing area found the fruit free of any surface pests as prescribed in a compliance agreement. Post-treatment inspection in Hawaii is not required if the fruit undergoes irradiation treatment at the 400 gray dose. Regardless of irradiation dose, melons must be washed to remove dirt and must be free of stems and leaves.

(H)To be certified for interstate movement under this section, moringa pods from Hawaii must be inspected in Hawaii and found free of spiraling whitefly ( *Aleurodicus dispersus* ), inornate scale ( *Aonidiella inornata* ), green scale (Coccus viridis), and citrus mealybug ( *Pseudococcus cryptus* ) before undergoing irradiation treatment in Hawaii at the 150 gray dose. Fruit receiving the 150 gray dose also must either receive a post-harvest dip in accordance with treatment schedule T102-c as provided in § 305.42(b) or originate from an orchard or growing area that was previously treated with a broad-spectrum insecticide during the growing season and a pre-harvest inspection of the orchard or growing area found the fruit free of any surface pests as prescribed in a compliance agreement. Post-treatment inspection in Hawaii is not required if the fruit undergoes irradiation treatment at the 400 gray dose.

(ii)*Limited permit.* A limited permit shall be issued by an inspector for the interstate movement of untreated articles from Hawaii into the continental United States for treatment in accordance with this section.

(A)To be eligible for a limited permit under this section, untreated litchi from Hawaii must be inspected in Hawaii and found free of the litchi fruit moth ( *Cryptophlebia* spp.) and other plant pests by an inspector.

(B)To be eligible for a limited permit under this section, untreated sweetpotato from Hawaii must be inspected in Hawaii and found free of the gray pineapple mealybug ( *Dysmicoccus neobrevipes* ) and the Kona coffee-root knot nematode ( *Meloidogyne konaensis* ) by an inspector. In addition, sweetpotato from Hawaii to be treated with irradiation at a dose of 150 Gy must be sampled, cut, and inspected in Hawaii and found free of the ginger weevil ( *Elytrotreinus subtruncatus* ) by an inspector. Sampling, cutting, and inspection must be performed under conditions that will prevent any pests that may emerge from the sampled sweetpotatoes from infesting any other sweetpotatoes intended for interstate movement in accordance with this section.

(C)To be eligible for a limited permit under this section, breadfruit and jackfruit from Hawaii must be free of stems and leaves and must originate from an orchard that was previously treated with a fungicide appropriate for the fungus *Phytophthora tropicalis* during the growing season and the fruit must be inspected prior to harvest and found free of the fungus or, after irradiation treatment, must receive a post-harvest fungicidal dip appropriate for *Phytophthora tropicalis* .

(D)To be eligible for a limited permit under this section, fresh pods of cowpea and its relatives from Hawaii must be free of stems and leaves and must be inspected in Hawaii and found free of the cassava red mite ( *Oligonychus biharensis* ) and adults and pupae of the order Lepidoptera. PART 318—HAWAIIAN AND TERRITORIAL QUARANTINE NOTICES 4. The authority citation for part 318 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. § 318.13-4f [Amended] 5. Section 318.13-4f is amended as follows: a. By adding the word “breadfruit,” before the words “Capsicum spp. (peppers)”. b. By adding the words “cowpea pods,” before the words “Cucurbita spp. (squash)”. c. By adding the word “dragon fruit,” before the word “eggplant”. d. By adding the word “jackfruit,” before the word “litchi”. e. By adding the words “mangosteen, melon, moringa pods” before the word “papaya”. Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of November 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-22278 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Chapters I and III [Docket No. FAA-2007-29291] Review of Existing Regulations AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA requests comments from the public to identify those regulations currently in effect that we should amend, remove, or simplify. We are publishing this notice under our ongoing regulatory review program required by Executive Order 12866. Getting public comments is a necessary element of our effort to make our regulations more effective and less burdensome. DATES: Send us your comments no later than January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-29291 using any of the following methods: • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrian D. Wright, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-103, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone

(202)267-3317; e-mail *adrian.d.wright@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Congress has authorized the Secretary of Transportation, and by delegation, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)to do the following, among other things: • Develop and maintain a sound regulatory system that is responsive to the needs of the public, • Regulate air commerce in a way that best promotes safety and fulfills national defense requirements, and • Oversee, license, and regulate commercial launch and reentry activities and the operation of launch and reentry sites as carried out by U.S. citizens or within the United States. Anyone interested in further information about FAA's authority and responsibilities should refer to Title 49 of the United States Code, particularly Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs. *For many years, the FAA has maintained an active regulatory review program:* • In 1992, the President announced a regulatory review to “weed out unnecessary and burdensome government regulations, which impose needless costs on consumers and substantially impede economic growth.” In response to a request for public comments published in the **Federal Register** (57 FR 4744, February 7, 1992), the FAA received more than 300 comments. • In August 1993, the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry (the Commission) recommended the FAA undertake a short-range regulatory review to remove or amend existing regulations to reduce regulatory burdens consistent with safety and security considerations. • In September 1993, section 5 of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) required each agency to submit a program to the Office of Management and Budget by December 31, 1993, under which the agency will periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any should be changed or removed. • In January 1994, the FAA published a request for public comments in response to the Commission recommendation and to facilitate the review envisioned by E.O. 12866 (59 FR 1362, January 10, 1994). We received more than 400 comments from 184 commenters. • In August 1995, the FAA published its proposed plan for periodic regulatory reviews for comment (60 FR 44142, August 24, 1995). • In October 1996, the FAA adopted its current plan for periodic regulatory reviews based on a three-year cycle (61 FR 53610, October 15, 1996). • In February 1997, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security recommended the FAA simplify its regulations. • In May 1997, the FAA published its first request for comments under the three-year review program and in accord with the Commission recommendation (62 FR 26894, May 15, 1997). We received 82 comments and published results of the review in October 1998 (63 FR 56539, October 22, 1998). • In July 2000, the FAA began the second round of regulatory review under the three-year program (65 FR 43265, July 13, 2000). We received 476 comments and published results of the review in January 2002 (67 FR 4680, January 31, 2002). • In February 2004, the FAA began the third round of regulatory review under the three-year program (65 FR 8575, February 25, 2004). We received 97 comments from 30 different commenters and published results of the review in June 2007 (72 FR 34999, June 26, 2007). In summary, since 1992 the FAA has completed five rounds of regulatory review and has received approximately 1,350 comments. Request for Comments As part of its ongoing plan for periodic regulatory reviews, the FAA is requesting the public identify three regulations, in priority order, that it believes we should amend or eliminate. Our goal is to identify regulations that impose undue regulatory burden; are no longer necessary; or overlay, duplicate, or conflict with other Federal regulations. In order to focus on areas of greatest interest, and to effectively manage agency resources, the FAA asks that commenters responding to this notice limit their input to three issues they consider most urgent, and to list them in priority order. The FAA will review the issues addressed by the commenters against its regulatory agenda and rulemaking program efforts and adjust its regulatory priorities consistent with its statutory responsibilities. At the end of this process, the FAA will publish a summary and general disposition of comments and indicate, where appropriate, how we will adjust our regulatory priorities. Also, we request the public provide any specific suggestions where rules could be developed as performance-based rather than prescriptive, and any specific plain-language that might be used, and provide suggested language on how those rules should be written. Issued in Washington, DC, on November 7, 2007. Nick Sabatini, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety. [FR Doc. E7-22346 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 2001-NM-40-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Series Airplanes Powered by General Electric

(GE)CF6-45/50, Pratt & Whitney (P&W) JT9D-70, or JT9D-7 Series Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: This action withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)that proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes powered by GE CF6-45/50, P&W JT9D-70, or JT9D-7 series engines. That action would have required repetitive inspections to find cracks and broken fasteners of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts of the rear engine mount bulkhead, and repair, if necessary. For certain airplanes, that action would have provided for an optional terminating modification for the inspections of the outboard nacelle struts. Since the issuance of the NPRM, the Federal Aviation Administration

(425)917-6421; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes powered by General Electric

(GE)CF6-45/50, Pratt & Whitney (P&W) JT9D-70, or JT9D-7 series engines, was published as a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)in the **Federal Register** on January 9, 2002 (67 FR 1167). The proposed rule would have required repetitive inspections to find cracks and broken fasteners of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts of the rear engine mount bulkhead, and repair, if necessary. For certain airplanes, the proposed rule would have provided for an optional terminating modification for the inspections of the outboard nacelle struts. That action was prompted by reports indicating that fatigue cracking of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts of the rear engine mount bulkhead was found. The proposed actions were intended to find and fix cracks and broken fasteners of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, which could result in possible loss of the bulkhead load path and consequent separation of the engine from the airplane. Actions That Occurred Since the NPRM Was Issued Since the issuance of the NPRM, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)has received new data of other issues related to the unsafe condition. The data include many new reports of additional web and frame cracks and sheared attachment fasteners, and reports of cracks on the outboard struts of airplanes not identified in the applicability of the NPRM, in addition to the comments received for the NPRM. We have determined from these data that the corrective actions required by the NPRM are inadequate for addressing the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, we are issuing a new rulemaking to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. FAA's Conclusions Upon further consideration, the FAA has determined that the corrective actions required by the NPRM are inadequate for addressing the identified unsafe condition. Accordingly, the proposed rule is hereby withdrawn. Withdrawal of this NPRM constitutes only such action, and does not preclude the agency from issuing another action in the future, nor does it commit the agency to any course of action in the future. Regulatory Impact Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Withdrawal Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket 2001-NM-40-AD, published in the **Federal Register** on January 9, 2002 (67 FR 1167), is withdrawn. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 7, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22329 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0157; Directorate Identifier 2001-NE-23-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Makila 1 A and 1 A1 Turboshaft Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)for Turbomeca Makila 1 A, 1 A1, and 1 A2 turboshaft engines. That AD currently requires replacing certain digital electronic control units (DECUs) and electronic control units

(ECUs)with modified DECUs and ECUs. This proposed AD would apply only to Makila 1 A and 1 A1 turboshaft engines, and would require replacing the selector-comparator board in the ECU with a board incorporating Turbomeca modification TU 250. This proposed AD results from recent unexplained reversions of the ECU to the 65% N1 back-up mode. We are proposing this AD to prevent dual-engine reversion of the ECU to the 65% N1 back-up mode, which could lead to inability to continue safe flight, emergency autorotation landing, or an accident. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. Contact Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone

(33)05 59 74 40 00; fax

(33)05 59 74 45 15 for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Spinney, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *Christopher.spinney@faa.gov* ; telephone

(781)238-7175; fax

(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0157; Directorate Identifier 2001-NE-23-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light 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 with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). 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 the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Discussion On July 23, 2002, we issued AD 2002-15-05, Amendment 39-12833 (67 FR 49859, August 1, 2002). That AD requires replacing certain DECUs and ECUs with modified DECUs and ECUs, on Turbomeca Makila 1 A, 1 A1, and 1 A2 turboshaft engines. The Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile, which is the airworthiness authority for France, advised that incorporating Turbomeca Modification TU 203 to the ECUs that are used on the Makila 1 A and 1 A1 turboshaft engines, and incorporating Turbomeca Modification TU 205C to the DECUs used on the Makila 1 A2 turboshaft engines, improves failure detection of the ECU and simulates a fixed power turbine speed

(Npt)if two of the three channels fail. Actions Since AD 2002-15-05 Was Issued Since AD 2002-15-05 was issued, The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on Turbomeca Makila 1 A and 1 A1 turboshaft engines. EASA advises that recent unexplained reversions of the ECU to the 65% N1 back-up mode have occurred on these engines. Turbomeca postulates that these events can be caused by corruption of the engine N2 speed signals by short disturbances, such as electromagnetic interference, which can threaten both engines at the same time. The replacement of the selector-comparator board will allow recovery from the ECU 65% N1 back-up mode for temporary interruptions of the N2 signal. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin

(MSB)No. 298 73 0250, dated March 23, 2007, that describes procedures for replacing the selector-comparator board in the ECU with a board incorporating Turbomeca modification TU 250. The replacement board makes the ECU less sensitive to electromagnetic interference. EASA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD 2007-0144, dated May 18, 2007, in order to ensure the airworthiness of these Makila 1 A and 1 A1 turboshaft engines in Europe. Makila 1 A2 Turboshaft Engines Excluded From This Proposed AD Although Makila 1 A2 turboshaft engines, which were also listed in the previous AD, are affected by this unsafe condition, they are addressed by a different EASA AD. We will address those engines in another proposed AD. Bilateral Agreement Information These Makila 1 A and 1 A1 turboshaft engines are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of Section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, EASA kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of EASA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. 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 products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require replacing the selector-comparator board in the ECU with a board incorporating Turbomeca Modification TU 250. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 10 Makila 1 A and 1 A1 turboshaft engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per engine to perform the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,500 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $35,800. 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. Docket Number Change We are transferring the docket for this AD to the Federal Docket Management System as part of our on-going docket management consolidation efforts. The new Docket No. is FAA-2007-0157. The old Docket No. became the Directorate Identifier, which is 2001-NE-23-AD. 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 AD: 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. Would 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. 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 Federal Aviation Administration 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 removing Amendment 39-12833 (67 FR 49859, August 1, 2002) and by adding a new airworthiness directive, to read as follows: **Turbomeca:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0157; Directorate Identifier 2001-NE-23-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by January 14, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2002-15-05, Amendment 39-12833. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Turbomeca Makila 1 A and 1 A1 turboshaft engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter France model AS 332C, AS 332L, and AS 332L1 helicopters. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from recent unexplained reversions of the ECU to the 65% N1 back-up mode. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent dual-engine reversion of the ECU to the 65% N1 back-up mode, which could lead to inability to continue safe flight, emergency autorotation landing, or an accident. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed before June 30, 2008, unless the actions have already been done.

(f)Replace the Selector-Comparator board in the ECU with a board incorporating Turbomeca Modification TU 250. Information on Modification TU 250 can be found in Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 298 73 0250, dated March 23, 2007. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(g)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(h)European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2007-0144, dated May 18, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD.

(i)Contact Christopher Spinney, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *Christopher.spinney@faa.gov* ; telephone

(781)238-7175; fax

(781)238-7199, for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 8, 2007. Peter A. White, Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22330 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-104942-07] RIN 1545-BG37 Notification Requirement for Tax-Exempt Entities Not Currently Required To File AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS is issuing temporary regulations describing the time and manner in which certain tax-exempt organizations not currently required to file an annual information return under section 6033(a)(1) are required to submit an annual electronic notice including certain information required by section 6033(i)(1)(A) through (F). The text of those 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 February 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-104942-07), 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-104942-07), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *www.regulations.gov* (IRS-REG-104942-07). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, Monice Rosenbaum at

(202)622-6070 (not a toll-free number); concerning submission of comments and requests for a public hearing, Richard Hurst, *Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act The collection of information contained in these proposed regulations has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. The information that is required to be collected for purposes of § 1.6033-6(c) is required to be submitted on Form 990-N, “Electronic Notice (e-Postcard) for Tax-Exempt Organizations not Required To File Form 990 or 990-EZ,” under control number 1545-2085. The estimated number of recordkeepers that will submit electronic notification is approximately 520,000. The estimated paperwork burden for taxpayers submitting Form 990-N is 15 minutes per taxpayer. Books and records relating to the collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Background and Explanation of Provision Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to section 6033(i)(1). The temporary regulations describe the time and manner in which certain tax-exempt organizations not currently required to file are required to provide an annual electronic notice including certain information set forth in the section 6033(i)(1)(A) through (F). The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the amendments. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. It is hereby certified that the collection of information in § 1.6033-6T will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601)

(RFA)is not required. The effect of these proposed regulations on small entities flows directly from the statute these regulations implement. Section 6033(i)(1) requires that certain entities submit annual notification, in electronic form, setting forth: the legal name of the organization; any name under which such organization operates or does business; the organization's mailing address and Internet Web site address (if any); the organization's taxpayer identification number; the name and address of a principal officer; and evidence of the continuing basis for the organization's exemption from the filing requirements under section 6033(a)(1). Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this regulation as 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 Public a Hearing Before the proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight

(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. Comments are requested on all aspects of the proposed regulations. 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** . Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Monice Rosenbaum of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). 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 as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Section 1.6033-6 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6033(i)(1). * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.6033-6 is proposed to be added to read as follows: § 1.6033-6 Notification requirement for entities not required to file an annual information return under section 6033(a)(1) (taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006). [The text of proposed § 1.6033-6 is the same as the text of § 1.6033-6T published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-22280 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD08-07-038] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Tchefuncta River, Madisonville, LA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulation governing the operation of the State Route 22 (SR 22) swing span bridge across Tchefuncta River, mile 2.5, at Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has requested changes to the present drawbridge operating regulations in 33 CFR 117.500 to enhance the flow of vehicles across the bridge during peak traffic hours. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Eighth Coast Guard District, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3310. The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch 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 Bridge Administration office between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Johnson, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone

(504)671-2128. 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 [CGD08-07-038], 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. You may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has requested that the operating regulation of the SR 22 swing span bridge be changed in order to better accommodate the vehicular traffic crossing the bridge during peak, weekday rush hours. Currently 33 CFR 117.500 reads: “The draw of the SR 22 Bridge, mile 2.5, at Madisonville shall open on signal except that, from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour.” The bridge owner has requested that the operating regulation be changed to read as follows: The draw of the SR 22 Bridge, mile 2.5 at Madisonville, shall open on signal from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. From 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour and half hour, except that, from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need only open on the hour. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development believes that the proposed operating regulation will accommodate most vehicular traffic, and that the needs of navigation will also be met. Most of the vessels that request openings are recreational powerboats and sailboats that routinely transit this waterway and are able to adjust their schedules to coincide with the proposed drawbridge operating schedule. Concurrent with the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Test Deviation [CGD08-07-037] has been issued to allow the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development to test the proposed schedule and to obtain data and public comments. The test period will be in effect during the entire Notice of Proposed Rulemaking comment period. The Coast Guard will review the logs of the drawbridge and evaluate public comments from this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the above referenced Temporary Deviation to determine if a change to the permanent special drawbridge operating regulation is warranted. The Test Deviation allows the draw of the SR 22 Bridge to open on signal from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. From 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour and half hour, except that, from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need only open on the hour. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed rule change to 33 CFR 117.500 would extend the time between openings from 30 minutes to an hour, but only during the morning rush hours between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and the afternoon rush hours between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. This additional time would allow commuters and school buses to cross the bridge freely and prevent vehicular traffic from backing up. 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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This is because the current and historical waterway traffic is comprised almost entirely of recreational vessels that can easily adjust schedules for transits through the bridge. 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 a limited number of small entities. These entities include operators of pleasure powerboats and sailboats using the waterway. This proposed rule would have no impact on any small entities because they are able to schedule transits through this bridge. 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 Eighth Coast Guard District Bridge Administration Branch at the address above. 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 will 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 affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This 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 M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(S433)pontoon span bridge across Liberty Bayou, mile 2.0, at Slidell, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. The proposed rule would allow the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, owner of the bridge, to reduce the hours of manned operation of the bridge in order to make more efficient use of personnel and operating resources. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Eighth Coast Guard District, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3310. The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch 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 Bridge Administration office between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Johnson, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone

(504)671-2128. 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 [CGD08-06-010], 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. You may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Coast Guard previously published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the **Federal Register** [CGD08-06-010] on May 4, 2006 (86 FR 26290). The proposed rule would have changed the notice required for an opening from 12 hours to 4 hours. The Coast Guard did not receive any comments as a result of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, but a final rule was not published. Subsequently, the bridge owner requested that the operating regulation for the bridge again be revised so that the bridge will open on signal, except that from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., the bridge will open on signal if at least 2 hours notice is given. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has requested that the operating regulation of the S433 pontoon span bridge be changed in order to make more efficient use of operating resources. Currently, the draw of the S433 Bridge opens on signal except that from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. the draw will open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given, as required by 33 CFR 117.469. Traffic counts indicate that an average of 6000 vehicles cross the bridge daily and approximately 1025, or 17.1% of those, cross between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Bridge tender logs for a three-month period show that the bridge opened 540 times, or an average of 6 times per day, to pass vessels. Of those vessel openings during the three-month period, 56, or 10.2% of them, were between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Most of the boats requesting openings are recreational fishing vessels, recreational powerboats and sailboats that routinely transit this waterway and are able to give advance notice. Concurrent with the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Test Deviation [CGD08-07-032] has been issued to allow the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development to test the proposed schedule and to obtain data and public comments. The test period will be in effect during the entire Notice of Proposed Rulemaking comment period. The Coast Guard will review the logs of the drawbridge and evaluate public comments from this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the above referenced Test Deviation to determine if a permanent special drawbridge operating regulation is warranted. The Test Deviation allows the draw of the S433 Bridge to open on signal, except that between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. daily, the bridge will open on signal if at least 2 hours notice is given. On November 24, 2006 a Coast Guard Bridge Permit was issued approving the construction of a new swing span bridge to be constructed to replace the existing pontoon span bridge. Upon completion of construction, the new bridge will provide a vertical clearance of 7.59 feet above the 2% flow line. While this vertical clearance will accommodate many small recreational boats, larger vessels will still require an opening of the draw for passage. The schedule proposed in this SNPRM would be carried over to this new bridge. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed rule change to 33 CFR 117.469 would require that, between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., a 2-hour notice be given for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development to open the draw of the S433 Bridge. This change would reduce the amount of time that a bridge tender would need to man the bridge, making more efficient use of operating resources. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the fact that all vessel traffic will still be able to transit through the bridge between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. after providing the two-hour advance notice for bridge openings. 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 a limited number of small entities. These entities include operators of recreational fishing vessels, powerboats and sailboats using the waterway. This proposed rule will have no impact on any small entities because they are able to give notice prior to transiting through this bridge and most vessel operators that require an opening are currently providing advance notice. 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 Eighth Coast Guard District Bridge Administration Branch at the address above. 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 will 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 affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This 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, (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), an “Environmental Analysis Check List” or “Categorical Exclusion Determination” 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 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. § 117.469 is revised to read as follows: § 117.469 Liberty Bayou. The draw of the S433 Bridge, mile 2.0 at Slidell, shall open on signal, except that between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least 2 hours notice is given. Dated: November 6, 2007. J.H. Korn, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, 8th Coast Guard Dist. [FR Doc. E7-22365 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1003; FRL-8492-2] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial County and Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control Districts AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) and the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action revises and adds various definitions of terms used by the ICAPCD and MBUAPCD. We are proposing to approve these local rules under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by *December 17, 2007.* ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1003, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4120, *allen.cynthia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local rules: ICAPCD 101, “Definitions” and MBUAPCD 101, “Definitions.” In the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** , we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action. Dated: October 11, 2007. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-21810 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [WC Docket No. 07-135; FCC 07-176] 47 CFR Parts 61 and 69 Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. SUMMARY: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) initiates a proceeding to examine whether its existing rules governing the setting of tariffed rates by local exchange carriers

(LECs)provide incentives and opportunities for carriers to increase access demand endogenously with the result that the tariff rates are no longer just and reasonable. The Commission tentatively concludes that it must revise its tariff rules so that it can be confident that tariffed rates remain just and reasonable even if a carrier experiences or induces significant increases in access demand. The Commission seeks comment on the types of activities that are causing the increases in interstate access demand and the effects of such demand increases on the cost structures of LECs. The Commission also seeks comment on several means of ensuring just and reasonable rates going forward. The NPRM invites comment on potential traffic stimulation by rate-of-return local exchange carriers (LECs), price cap LECs, and competitive LECs, as well as other forms of intercarrier traffic stimulation. DATES: Comments are due on or before December 17, 2007. Reply comments are due on or before December 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Slotten, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division,

(202)418-1572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 07-135, adopted on October 2, 2007, and released on October 2, 2007. The complete text of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available for public inspection Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available also on the Commission's Internet site at *www.fcc.gov.* Alternative formats are available for persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at

(202)418-0531, TTY

(202)418-7365, or at *fcc504@fcc.gov.* The complete text of the decision may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copying and Printing, Inc., Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, telephone

(202)488-5300, facsimile

(202)488-5563, TTY

(202)488-5562, or e-mail at *fcc@bcpiweb.com.* Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission initiates a rulemaking proceeding to examine whether its existing rules governing the setting of tariffed rates by local exchange carriers

(LECs)provide incentives and opportunities for carriers to increase access demand endogenously with the result that the tariff rates are no longer just and reasonable. Several interexchange carriers

(IXCs)have filed complaints, either with the Commission or with United States federal district courts pursuant to sections 206-209 of the Act, alleging that such increases in access traffic have caused the involved LECs to earn a rate of return grossly in excess of the maximum allowed rate of return. The Commission tentatively concludes that it must revise its tariff rules so that it can be confident that tariffed rates remain just and reasonable even if a carrier experiences or induces significant increases in access demand. 2. The Commission observes that recent increases in switched access traffic appear to have been caused by the deployment of chat lines, conference bridges, or other similar high call volume operations in the service areas of certain rate-of-return or competitive LECs. Users of these services make interstate calls to the services and the LECs assess interstate access charges on the IXCs that deliver the calls. The applicable per minute access charge rates are often high because many of the carriers involved in these arrangements are small carriers whose rates were set based on higher than average costs and a low volume of traffic based on historical levels. It is alleged that the LECs experiencing or creating this access growth share the access revenues they receive with the service providers whose services are generating the demand growth. As a direct result of the increase in traffic volume, the LECs are alleged to be earning returns on these access services that are substantially above the maximum rate of return authorized by the Commission. 3. The Commission seeks to establish a more complete record as to the activities that are occurring, how the services are provided, and how compensation occurs between the involved parties. The Commission invites parties to comment on the prevalence of these types of operations and to describe in detail how each type of service is provisioned. The Commission asks parties to explain what fees, including both interstate and intrastate fees, the service provider pays to the LEC. The Commission also asks parties to describe what monies or other benefits the LEC provides to the provider of the stimulating activity, including, for example, direct payments, revenue sharing, commissions, or free services. The Commission asks that carriers complaining about the access stimulation arrangements explain how they provide each of the above mentioned services, including what charges they assess on the provider, whether access charges are assessed on such calls, and what compensation, if any, is paid to such provider. 4. The Commission observes that, if the average revenue per minute remains constant as demand grows, but the average cost per minute falls (which occurs if the marginal cost per minute is less than the average cost per minute), then profits (or return) will rise. In such circumstances, when a carrier experiences significant increases in access traffic, its realized rates of return are likely to exceed the authorized rate of return and thus the tariffed rates become unjust and unreasonable at some point. The Commission invites parties to comment on this analysis. It asks parties to identify and quantify the projected increase in investment and plant-related expenses associated with increases in switched access minutes. 5. Noting allegations that some LECs involved in access stimulation activities have been sharing revenues or paying some other form of compensation to the entity stimulating the terminating traffic, the Commission observes that, if compensation costs are included in a LEC's operating expense and thus bundled with access costs, the IXCs are paying for the costs of the stimulating service through the higher access charges assessed by the exchange carrier. The Commission tentatively concludes that a rate-of-return carrier that shares revenue, or provides other compensation to an end user customer, or directly provides the stimulating activity, and bundles the costs of such sharing, other compensation, or direct provisioning with its exchange access costs as part of its revenue requirement is engaging in an unreasonable practice that violates section 201(b) and the prudent expenditure standard. On its face, the compensation paid by the exchange carrier to the entity stimulating the traffic is unrelated to the provision of exchange access. The Commission invites parties to comment on this tentative conclusion. The Commission also asks parties to comment on whether, if the costs are not included in revenue requirements, the Commission has satisfied its obligation to ensure that just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rates are maintained, or whether the payments may be an unlawful rebate. 6. The Commission tentatively concludes that average per minute switching costs do not increase proportionately to average per minute revenues as access demand increases, and that, as a result, rates that may be just and reasonable given a specific level of access demand may not be just and reasonable at a higher level of access demand. The type of increased demand under consideration in this proceeding occurs after the tariffs become effective and was not included in the development of the carrier's filed switched access charges. Thus, the pre-review of the filed tariff may not enable the Commission to identify, prior to the time the tariff becomes effective, those cases in which significant increases in access demand will occur after the effective date of the tariff and will result in unreasonable rates. In these circumstances, the deemed lawful provisions of the Communications Act would be protecting rates that are unjust and unreasonable rather than protecting customers. The Commission tentatively concludes that it should have the opportunity to review the relationship between rates and average costs through the filing of a revised tariff when a section 61.38 or 61.39 carrier experiences significant increases in traffic to ensure that just and reasonable rates are maintained. Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concludes that section 61.38 and 61.39 carriers that file their own tariffs should be required to include language in their traffic-sensitive tariffs to the effect that, if their monthly local switching minutes exceed a given percent of the local switching demand of the same month of the preceding year, the carriers will file revised local switching and transport tariff rates to reflect this increased demand within a stated period of time. The Commission invites parties to comment on whether this conceptual approach is adequate to address the problems identified, or whether another approach would be more effective. The Commission seeks comment on whether any additional or revised reporting is necessary. Recognizing that establishing a tariffed trigger to require a new tariff filing is unlikely to address any cases of access stimulation by carriers participating in the National Exchange Carrier Association

(NECA)pooling process, given the higher access demand of the NECA traffic-sensitive pool, the Commission invites parties to comment on the incentives of carriers in the NECA traffic-sensitive pool to engage in traffic stimulation and the methods they could employ to realize the benefits of the stimulation. Parties are also invited to address what steps, if any, should be adopted to address possible traffic stimulation by carriers in the NECA traffic-sensitive pool. 7. The Commission invites parties to comment on the traffic growth rate that should require a carrier to make a new tariff filing and on how the demand should be measured, e.g., over what period of time and/or should the demand level vary by the size of the carrier. The Commission asks parties to comment on whether the Commission should adopt a rule requiring carriers to file revised tariffs whenever they enter into an arrangement that would have the effect of stimulating switched access traffic by some percentage. If such a rule is adopted, parties should address whether the Commission should forbear from applying deemed lawful status to the new tariff rates. Finally, parties should address how the proposals contained in this order can be applied to carriers who are engaged in access stimulation activities today, or how such proposals can be adapted to address that situation. 8. The Commission invites parties to comment on the appropriate period of time within which a carrier should be required to file a revised tariff after it learns it has exceeded the growth trigger. The Commission also asks parties to address what cost support materials should be required of section 61.38 carriers to ensure that the Commission will have the data necessary to prescribe just and reasonable rates, if that becomes necessary. Parties should comment on what additional data would be necessary if they believe that incremental cost factors will be necessary to establish revised rates that will be just and reasonable. Parties should also comment on how the demand estimates used in the revised tariff filing should be determined. 9. The Commission also asks about the tariff support materials that should be required of a section 61.39 carrier using historical average schedule demand. The formulas are developed based on an examination of the costs and demand of comparably sized cost companies and are designed to produce disbursements to an average schedule company that simulate the disbursements that would be received by a cost company that is representative of the average schedule company. The Commission tentatively concludes that the average schedule formulas can only yield reasonable estimates of an average schedule carrier's cost when the demand is within the range used to develop the formulas. The Commission invites parties to comment on the validity of this tentative conclusion with respect to both section 61.39 average schedule carriers and to average schedule carriers in the NECA traffic-sensitive pool that experience increased traffic that is beyond the demand observed in establishing the average schedule formulas. If parties believe that the average schedule formulas produce an incorrect estimate of an average schedule carrier's costs when demand has increased dramatically over some baseline period, they should suggest ways the Commission could revise section 61.39 or other rules to address average schedule carriers in the NECA traffic-sensitive pool. Parties should also comment on the extent to which historical and prospective demand should be used in establishing revised rates. 10. Parties are also invited to comment on two alternatives for establishing rates for section 61.39 average schedule carriers or average schedule carriers in the NECA traffic-sensitive pool that experience significant increases in demand. First, the Commission could require NECA, as part of its development of the average schedule formulas, to define the range over which the formulas were valid. Once a carrier's demand reached the top of the range, it would be presumed to have recovered all of its costs. The carrier's settlement would be set at the amount produced by the formula at that demand level. That amount would then be used to calculate the carrier's switched access rates. Alternatively, the Commission could require NECA to extend the range of the formulas in a manner that addressed the reduced incremental costs of increased traffic. 11. The Commission also seeks comment on proposals that section 61.39 carriers be required to certify as part of their tariff filing that they are not currently stimulating traffic and will not do so during the tariff period. The Commission invites parties to comment on this idea, either as a stand-alone proposition, or as part of a broader package of rule revisions. Alternatively, the Commission could make clear that by filing a tariff, a carrier is making certain representations. For example, the Commission could adopt a rule providing that by filing under section 61.39, a carrier is certifying that its use of historical average schedule settlement data to establish its rates is in fact a reasonable proxy for its future costs. More broadly, the Commission could establish an ongoing requirement that carriers bring to the Commission's attention all significant operational changes that could materially affect the reasonableness of their rates. Parties should comment on the need for requirements such as these and should provide rule language that would specify the extent of a carrier's obligation. The Commission contemplates that a finding that a carrier had failed to disclose any required information could be the basis for denying deemed lawful status to the carrier's rates. 12. Without reasonable and reliable methods of establishing new cost and demand levels, the Commission could be unable to determine whether revised switched access rates filed based on a higher demand will be just and reasonable. Parties should address whether it would be appropriate for the Commission, on its own motion, to forbear from enforcing the deemed lawful provision of section 204(a)(3) for the remainder of the two-year tariff period if a mid-course tariff filing is triggered by a sufficient increase in demand. The Commission also asks whether it should forbear from enforcing the deemed lawful provision of section 204(a)(3) with respect to a carrier's rates if it fails to file a revised tariff when required. Each of these approaches would have the effect of excluding such tariffs from the streamlined filing process. Parties are also asked to comment on what reporting requirements, if any, should be established for any carrier whose rates may no longer be deemed lawful if the Commission adopts this proposal. 13. If the Commission was to forbear from deemed lawful in these limited circumstances, carriers may be subject to refunds because deemed lawful would not apply to their tariffed rates. Parties should comment on what approach the Commission should use in determining whether section 61.38 and 61.39 carriers should be required to make a refund and how to determine the amount of any such refund. In addition, commenters are encouraged to suggest alternative means besides forbearance to eliminate the prohibition on refunds resulting from deemed lawful. For example, parties should comment on the possibility of requiring carriers to file revised tariffs on a notice period such that deemed lawful status would not apply, rather than forbearing from its application. 14. Section 61.39(b)(2)(ii) requires the use of the “most recent average schedule formulas approved by the Commission.” This language may be ambiguous in its reference to the appropriate formula to use and does not mention demand at all. To clarify the application of this rule, the Commission invites parties to comment on when a carrier should switch from one year's formula to the next. Parties should also consider whether a calendar year should be used as the period for measurement in order to get more recent historical data. 15. The IXCs allege that the section 61.39 carriers have exhibited a pattern of exiting the NECA traffic-sensitive pool when their demand is low, thus establishing a high rate for the two-year effective period of the tariff. The IXCs further allege that, after a single two-year period as a section 61.39 carrier, the carriers reenter the NECA traffic-sensitive pool to avoid basing rates for the next two years on the high demand realized while they were not in the NECA pool. To address this, the Commission could make the section 61.39 election one-way, could require that carriers remain out of the NECA traffic-sensitive pool for a stated number of tariff cycles, or could eliminate the section 61.39 option altogether. The Commission invites parties to comment on these and other options the Commission has to ensure that rates remain just and reasonable and that section 61.39 does not itself provide incentives for carriers to engage in regulatory arbitrage. 16. Although the complaints to date about access stimulation have generally been directed at section 61.38 and 61.39 carriers, the Commission is interested in understanding the full breadth of possible access stimulation activities. The Commission, therefore, invites parties to indicate the extent to which price cap carriers have an incentive to engage in or are engaging in access stimulation. If price cap carriers are engaging, or can economically engage in access stimulation, the Commission invites parties to address what actions it should take to ensure that their rates are just and reasonable. 17. Finally, the Commission addresses the potential for access stimulation by competitive LECs. Competitive LECs may file access tariffs if their rates comply with the benchmarking requirements of section 61.26. That section allows competitive LECs to file tariffs if the rates are no higher than those charged by the incumbent LEC serving the same area, or, in the case of rural competitive LECs competing against a non-rural incumbent LEC, to charge a rate no higher than NECA's access rate, assuming the highest band for local switching. Under these rules, a competitive LEC has the same incentive to stimulate access traffic as does an incumbent LEC. 18. The Commission invites parties to comment on several proposals for addressing the incentives for and abilities of competitive LECs to engage in access stimulation activities, including requiring a competitive LEC relying on the rural exemption to file quarterly reports of interstate access minutes and modify its tariffs if it exceeds defined volume thresholds. The Commission asks parties to comment on how competitive LEC access traffic should be measured and how such traffic measures could be verified. The Commission asks parties to comment on whether a competitive LEC should be subject to any of the other remedies on which comment is sought in the NPRM when a competitive LEC enters into an access stimulation arrangement. Parties should also address how the proposals contained in this order can be applied to competitive LECs who are engaged in access stimulation activities today, or how such proposals could be adapted to address that situation. The Commission also invites parties to address whether special rules are necessary when the competitive LEC is affiliated with an incumbent LEC. Finally, a competitive LEC may be benchmarking to the rates of an incumbent LEC that has stimulated traffic and been required to file a revised tariff or take some other action to reduce its rates. Parties should comment on whether a competitive LEC that benchmarks against an incumbent LEC should be affected by any of the changes in the incumbent LEC's tariffs that are the result of the incumbent LEC's access stimulation activities. 19. Finally, while the previous sections have addressed stimulation in the context of access charges, the Commission is also interested in understanding the full breadth of possible traffic stimulation activities. The Commission, therefore, invites parties to address whether carriers are adopting traffic stimulation strategies with respect to forms of intercarrier compensation other than interstate access charges. The Commission asks parties to identify situations in which this is occurring and to explain the physical provisioning and compensation arrangements that make these strategies work. Parties should also address what remedies may be available to the Commission to address such activities. Ex Parte Presentations 20. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules as well. Comment Filing Procedures 21. Pursuant to Sections 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 indicated on the first page of this document. All filings related to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should refer to WC Docket No. 07-135. Comments may be filed using:

(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),

(2)the Federal Government's rulemaking Portal, or

(3)by filing paper copies. *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998). • *Electronic Filers:* Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. ○ For ECFS filers, if multiple dockets or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • *Paper Filers:* Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. ○ The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. ○ Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. ○ U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 22. Comments and reply comments and any other filed documents in this matter may be obtained from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., in person at 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at

(202)488-5300, via facsimile at

(202)488-5563, or via e-mail at *fcc@bcpiweb.com.* The pleadings will also be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, and through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System

(ECFS)accessible on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs.* 23. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). 24. Commenters who file information that they believe should be withheld from public inspection may request confidential treatment pursuant to Section 0.459 of the Commission's rules. Commenters should file both their original comments for which they request confidentiality and redacted comments, along with their request for confidential treatment. Commenters should not file proprietary information electronically. Even if the Commission grants confidential treatment, information that does not fall within a specific exemption pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)must be publicly disclosed pursuant to an appropriate request. *See* 47 CFR 0.461; 5 U.S.C. 552. The Commission may grant requests for confidential treatment either conditionally or unconditionally. As such, The Commission has the discretion to release information on public interest grounds that does fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 25. The NPRM discusses potential new or revised information collection requirements. The reporting requirements, if any, that might be adopted pursuant to this NPRM are too speculative at this time to request comment from the OMB or interested parties under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). Therefore, if the Commission determines that reporting is required, it will seek comment from the OMB and interested parties prior to any such requirements taking effect. Nevertheless, interested parties are encouraged to comment on whether any new or revised information collection is necessary, and if so, how the Commission might minimize the burden of any such collection. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 26. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared the present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on small entities that might result from this Notice. 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 Notice provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 27. In the Notice, the Commission initiates a rulemaking proceeding to consider whether the current rules governing the tariffing of traffic-sensitive switched access services by local exchange carriers

(LECs)are ensuring that rates remain just and reasonable, as required by section 201(b). In particular, the Commission focuses on allegations that substantial growth in terminating access traffic may be causing carriers' rates to become unjust and unreasonable because the increased demand is increasing carriers' rates of return to levels significantly higher than the maximum allowed rate. In the Notice, the Commission seeks comment on the causes for the increased terminating access demand and the effect that the increase in demand has on a carrier's cost of providing switched access service. The Commission also tentatively concludes that average per minute switching costs do not increase proportionately to average per minute revenues as access demand increases, and that, as a result, rates that may be just and reasonable given a specific level of access demand may not be just and reasonable at a higher level of access demand. 28. We tentatively conclude that a rate-of-return carrier that shares revenue with, or provides other compensation to, an end user customer that is engaged in access stimulating activity, or itself provides the access stimulating activity, and bundles the costs of obtaining or providing an access stimulating activity with its costs for access is engaging in an unreasonable practice that violates section 201(b). The Commission tentatively concludes that to ensure that just and reasonable rates are maintained, the Commission should have the opportunity to review the relationship between rates and average costs through the filing of a revised tariff when a section 61.38 or 61.39 carrier experiences significant increases in traffic. The Commission seeks comment on whether tariff language should be included in a tariff that would require a carrier to file a revised tariff if a specified increase in traffic occurs, the level of increased demand that should trigger any such filing, when that filing should be made, and whether revised tariff support should be required. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it would be appropriate for the Commission to forbear from enforcing the deemed lawful provision of section 204(a)(3) if a mid-course tariff filing is triggered by a sufficient increase in demand, or if a carrier fails to file a revised tariff when required. The Commission also seeks comment on whether carriers should be required to certify that they are not, and do not intend to, stimulate traffic, or whether some general rules should be adopted regarding a carrier's representations as to the reasonableness of the historical data submitted in support of its tariff filings. The Notice also seeks comment on whether section 61.39(b)(2)(ii) should be clarified. 29. We also invite comment on whether price cap LECs and competitive LECs have an incentive to stimulate access traffic and what steps should be taken if they do have such incentives. The Commission invites comment on a variety of means of ensuring that access charges of competitive LECs remain just and reasonable if access stimulation occurs. These include establishing growth triggers that would require a competitive LEC to refile a tariff, and redefining the benchmark rate that competitive LECs can target. Legal Basis 30. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the Notice is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 201-205 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 201-205. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules May Apply 31. 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). 32. *Small Businesses* . Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. 33. *Small Organizations* . Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 million small organizations. 34. *Small Governmental Jurisdictions* . 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. The Commission estimates that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small. 35. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, *inter alia* , meets the pertinent small business size standard ( *e.g.* , a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although the Commission emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 36. *Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs)* . Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 288 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by the Commission's action. 37. *Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers.”* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 859 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 118 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 44 carriers have reported that they are “Other Local Service Providers.” Of the 44, an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's action. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 38. Should the Commission decide to adopt any regulations to address access stimulation by LECs, the associated rules potentially could modify the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of LECs. The Commission could, for instance, require LECs to make additional reports on switched access traffic demand, or provide additional supporting materials with their tariff filings. These proposals may impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on entities. The Commission seeks comment on the possible burden these requirements would place on small entities. Also, the Commission seeks comment on whether a special approach toward any possible compliance burdens on small entities might be appropriate. Entities, especially small businesses, are encouraged to quantify the costs and benefits of any reporting requirement that may be established in this proceeding. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 39. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives:

(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)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 40. The Commission's primary objective is to develop a framework for ensuring that rates remain just and reasonable, as required by section 201(b). The Commission seeks comment here on the effect the various proposals described in the Notice will have on small entities, and on what effect alternative rules would have on those entities. The Commission invites comment on ways in which the Commission can achieve its goal of protecting consumers while at the same time imposing minimal burdens on small entities. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 41. None. Ordering Clauses 42. Accordingly, *It is ordered* , pursuant to Sections 4(i), 160, 201-204, and 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 160, 201-204, and 254(g), that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. 43. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 44. *It is further ordered* that pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before December 17, 2007 and reply comments on or before December 31, 2007. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22342 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Part 31 [FAR Case 2006-021; Docket 2007-0001; Sequence 10] RIN: 9000-AK84 Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2006-021, Post Retirement Benefits (PRB), FAS 106 AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)to permit the contractor to measure accrued PRB costs using either the criteria in Internal Revenue Code

(IRC)419 or the criteria in Financial Accounting Standard

(FAS)106. DATES: Interested parties should submit written comments to the FAR Secretariat on or before January 14, 2008 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by FAR case number 2006-021 by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . • To search for any document, first select under “Step 1,” “Documents with an Open Comment Period” and select under “Optional Step 2,” “Federal Acquisition Regulation” as the agency of choice. Under “Optional Step 3,” select “Proposed Rules”. Under “Optional Step 4,” from the drop down list, select “Document Title” and type the FAR Case number “2006-021”. Click the “Submit” button. Please include your name and company name (if any) inside the document. You may also search for any document by clicking on the “Search for Documents” tab at the top of the screen. Select from the agency field “Federal Acquisition Regulation”, and type “2006-021” in the “Document Title” field. Select the “Submit” button. • Fax: 202-501-4067. • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405. *Instructions:* Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2006-021 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Chambers, Procurement Analyst, at

(202)501-3221, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the FAR Secretariat at

(202)501-4755. Please cite FAR case 2006-021. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background FAR 31.205-6(o) allows contractors to choose among three different accounting methods for PRB costs: cash basis, terminal funding, and accrual basis. When the accrual basis is used, the FAR currently requires that costs must be measured based on the requirements of FAS 106. However, the tax-deductible amount that is contributed to the retiree benefit trust is determined using IRC 419, which has different measurement criteria than FAS 106. As a result, the FAS 106 amount can often exceed the IRC 419 measured costs, and contractors that choose to accrue PRB costs for Government reimbursement face a dilemma: whether to fund the entire FAS 106 amount to obtain Government reimbursement of the costs, regardless of tax implications, or fund only the tax deductible amount and not be reimbursed for the entire FAS 106 amount under their Government contracts. The Councils are proposing to amend FAR 31.205-6(o) to alleviate this dilemma. This amendment would provide the contractor an option of measuring accrued PRB costs using criteria based on IRC 419 rather than FAS 106, thereby permitting the contractor to fund the entire tax deductible amount without having a portion disallowed because it did not meet the FAR’s current measurement criteria. The Councils note that this amendment will not change the total measured PRB costs, *i.e.* , the total measured PRB costs over the life of the PRB plan would be the same whether the contractor chose to apply the criteria in FAS 106 or IRC 419. The Councils note that the proposed rule may result in the Government paying higher PRB costs, since under the current rule some contractors may have chosen to fund the IRC amount rather than the full FAS amount in current and future accounting periods. Absent this proposed revision, the resulting difference will be an unallowable cost. However, the Councils are unable to estimate the specific cost impact because the number of contractors who may choose to use the proposed IRC 419 measurement option is unknown. Moreover, the Councils further note that there may be a cost impact if the rule remains unchanged. For example, in lieu of funding the lower IRC amount, contractors could decide to fund the full FAS amount (and forego the tax benefit), change from accrual to pay-as-you go accounting, or terminate their PRB plans rather than fund amounts that are not tax deductible. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because most small entities do not accrue PRB costs for Government contract costing purposes. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does apply; however, these changes to the FAR do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 9000-0013. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 31 Government procurement. Dated: October 24, 2007 Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR part 31 as set forth below: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 31 continues to read as follows: Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). PART 31—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 2. Amend section 31.205-6 by revising paragraphs (o)(2)(iii)(A) and

(B)to read as follows: 31.205-6 Compensation for personal services.

(o)* * *

(2)* * *

(iii)* * *

(A)Measured and assigned in accordance with—

(1)Generally accepted accounting principles. However, the portion of PRB costs attributable to the transition obligation assigned to the current year that is in excess of the amount assignable under the delayed recognition methodology described in paragraphs 112 and 113 of Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement 106 is unallowable. The transition obligation is defined in Statement 106, paragraph 110; or

(2)The costs shall—

(i)Be measured using reasonable actuarial assumptions, which may include a healthcare inflation assumption;

(ii)Be assigned to accounting periods on the basis of the average future working lives of active employees covered by the PRB plan or a 15 year period, whichever period is longer; and

(iii)Exclude Federal income taxes, whether incurred by the fund or the contractor (including those taxes associated with any increase in PRB costs), unless the fund holding the plan assets is tax-exempt under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 501(c);

(B)Paid to an insurer or trustee to establish and maintain a fund or reserve for the sole purpose of providing PRB to retirees. The assets shall be segregated in the trust, or otherwise effectively restricted, so that they cannot be used by the employer for other purposes; and [FR Doc. 07-5669 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 30

Traces to 30 documents