Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

48,640 words·~221 min read·/register/2008/01/24/08-238

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 16 Thursday, January 24, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0056; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-096-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; APEX Aircraft Model CAP 10 B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: A CAP 10B experienced an emergency landing after its front fuel tank collapsed and rendered inoperative the left rudder pedals which were blocked in neutral position. Investigation and the metallurgical examination revealed that the fuel tank straps had fractured as a result of fatigue. The tank support straps had logged around 7000 hours time-in-service (TIS). DGAC France Airworthiness Directive

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

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4145; fax:

(AD)F-2004-071 was issued to introduce a 4000 hour life-limit for the tank support straps and to require replacement of straps which had exceeded this life-limit. Since then, a front tank support has been found damaged during an inspection before reaching 4000 hours TIS. The present AD supersedes DGAC France AD F-2004-071, reduces to 2000 hours the life-limit for the tank support straps and requires replacement of straps which have exceeded the new life-limit. These actions are intended to address the identified unsafe condition so as to prevent fatigue cracks from occurring in the tank support straps before the established safe life is reached. The MCAI requires the life-limit of the front fuel tank strap be reduced from 4,000 hours TIS to 2,000 hours TIS and the replacement of front fuel tank straps that have exceeded the new life-limit. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information APEX Aircraft has issued Service Bulletin No. 040102 R1, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 31 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 19 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $65 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $49,135, or $1,585 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Apex Aircraft:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0056; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-096-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by February 25, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to CAP 10 B airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 28: Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: A CAP 10B experienced an emergency landing after its front fuel tank collapsed and rendered inoperative the left rudder pedals which were blocked in neutral position. Investigation and the metallurgical examination revealed that the fuel tank straps had fractured as a result of fatigue. The tank support straps had logged around 7000 hours time-in-service (TIS). DGAC France Airworthiness Directive

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

(1)When you accumulate a total of 2,000 hours TIS on the strap or within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace the front fuel tank support strap, part number (P/N) CAP 10-70-08-01, using the instructions in the maintenance manual.

(2)Repetitively thereafter within intervals not to exceed 2,000 hours TIS on the strap replace the front fuel tank support strap, P/N CAP 10-70-08-01, using the instructions in the maintenance manual.

(3)If you are unable to establish the accumulated hours TIS on the front fuel tank support strap, P/N CAP 10-70-08-01, you must use the total hours TIS accumulated on the airplane for the accumulated hours TIS on the strap.

(4)Within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD update the airworthiness limitations section of your maintenance program to reflect the life limit change of P/N CAP 10-70-08-01 from 4,000 hours TIS to 2,000 hours TIS using APEX Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 040102 R1, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The FAA has established a more universal compliance time for all airplanes. This gives all owners/operators at least 30 days to comply with the AD. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to *ATTN:* Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106-; *telephone:*

(816)329-4145; *fax:*

(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

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

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

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et. seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget

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

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD No.: 2007-0285, dated November 13, 2007; and APEX Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 040102 R1, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2007, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 16, 2008. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-1161 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0057; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-102-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; APEX Aircraft Model CAP 10 B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: A case of loose bond (ungluing) of one mounting wooden block of the control stick base cover, found during the cover reinstallation, was reported to the Type Certificate Holder

(TCH)and led to the issuance of the “recommended” Service Bulletin

(SB)No. 031004 in February 2004. Since that date, other similar occurrences have been reported. This SB in its revision 1, has therefore been reclassified “mandatory” by the TCH. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

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

(816)329-4145; fax:

(TCH)and led to the issuance of the “recommended” Service Bulletin

(AD)mandates inspection of the mounting blocks of the control stick base cover for loose bonds and repair, as necessary. These actions are intended to address the identified unsafe condition so as to prevent separation of the mounting blocks from the wing spar which could result in restricted movement of the ailerons and elevators with possible partial or complete loss of controls. The MCAI requires an inspection of the four mounting wooden blocks of the control stick base cover. You are to take corrective action by repairing any loose blocks where inspection indicates necessary. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information APEX Aircraft has issued service bulletin No. 031004 R1, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 52 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $135 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $9,100, or $175 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **APEX Aircraft:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0057; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-102-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by February 25, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the following CAP 10 B airplanes that are certificated in any category:

(i)serial numbers 300 through 310; and

(ii)serial numbers 1 through 40 that have been retrofitted with carbon/wood wing reference 5702-0104048* (*with or without a variable letter or number at the reference end). Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 57: Wings. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: A case of loose bond (ungluing) of one mounting wooden block of the control stick base cover, found during the cover reinstallation, was reported to the Type Certificate Holder

(TCH)and led to the issuance of the “recommended” Service Bulletin

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions within the next 6 months after the effective date of this AD, following APEX Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 031004 R1, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2007:

(1)Inspect the four mounting wooden blocks of the control stick base cover for loose bonding (gluing); and

(2)If any wooden block is found to be loose, take corrective action. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4145; fax:

(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

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

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), the Office of Management and Budget

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

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD No.: 2007-0296, dated December 7, 2007; and APEX Aircraft Service Bulletin

(SB)No. 031004 R1, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2007, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 16, 2008. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-1164 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0047; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-295-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes 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)that applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 400) airplanes. The existing AD currently requires revising the airworthiness limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of the maintenance requirements manual

(MRM)by incorporating procedures for repetitive functional tests of the pilot input lever of the pitch feel simulator

(PFS)units. That AD also requires new repetitive functional tests of the pilot input lever of the PFS unit, and corrective actions if necessary; and after initiating the new tests, requires removal of the existing procedures for the repetitive functional tests from the MRM. That AD resulted from a report that the shear pin located in the input lever of two PFS units failed due to fatigue. We issued that AD to prevent undetected failure of the shear pin of both PFS units simultaneously, which could result in loss of pitch feel forces and consequent reduced control of the airplane. Relevant Service Information AD 2006-05-11 R1 cited Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, Revision A, dated February 14, 2006, as the appropriate source of service information for the functional tests and associated corrective actions and reporting requirements. Since we issued that AD, Bombardier has revised the service bulletin. Revision B, dated December 20, 2006, revises the column check procedures by specifying ambient temperature conditions for performing the check. Remaining actions are unchanged. Revision B of the service bulletin contains an additional requirement. So we must supersede AD 2006-05-11 R1 to require the revised procedures specified in Revision B of the service bulletin. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplanes are manufactured in Canada 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. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2006-05-11 R1 and retain its requirements, but in accordance with revised procedures for the functional tests. Interim Action This is considered to be interim action. The inspection reports that are required by this AD will enable the manufacturer to obtain better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the failures of the shear pins of the PFS units, and eventually to develop final action to address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified, we might consider further rulemaking. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Revise MRM 1 $80 $80 684 $54,720. Functional tests 1 $80 $80, per test cycle 684 $54,720, per test cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14528 (71 FR 15323, March 28, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0047; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-295-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February 25, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-05-11 R1. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 400) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive, and 8000 and subsequent. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that the shear pin located in the input lever of two pitch feel simulator

(PFS)units failed due to fatigue. We are issuing this AD to prevent undetected failure of the shear pins of both PFS units simultaneously, which could result in loss of pitch feel forces and consequent reduced control of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006-05-11 R1 Revise Airworthiness Limitations

(AWL)Section of Maintenance Requirements Manual

(f)For airplanes having serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive: Within 14 days after February 13, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-02-07, which was superseded by AD 2006-05-11 R1), revise the AWL section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of the maintenance requirements manual by incorporating the functional check of the PFS pilot input lever, Task R27-31-A024-01, as specified in Bombardier Temporary Revision

(TR)2B-1784, dated October 24, 2003, to the CL-600-2B19 Canadair Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements Manual, Part 2, Appendix B, “Airworthiness Limitations,” into the AWL section. New Repetitive Functional Tests and Corrective Actions

(g)Before the accumulation of 4,000 total flight hours, or within 100 flight hours after March 27, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-05-11 R1), whichever occurs later: Do a functional test of the pilot input lever of the PFS units to determine if the lever is disconnected, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, Revision A, dated February 14, 2006, including Appendix A, dated September 15, 2005, except as required by paragraph

(j)of this AD. Repeat the test at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours. Accomplishing the initial functional test terminates the requirements of paragraph

(f)of this AD and the repetitive functional checks of the PFS pilot input lever, Task R27-31-A024-01, as specified in the AWL section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of CL-600-2B19 Canadair Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements Manual.

(h)If any lever is found to be disconnected during any functional test required by paragraph

(g)of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, Revision A, dated February 14, 2006, including Appendix A, dated September 15, 2005, except as required by paragraph

(j)of this AD.

(1)Before further flight, replace the defective PFS with a serviceable PFS in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin; and

(2)Within 30 days after removing the defective PFS, submit a test report to the manufacturer in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Previously Accomplished Actions

(i)Actions done before March 27, 2006, in accordance with Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, including Appendix A, dated September 15, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(g)of this AD. New Requirements of This AD New Service Bulletin for Functional Tests

(j)As of the effective date of this AD, Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-27-144, Revision B, dated December 20, 2006, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated December 20, 2006, must be used for the actions required by paragraphs

(g)and

(h)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

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

(l)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2005-41, dated December 22, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 14, 2008. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-1167 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0055; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-099-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Models FU24-954 and FU24A-954 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: This AD is prompted by reports of loosening rivets securing the threaded inserts in the ends of the aileron control pushrods P/N 08-24015-1. Aileron push-pull rods P/N 08-24015-1 have been installed on aircraft embodying PAC/FU/0340. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4146; fax:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0055; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-099-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued DCA/FU24/177, dated November 28, 2007, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: This AD is prompted by reports of loosening rivets securing the threaded inserts in the ends of the aileron control pushrods P/N 08-24015-1. Aileron push-pull rods P/N 08-24015-1 have been installed on aircraft embodying PAC/FU/0340. The MCAI requires an initial and repetitive inspection of the aileron and elevator control push-rods and requires corrective action as necessary. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Pacific Aerospace Limited has issued PACSB/FU/091, Issue 2, dated November 12, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 2 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $160, or $80 per product. In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $100, for a cost of $500 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Pacific Aerospace Limited:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0055; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-099-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by February 25, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to models FU24-954 and FU24A-954 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 27: Flight Controls. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: This AD is prompted by reports of loosening rivets securing the threaded inserts in the ends of the aileron control pushrods P/N 08-24015-1. Aileron push-pull rods P/N 08-24015-1 have been installed on aircraft embodying PAC/FU/0340. The MCAI requires an initial and repetitive inspection of the aileron and elevator control push-rods and requires corrective action as necessary. Actions and Compliance

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

(1)Within the next 50 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after the effective date of this AD, inspect the pushrod ends on the aileron and elevator control pushrods part number (P/N) 08-24015-1 following Pacific Aerospace Limited Service Bulletin No. PACSB/FU/091, Issue 2, dated November 12, 2007. Repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS.

(2)Before further flight after any inspection where any rivets are found on aileron and elevator control pushrods P/N 08-24015-1 that have detectable play between the pushrod and the insert or evidence of working rivets, replace the rivets following Pacific Aerospace Limited Service Bulletin No. PACSB/FU/091, Issue 2, dated November 12, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4146; fax:

(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

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

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), the Office of Management and Budget

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

(h)Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, DCA/FU24/177, dated November 28, 2007; and Pacific Aerospace Limited Service Bulletin No. PACSB/FU/091, Issue 2, dated November 12, 2007, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 16, 2008. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-1137 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0046; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-270-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes Equipped With Certain Northrop Grumman (Formerly Litton) Air Data Inertial Reference Units 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)that applies to certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes equipped with certain Litton air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs). The existing AD currently requires modifying the shelf (floor panel) above ADIRU 3, modifying the polycarbonate guard that covers the ADIRUs for certain airplanes, and modifying the ladder located in the avionics compartment for certain airplanes. This proposed AD would require those modifications on additional airplanes. This proposed AD would also require replacing all three ADIRUs with improved ADIRUs. This proposed AD also adds Model A318 series airplanes to the applicability. This proposed AD results from reports that “NAV IR FAULT” messages have occurred during takeoff due to failure of an ADIRU and subsequent analysis showing that the shelf modification has not sufficiently addressed failure of an ADIRU. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of an ADIRU during flight, which could result in loss of one source of critical attitude and airspeed data and reduce the ability of the flightcrew to control the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2141; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0046; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-270-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion On December 12, 2003, we issued AD 2003-26-03, amendment 39-13399 (68 FR 74172, December 23, 2003), for certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes equipped with certain Litton air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs). That AD requires modifying the shelf (floor panel) above ADIRU 3, and, for certain airplanes, modifying the polycarbonate guard that covers the ADIRUs, and the ladder located in the avionics compartment, as applicable. That AD resulted from reports that “NAV IR FAULT” messages have occurred during takeoff due to failure of ADIRU 3 on several Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. We issued that AD to prevent failure of ADIRU 3 during flight, which could result in loss of one source of critical attitude and airspeed data and reduce the ability of the flightcrew to control the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2003-26-03, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, notified us that further analysis has shown that modifying the ADIRU shelf has not sufficiently addressed the unsafe condition. The clearance between the shelf and ADIRUs is still too small. Consequently, vibration during takeoff could cause the shelf to hit the top of an ADIRU, leading to loss of parameters (attitude, vertical speed, ground speed, etc.). The EASA has determined that, in addition to modifying the ADIRU shelf, all three ADIRUs must be replaced with improved ADIRUs that introduce a more robust shock resistance to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA has also determined that the unsafe condition exists on certain Model A318 series airplanes. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-34-1350, dated March 20, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing all three ADIRUs with improved ADIRUs having part number 465020-0303-0316, which introduce a more robust shock resistance and new magnetic variation tables. Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-25-1248, Revision 01, dated April 16, 2003. The procedures in Revision 01 of the service bulletin are essentially the same as those in the original issue of the service bulletin, dated February 16, 2001. Revision 1 of the service bulletin adds airplanes to the effectivity of the service bulletin. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive 2007-0217, dated August 9, 2007, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplanes 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. As described in FAA Order 8100.14A, “Interim Procedures for Working with the European Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness,” dated August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2003-26-03 and retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Change to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2003-26-03. Since AD 2003-26-03 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the requirement in paragraph

(a)of AD 2003-26-03 corresponds to paragraph

(f)of this proposed AD. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 658 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions that are required by AD 2003-26-03 and retained in this proposed AD take about 4 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost about $300 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions for U.S. operators is $407,960, or $620 per airplane. The new proposed actions would take about 3 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The manufacturer states that it will supply the required parts to operators at no cost. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new actions specified in this proposed AD for U.S. operators is $157,920, or $240 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13399 (68 FR 74172, December 23, 2003) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0046; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-270-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February 25, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2003-26-03. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes, certificated in any category; equipped with at least one Northrop Grumman (formerly Litton) air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU), part number (P/N) 465020-0303-0307, -0308, -0309, -0312, -0314, -0315, or -0316; except airplanes equipped with three ADIRUs having P/N 465020-0303-0316 and on which Airbus Modification 30650 or 30872 has been incorporated in production. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports that “NAV IR FAULT” messages have occurred during takeoff due to failure of an ADIRU and subsequent analysis showing that the shelf modification has not sufficiently addressed failure of an ADIRU. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of an ADIRU during flight, which could result in loss of one source of critical attitude and airspeed data and reduce the ability of the flightcrew to control the airplane. Compliance

(f)For Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes, equipped with any Litton ADIRU installed in accordance with Airbus Modification 24852, 25108, 25336, 26002, or 28218: Within 2 years after January 27, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2003-26-03), do the modifications specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with paragraphs A. through D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1248, dated February 16, 2001; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1248, Revision 01, dated April 16, 2003; as applicable.

(1)For all airplanes: Modify the shelf (floor panel) above ADIRU 3 by installing shims between the shelf and the webs of the shelf support structure.

(2)For airplanes with Airbus Modification 25900P3941 or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1200 accomplished as of January 27, 2004: Modify the polycarbonate guard (umbrella) protecting the ADIRUs by installing shims between the guard and the shelf support structure.

(3)For airplanes with Airbus Modification 23027P2852 or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1038 accomplished as of January 27, 2004: Modify the ladder located in the avionics compartment by machining the slot at the foot of the ladder to increase the depth by 0.236 inch. New Requirements of This AD Modification for Certain Airplanes

(g)For all airplanes equipped with any ADIRU installed in accordance with Airbus Modification 31070, 31742, or 35517, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 30650 or 30872 has been accomplished in production: Within 46 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the ADIRU shelf supports by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1248, Revision 01, dated April 16, 2003. Replacement of ADIRUs

(h)For all airplanes except those on which Airbus Modification 35517 has been incorporated in production: Within 46 months after the effective date of this AD, replace all three ADIRUs with improved ADIRUs having P/N 465020-0303-0316 in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1350, dated March 20, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

(j)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2007-0217, dated August 9, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 14, 2008. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-1135 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 284 [Docket No. RM08-2-000] Transparency Provision Under Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act January 10, 2008. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Notice of Technical Conference. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is holding a technical conference to address implementation issues associated with the Commission's posting proposal, such as obtaining and posting actual and scheduled flow information and obtaining and posting flow information from storage facilities, as set for in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued December 21, 2007, in Commission Docket No. RM08-2-000. DATES: The conference is to be held on February 28, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Saida E. Shaalan, Energy Information Analyst, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 202-502-8278, *saida.shaalan@ferc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of Technical Conference The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a technical conference in the above-referenced proceeding on February 28, 2008, at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 in the Commission Meeting Room (2-C) from 9:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. (EST). The staff is holding this conference to address implementation issues associated with the posting proposal, such as obtaining and posting actual and scheduled flow information and obtaining and posting information from storage facilities. This is as set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), *Pipeline Posting Requirements under Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act,* 73 FR 1116 (January 7, 2008), FERC Stat. & Regs. ¶ 32,626 (2007). People interested in speaking at the conference may send brief descriptions of the issues they would like to address to Saida Shaalan at *Saida.Shaalan@FERC.gov.* This conference will not be Web-cast or transcribed. All interested persons are invited, and there is *no* registration fee to attend. Comments should be filed in Docket RM08-2-000, in accordance with the dates set in the rulemaking docket. Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to *accessibility@ferc.gov* or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations. Questions about the conference should be directed to Saida Shaalan by e-mail at *Saida.Shaalan@FERC.gov* or by phone at 202-502-8278. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1152 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-107592-00; REG-105964-98] RIN 1545-BA11; RIN 1545-AW30 Consolidated Returns; Intercompany Obligations; Hearing AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document provides notice of public hearing on proposed regulations regarding the treatment of transactions involving obligations between members of a consolidated group and the treatment of transactions involving the provision of insurance between members of a consolidated group. DATES: The public hearing is being held on Friday, February 29, 2008, at 10 a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Friday, February 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-107592-00; REG-105964-98), room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-107592-00; REG-105964-98), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC or sent electronically via the Federal erulemaking Portal at *www.regulations.gov* (IRS-REG-107592-00; REG-105964-98). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, Frances L. Kelly

(202)622-7770; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Funmi Taylor at

(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-107592-00; REG-105964-98) that was published in the **Federal Register** on Friday, September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55139). The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing that submitted written comments by December 27, 2007, must submit an outline of the topics to be addressed and the amount of time to be denoted to each topic (signed original and eight copies). A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR) (Room 1621) which is located at the 11th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Cynthia Grigsby, Senior Federal Register Liaison, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-1145 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD 36 CFR Parts 1193 and 1194 RIN 3014-AA22 Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines; Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of meetings. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has established a Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (Committee) to assist it in revising and updating accessibility guidelines for telecommunications products and accessibility standards for electronic and information technology. This notice announces the dates and times of upcoming committee conference calls. DATES: The conference calls are scheduled for every Tuesday from January 29, 2008, through April 1, 2008. Calls will begin at 1 p.m. and end at 4 p.m. Eastern time. The conference call on March 11 is scheduled from 1 p.m. until 6 p.m. Eastern time. ADDRESSES: Individuals can participate in the conference calls by dialing the teleconference numbers which will be posted on the Access Board's Web site at *http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/update-index.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Creagan, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number: 202-272-0016 (Voice); 202-272-0082 (TTY). Electronic mail address: *creagan@access-board.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) established the Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (Committee) to assist it in revising and updating accessibility guidelines for telecommunications products and accessibility standards for electronic and information technology. The next committee meetings, which are all conference calls, will focus on outstanding issues which have not yet been resolved. The conference calls are scheduled for every Tuesday, starting on January 29, 2008, through April 1, 2008. Calls will begin at 1 p.m. and end at 4 p.m. Eastern time. The conference call on March 11 is scheduled from 1 p.m. until 6 p.m. Eastern time. The agendas, instructions (including information on captioning), and dial in telephone numbers are available at *http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/update-index.htm* . Notices of future meetings will be published in the **Federal Register** . The committee may cancel or shorten any conference call before it is scheduled to take place depending on the needs of the committee and its progress in discussing and resolving outstanding issues. If a conference call is canceled, a notice will be posted at *http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/update-index.htm* . All conference calls are open to the public and interested persons can dial in and communicate their views during public comment periods scheduled during the calls. Participants may call in from any location of their choosing. Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E8-1229 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0532-200724; FRL-8520-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revisions submitted by the State of Alabama on June 16, 2006. The proposed revisions modify Alabama's Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)and Nonattainment New Source Review

(NNSR)regulations in the SIP to address changes to the federal New Source Review

(NSR)permitting regulations, which were promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002, and reconsidered with minor changes on November 7, 2003 (collectively, these two final actions are called the “2002 NSR Reform Rules”). The proposed revisions include provisions for baseline emissions calculations, an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for calculating emissions changes, options for plantwide applicability limits (PAL), and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The June 16, 2006, submittal also contained provisions to address the Clean Air Interstate Rule, on which EPA has already taken action. As requested by Alabama on December 3, 2007, at this time, EPA is not taking action on a proposed revision found in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(w)1, which establishes a significance threshold for all NSR regulated pollutants for which there is not a listed significance threshold. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0532, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: danois.gracy@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*

(404)562-9019. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0532,” Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Ms. Gracy R. Danois, Air Permits Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0532. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Alabama State Implementation Plan, contact Ms. Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is

(404)562-9042. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail at *harder.stacy@epa.gov.* For information regarding New Source Review, contact Ms. Gracy R. Danois, Air Permits Section, at the same address above. The telephone number is

(404)562-9119. Ms. Danois can also be reached via electronic mail at *danois.gracy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, references to “EPA,” “we,” “us,” or “our,” are intended to mean the Environmental Protection Agency. The supplementary information is arranged as follows: I. What action is EPA proposing? II. Why is EPA proposing this action? III. What is EPA's analysis of Alabama's NSR rule revisions? IV. What action is EPA taking? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action is EPA Proposing? On June 16, 2006, the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted revisions to the SIP. Specifically, the proposed SIP revisions include changes to ADEM Administrative Code

(AAC)Division 3 Code (Air Division), Chapter 14, entitled “Air Permits.” ADEM submitted these revisions in response to EPA's December 31, 2002, revisions to the federal NSR program. EPA is now proposing to approve these SIP revisions with the exception of the requirements found in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(w)1, the portion of the definition of “significant” that establishes a significance threshold of 100 tons for all NSR regulated pollutants for which there is not a listed significant amount. On December 3, 2007, Alabama requested that this portion of the definition not be approved into the SIP. Additionally, the June 16, 2006, submittal also addressed the Clean Air Interstate Rule which EPA has already taken action on separately. II. Why is EPA Proposing This Action? On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule changes to 40 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)parts 51 and 52, regarding the Clean Air Act's (CAA or Act) PSD and NNSR programs. On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final action on the reconsideration of the December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), final rule changes. In that November 7, 2003, final action, EPA added the definition of “replacement unit,” and clarified an issue regarding PAL. The December 31, 2002, and the November 7, 2003, final actions are collectively referred to as the “2002 NSR Reform Rules.” The purpose of this action is to propose to approve the SIP submittal from the State of Alabama, which addresses EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. 1 1 This action is not addressing any issues related to the Alabama NSR program that were not part of the June 16, 2006, submittal. The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part of EPA's implementation of Parts C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the PSD program, which applies in areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—“attainment” areas—as well as in areas for which there is insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS—“unclassifiable” areas. Part D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the NNSR program, which applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS—“nonattainment” areas. Collectively, the PSD and NNSR programs are referred to as the “New Source Review” or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.24, and part 51, appendix S. The CAA's NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air pollution regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets those standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for approval, a SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air; to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls are applied; to maximize opportunities for economic development consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full public consideration of the consequences of the decision. The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules:

(1)Provided a new method for determining baseline actual emissions;

(2)adopted an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major modification has occurred;

(3)allowed major stationary sources to comply with PAL to avoid having a significant emissions increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR program;

(4)provided a new applicability provision for emissions units that are designated clean units; and

(5)excluded pollution control projects

(PCPs)from the definition of “physical change or change in the method of operation.” On November 7, 2003, EPA published a notice of final action on its reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules (68 FR 63021), which added a definition for “replacement unit” and clarified an issue regarding PALs. For additional information on the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, see, 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), and *http://www.epa.gov/nsr.* After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March 3, 2003), industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit Court) issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. *New York* v. *United States, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005).* In summary, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated portions of the rules pertaining to clean units and pollution control projects, remanded a portion of the rules regarding recordkeeping, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did not comment on the other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. On March 8, 2007, EPA responded to the Court's remand regarding the recordkeeping provisions by proposing two alternative options to clarify what constitutes “reasonable possibility” and when the “reasonable possibility” recordkeeping requirements apply (72 FR 10445). The “reasonable possibility” standard identifies for sources and reviewing authorities the circumstances under which a major stationary source undergoing a modification that does not trigger major NSR must keep records. On December 14, 2007, EPA issued a final rulemaking establishing that “reasonable possibility” applies where source emissions equal or exceed 50% of the CAA NSR significance levels for any pollutant. This rule will be effective 30 days after its publication in the **Federal Register** . For further information, see, *http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/ReasPos_final.pdf* . On June 13, 2007, EPA took final action to revise the 2002 NSR reform rules to exclude the portions that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court (72 FR 32526). This proposed action is consistent with the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court because Alabama's June 2006 SIP submittal, now being proposed for approval, does not include any portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were vacated as part of the June 2005 decision. 2 2 Since April 13, 1999, the AAC has included a provision entitled, “environmental beneficial projects,” which was approved into the SIP on November 3, 1999, long before the 2002 NSR reform rules. This provision operates in much the same manner as the vacated PCP provision. Consistent with EPA's June 13, 2007, direct final action regarding the vacatur of the PCP provision, Alabama should remove this provision from the SIP at the earliest opportunity because a federal appeals court has found that a similar federal provision is contrary to the CAA. The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that state agencies adopt and submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs implementing the minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules no later than January 2, 2006. (Consistent with changes to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(6)(i), state agencies are now required to adopt and submit SIP revisions within three years after new amendments are published in the **Federal Register** .) State agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with different but equivalent regulations. On June 16, 2006, the State of Alabama submitted a SIP revision for the purpose of revising the State's NSR permitting provisions. These changes were made primarily to adopt EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. As discussed in further detail below, EPA believes the revisions contained in the Alabama submittal are approvable for inclusion into the Alabama SIP. III. What is EPA's Analysis of Alabama's NSR Rule Revisions? Alabama currently has a SIP-approved NSR program for new and modified stationary sources. EPA is now proposing to approve revisions to Alabama's existing PSD program in the SIP. These revisions became State-effective on July 11, 2006, and were submitted to EPA on June 16, 2006, for incorporation into the Alabama SIP. Copies of the revised rules, as well as the State's Technical Support Document, can be obtained from the Docket, as discussed in the “Docket” section above. A discussion of the specific changes to the Alabama rules, proposed for inclusion in the SIP, follows. ADEM Rule 335-3-14-.04 contains the preconstruction review program that provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of ambient air quality as required under Part C of title I of the CAA. The program applies to major stationary sources or modifications constructing in areas that are designated as attainment or unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS. Alabama's PSD program was originally approved into the SIP by EPA on November 10, 1981, and has been revised several times since then. The current revisions to Rule 335-3-14-.04, which EPA is now proposing to approve into the SIP, were provided to update the existing provisions to be consistent with the current federal PSD rules, including the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. State agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with different but equivalent regulations. In developing regulations consistent with the 2002 NSR reform rules, ADEM has made the following changes in its rules that are different but equivalent to the federal regulations: 1. Applicability provisions—Actual-to-Potential Test for Projects that Only Involve Existing Emissions Units (335-3-14-.04(1)(h))—As part of the 2002 NSR reform rules, EPA changed NSR applicability determinations to rely on a new definition of “baseline actual emissions” that supports the “actual-to-projected actual” methodology. In addition to adopting this new methodology for determining NSR applicability, ADEM has retained an optional “actual to potential” test for projects that only involve existing units. This approach utilizes the definition for “actual emissions” to determine past actual emissions. To allow facilities to continue to use the actual-to-potential test, some of the State definitions are slightly different from the federal rule. ADEM's definition of “Net Emissions Increase” in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(c) does not include the condition that “actual emissions” not be used in determining creditable emissions increases and decreases. Consistent with this approach, the definition of “actual emissions” in ADEM's Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(u) does not include an exclusion for determining significant increases or decreases. Because the “actual to potential test” approach is optional for existing units and at least as stringent as the federal rules, this difference is approvable. 2. Definition of “Allowable Emissions” and “Enforceable”—ADEM's definitions in Rule 335-3-14-.04-(2)(p) and

(q)contain provisions indicating that appropriate limitations from 40 CFR part 63 also can be considered in determining enforceable limitations. These changes do not have a substantive effect on the terms, but rather, serve to clarify these terms. As a result, the change is at least as stringent as the federal rules, and is approvable. 3. Definition of “Significant”—In the definition of “significant” found in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(w), ADEM excluded HF from being considered a fluoride. This change was prompted by the language included in the preamble for the NSR Reform regulations (67 FR 80240) which states that HF should not be considered as part of the fluorides. Therefore, this change is approvable. 4. Definition of Baseline Actual Emissions—ADEM's definition in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(uu)3, uses different trigger dates for new and existing units when establishing the period for establishing the baseline actual emissions for the unit. While this is different than the federal rule, ADEM's approach offers the requisite specificity and is at least as stringent as the federal rule. 5. Definition of Regulated NSR Pollutant—ADEM has included language in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(ww)4 to exclude compounds listed under section 112(r)(3) of the CAA from the definition of regulated NSR pollutant unless otherwise listed as an NSR pollutant in the federal NSR rules. Such compounds are excluded from the federal NSR rules pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 51.166(b)(49)(iv). ADEM's rule is therefore consistent with federal rules. 6. Reasonable Possibility Provisions—ADEM made the following changes to the reasonable possibility provisions in Rule 335-3-14-.04(17): a. ADEM included language in Rule 335-3-14-.04(17)(d) to require additional recordkeeping requirements for those modifications “where there is not a reasonable possibility that a project is part of a major modification and that is not excluded from the definition of physical change or change in the method of operation.” b. ADEM added language in Rule 335-3-14-.04(17)(e) to require that all sources meet the recordkeeping requirements of the electric utilities. In Rule 335-3-14-.04(17)(e)(2), ADEM proposed additional reporting requirements for sources with a project for which there is a reasonable possibility that the project could exceed the significance thresholds. As discussed earlier, on March 8, 2007 (72 FR 10445), EPA proposed changes to the reasonable possibility provisions in the 2002 NSR reform rules, and on December 14, 2007, EPA issued a final action responding to the D.C. Circuit's remand. ADEM's changes identified above are more stringent than the federal rule and are therefore approvable. 7. PAL Provisions—ADEM made the following changes to the Actuals PAL provisions in Rule 335-3-14-.04(23): a. (23)(a)2—ADEM omitted the provision which allows facilities utilizing PAL to remove previously set synthetic minor PSD limitations. According to Alabama's submittal, it is ADEM's intent that previously set PSD synthetic minor limits remain intact, similar to how NSPS, SIP and BACT limits remain applicable when requesting and obtaining a PAL in a permit. b. (23)(f)—ADEM changed the method of setting the PAL. The federal rules state that any unit constructed after the 24-month period chosen for setting the PAL shall have its allowable emissions added to the PAL. ADEM has changed the provision to only allow the inclusion of actual emissions during any 24-month period of operation for sources which have been in operation for greater than 24 months. According to Alabama's SIP submittal, it is ADEM's intent that the PAL be based upon true actual emissions. Allowing for the inclusion of allowable emissions for all sources built after the chosen 24-month period would not be consistent with this approach. c. (23)(i)5—ADEM has added a provision which states that synthetic minor limits which existed prior to a PAL shall be retained by the source after the expiration of the PAL. According to Alabama's SIP submittal, it is ADEM's intention that previously set PSD synthetic minor limits remain intact, in the same fashion that NSPS, SIP and BACT limits remain effective. d. (23)(n)1—ADEM has removed the requirement to submit a semi-annual report within 30 days of the end of the reporting period. Since the facility's title V permit would require these reports to be submitted, its inclusion in the PSD regulations is not necessary. Although the changes to the PAL provisions identified above are different than the federal rule, ADEM's approach is as stringent as the federal rules and is approvable. Additional information regarding these changes, including ADEM's explanation, is available in the Docket for this proposed action. As part of EPA's review of the June 2006 Alabama SIP submittal, EPA performed a line-by-line review of the proposed revisions, including the provisions summarized above which differ from the federal rule. EPA has determined that the rules included in the June 2006 submittal are consistent with the program requirements for the preparation, adoption and submittal of implementation plans for NSR set forth at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166. Alabama's June 2006 SIP submittal did not include any revisions to its NNSR rules. The State of Alabama currently has two nonattainment areas for PM 2.5 and no nonattainment areas for ozone. At the time of the submittal by Alabama, EPA had not promulgated NSR implementations rules for PM 2.5 . EPA proposed the NSR implementation rules for PM 2.5 on November 1, 2005. Once final, Alabama will be required to revise its SIP to update its NNSR rules. IV. What Action is EPA Taking? For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve the changes made to Alabama's Rule 335-3-14-.04, as submitted by ADEM on June 16, 2006, as revisions to the Alabama SIP. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve state rules implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: January 10, 2008. Russell L. Wright, Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E8-1181 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0995; FRL-8518-6] RIN 2060-A073 Emission Standards for Stationary Diesel Engines AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: With this advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is soliciting comment on several issues concerning options the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can pursue through Federal rulemaking under the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions of pollutants from existing stationary diesel engines, generally, and specifically from larger, older stationary diesel engines. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has taken several actions over the past several years to reduce exhaust pollutants from stationary diesel engines. The Agency continues to be interested in exploring opportunities to further reduce exhaust pollutants from stationary diesel engines, particularly existing stationary diesel engines that have not been subject to federal standards. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking is intended to explore possible options to achieve further emissions reductions, particularly from existing stationary diesel engines. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0995, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*

(202)566-9744. • *Mail:* U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Emissions Standards for Stationary Diesel Engines Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. We request that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). *Hand Delivery:* In person or by courier, deliver comments to: EPA Docket and Information Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0995. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Emissions Standards for Stationary Diesel Engines Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

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

(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christopher S. Stoneman, Outreach and Information Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C304-01, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number:

(919)541-0823, fax number:

(919)541-0072; e-mail address: *stoneman.chris@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? II. Background Information A. What is the purpose of this action? B. Why are emissions from diesel engines a health concern? C. What is the Agency already doing to address diesel emissions from new and existing stationary and mobile diesel engines? D. What do we know about existing stationary diesel engines? III. Specific Issues on Which EPA is Seeking Comment A. What particular subgroups of existing stationary diesel engines should EPA focus on and how can EPA best find information on those engines? B. Where can EPA find better information about the location and numbers of existing stationary engines, who owns and operates them and what impact they are having (including hours of operation)? C. What are appropriate and available technically-feasible, cost-effective methods of controlling emissions from existing stationary diesel engines? D. To what degree do state and local governments regulate emissions from stationary diesel engines? E. What are appropriate methods of ensuring compliance with such requirements, including record-keeping and testing issues? IV. How EPA Intends to Proceed Following Publication of This Notice V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? This notice is likely to be of interest to a variety of parties, including owners and operators of stationary diesel engines, manufacturers of stationary diesel engines, state and local air quality agencies responsible for developing diesel pollution reduction strategies, and individuals and organizations with an interest in emissions from diesel engines. All of these parties and others interested in stationary diesel engine issues are encouraged to read this notice and to submit comments for EPA's consideration. B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit this information to EPA through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • Follow directions—The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this notice will be available on the Worldwide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Following signature, an electronic version of this document will be posted at *www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg* under “Recent Additions.” II. Background Information A. What is the purpose of this action? The EPA has taken several actions over the past few years to reduce exhaust pollutants (e.g., particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NO X ), hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)) from mobile and stationary diesel engines as these pollutants have been associated with several health-related concerns, including cancer, respiratory problems, and premature death. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of hundreds of constituents in either a gas or particle form resulting from the complete and incomplete combustion of fuel and small amounts of engine oil. While EPA uses the term “diesel exhaust” as a static concept throughout this document, EPA recognizes that the mixture of chemicals in diesel engine exhaust can vary in important ways, particularly when comparing exhaust from uncontrolled engines to exhaust from controlled engines. 1 Diesel exhaust varies significantly in chemical composition and particle sizes between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (e.g., idle, acceleration, deceleration) and fuel formulations (high/low sulfur). Over 600 compounds or elements have been identified in diesel exhaust. 2 The emissions include particles composed of carbon and/or inorganic constituents with organics, trace elements and ions absorbed onto the particles, and organic and inorganic gases. The PM present in diesel exhaust consists primarily of fine particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (μm) in diameter), including a subgroup with a large number of ultrafine particles (generally referring to particles less than 0.1 μm in diameter). Collectively, these particles have a large surface area which makes them effective for absorbing organic and inorganic HAPs. Their small size also makes them highly respirable and able to reach deeply into the lungs. 3 1 While the EPA Diesel Health Assessment Document refers to “diesel exhaust” in general, it also notes that the “health hazard conclusions are based on exhaust emissions from diesel engines built prior to the mid-1990s. * * * As new and cleaner diesel engines, together with different diesel fuels, replace a substantial number of existing engines, the general applicability of the health hazard conclusions will need to be reevaluated.,” “Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 600/8-90/057F, *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/dieselfinal.pdf,* May 2002, p. 1-3. 2 “Expanding and Updating the Master List of Compounds Emitted by Mobile Sources—Phase III Final Report,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA420-R-06-005, *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/420r06005.pdf,* February 2006. 3 “Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Volume II Document No. EPA600/P-99/002bF, October 2004, Chapter 6. As discussed below, EPA has already taken several actions to reduce pollution from diesel engines. In combination, these efforts will improve air quality by substantially reducing emissions of pollutants from these engines. However, the Agency continues to be interested in exploring further opportunities to reduce exhaust pollutants from diesel engines generally, and specifically from larger, older stationary diesel engines, the subject of this notice. Some stakeholders are encouraging the Agency to review whether there are further ways to reduce emissions of pollutants from existing stationary diesel engines. In its comments on EPA's 2006 proposed rule for new stationary diesel engines, 4 Environmental Defense suggested several possible avenues for the regulation of existing stationary diesel engines, including use of diesel oxidation catalysts or catalyzed diesel particulate filters, as well as the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel

(ULSD)fuel. Environmental Defense suggested that such controls can provide significant pollution reductions at reasonable cost. 4 “Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines,” 71 FR 33803-33855, *www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rice/ricepg.html,* June 12, 2006. As a result of discussions with Environmental Defense and other interested stakeholders, EPA is undertaking this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). The purpose of this action is to solicit comment and collect information to aid decision-making related to the reduction of HAP emissions from existing stationary diesel engines and specifically from larger, older engines under Clean Air Act

(CAA)section 112 authorities. 5 The Agency is seeking comment on the larger, older engines because available data indicate that they emit the majority of PM and toxic emissions from non-emergency stationary engines as a whole. 5 If reductions in HAP emissions occur in the future through the issuance of EPA regulation, because some HAPs are in the particulate form, a reduction in HAP emissions may also result in reductions of emissions of particulate matter. The EPA requests comment on specific, well supported information that will assist the Agency with moving forward with the regulation of existing stationary diesel engines (Section III). The areas for which EPA is seeking comment include: • Locations of stationary diesel engines; • Usage and duty cycles; • Technical parameters that help define “older” engines for purposes of defining potential subcategories of engines; • Which stationary diesel engines to control; • Appropriate controls for those engines; • Existing stationary engine control measures in place, including State and local requirements; • Costs and cost effectiveness of, and emission reductions associated with, different control technologies and control strategies; and • Monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for owners and operators of existing stationary engines subject to emissions standards. In this ANPR, EPA provides background information on: • Existing and other proposed efforts to control stationary engine emissions; • Some of the information we have on existing stationary diesel engines; and • Health concerns related to emissions from diesel engines. B. Why are emissions from diesel engines a health concern? EPA published a Diesel Health Assessment Document (Diesel HAD) in September 2002. 6 Some of the HAD's important results are summarized here. The Diesel HAD classified exposure to diesel exhaust as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation” at environmental levels of exposure. Other agencies at the international, federal and state level have come to similar conclusions. 7 The EPA Diesel HAD provided insight into the possible ranges of lung cancer risk that might be present in the population resulting from environmental exposure to diesel emissions. Lifetime cancer risk may exceed 10 −5 and could be as high as 10 −3 . Because of uncertainties, the analysis acknowledged that the risks could be lower than 10 −4 or 10 −5 , and a zero risk from diesel exhaust exposure was not ruled out. This range of values includes numerous uncertainties and, as discussed in the Diesel HAD, does not constitute an Agency cancer unit risk range suitable for estimating the number of cancer cases resulting from exposure to diesel exhaust. EPA's 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment

(NATA)does not include a quantitative estimate of cancer risk for diesel exhaust, but it concludes that diesel exhaust ranks with the other emissions that the national-scale assessment suggests pose the greatest relative risk. 8 The purpose of this national-scale assessment is to provide a perspective on the magnitude of risks posed by outdoor sources of air toxics and to identify the pollutants and sources that are important contributors to these health risks. 6 Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 600/8-90/057F, *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/dieselfinal.pdf,* May 2002. 7 A [0] number of other agencies (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization, California EPA, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) have made similar classifications regarding the diesel exhaust lung cancer hazard. 8 For more information on NATA, see *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/risksum.html.* The Diesel HAD established an inhalation Reference Concentration

(RfC)of 5 μg/m 3 for diesel exhaust as measured by diesel PM. 9 The Diesel HAD concludes “that acute exposure to DE [diesel exhaust] has been associated with irritation of the eye, nose, and throat, respiratory symptoms (cough and phlegm), and neurophysiological symptoms such as headache, lightheadedness, nausea, vomiting, and numbness or tingling of the extremities.” 10 There is also evidence of immunologic effects such as the exacerbation of allergenic responses to known allergens and asthma-like symptoms. 9 An RfC is defined by EPA as “an estimate of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population, including sensitive subgroups, with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude, which is likely to be without appreciable risks of deleterious noncancer effects during a lifetime.” 10 “Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 600/8-90/057F, *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/dieselfinal.pdf,* May 2002, p. 9-9. Diesel exhaust is a mixture that includes HAPs that are known or suspected human carcinogens or have noncancer effects, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and naphthalene. Benzene 11 and 1,3-butadiene 12 are known human carcinogens. Noncancer health effects may include neurological, cardiovascular, liver, kidney, and respiratory effects, as well as effects on the immune and reproductive systems. 11 Integrated Risk Information System File for Benzene, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, *http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0276.htm,* 2000. 12 Integrated Risk Information System File for 1,3-Butadiene, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, *http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0139.htm,* 2002. Several of the HAPs emitted by diesel engines (e.g., acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and POM) were identified in EPA's 1999 NATA as national or regional cancer and/or noncancer risk drivers. 13 However, EPA does not have high confidence in the NATA data for all these compounds. 14 It should be noted that the NATA modeling framework has a number of limitations which prevent its use as the sole basis for setting regulatory standards. These limitations and uncertainties are discussed on the 1999 NATA Web site. Even so, this modeling framework is very useful in identifying air toxic pollutants and sources of greatest concern, setting regulatory priorities, and informing the decision making process. 15 13 More information on NATA risk drivers is available at: *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/risksum.html* . 14 See “Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder; Proposed Rule,” 72 FR 69521-69552, 69534, *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2007/December/Day-07/a23556.htm* , December 2007. 15 For more information on NATA, see *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/risksum.html* . Diesel emissions contain fine and ultra-fine PM and contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations in many areas of the country. 16 The nature of the effects that have been reported to be associated with fine particle exposures include premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits), changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, as well as new evidence for more subtle indicators of cardiovascular health (71 FR 61152, October 17, 2006). 17 The PM Air Quality Criteria Document also notes that the PM components of gasoline and diesel engine exhaust represent one class of hypothesized likely important contributors to the observed ambient PM-related increases in lung cancer incidence and mortality. 18 The PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard is designed to provide protection from the noncancer and premature mortality effects of PM 2.5 as a whole, of which diesel PM is a constituent. 19 16 “Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 600/8-90/057F, *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/dieselfinal.pdf* , May 2002, p. 2-97, Table 2-23. 17 Detailed information on the health effects of PM is provided in: “Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Volume I, EPA600/P-99/002aF and Volume II, EPA600/P-99/002bF, October 2004; “Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-452/R-05-005, 2005; “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule,” 71 FR 2620-2708, 2626-2637, *http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/actions.html* , January 17, 2006 and “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Final Rule,” 71 FR 61144-61233, *http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/actions.html* , October 17, 2006. 18 “Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Volume I, EPA600/P-99/002aF and Volume II, EPA600/P-99/002bF, October 2004, p. 8-318. 19 “Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder; Proposed Rule,” 72 FR 15937-15986, 15958, *http://www.epa.gov/oms/locomotv.htm* , April 3, 2007. Diesel exhaust also includes NO X and volatile organic compounds, which react in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Ozone contributes to serious public health problems, including aggravation of respiratory disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school absences, lost work days, and restricted activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, altered respiratory defense mechanisms, and chronic bronchitis. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of a contribution of ozone to cardiovascular-related morbidity and highly suggestive evidence that short-term ozone exposure directly or indirectly contributes to non-accidental and cardiopulmonary-related mortality, but additional research is needed to more fully establish underlying mechanisms by which such effects occur. 20 20 Detailed information regarding the health effects of ozone[0] is provided in: “Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final),” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF, 2006, pp. 7-97 and 8-78; “Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-452/R-07-003, January 2007; and “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Proposed Rule,” 72 FR 37818-37919, 37844 and 37836, *http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html* , July 11, 2007. Tables 3 and 4 in the Section II.D. below indicate that older, larger non-emergency stationary source diesel engines generate a substantial share of the emissions from all stationary diesel engines. In this context, it is important to consider the health effects associated with diesel exhaust. C. What is the Agency already doing to address diesel emissions from new and existing stationary and mobile diesel engines? EPA has undertaken several specific regulatory efforts to control emissions from new or reconstructed stationary diesel engines. In June 2004, EPA published national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines

(RICE)21 with a site rating of greater than 500 brake horse power

(BHP)located at major sources. 22 The rule contains emission limitations for new and reconstructed compression ignition (i.e. diesel) stationary RICE, among other sources. In that action, EPA identified stationary RICE as major sources of HAP emissions, such as formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde. The NESHAP required all RICE above 500 BHP located at major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). EPA estimated at the time that 40% of stationary RICE would be located at major sources and thus, subject to the final rule. New or reconstructed stationary RICE that operate exclusively as emergency or limited use units were subject only to initial notification requirements. The RICE rule is projected to reduce total national HAP emissions by an estimated 5,600 tons per year

(tpy)in the 5th year after the rule is promulgated. EPA expects that engine manufacturers will achieve the expected reductions by installing diesel oxidation catalysts. The emissions reduction performance provided by the installation of diesel oxidation catalysts through this rule were projected to reduce PM emissions from the affected engines by 20-30%, compared with uncontrolled engines. 21 A reciprocating engine is an internal combustion engine that uses reciprocating motion to convert heat energy into mechanical work. 22 “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines,” 69 FR 33474-33522, *www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rice/ricepg.html* , June 15, 2004. In July 2006, EPA published new source performance standards

(NSPS)for new stationary compression ignition

(CI)internal combustion engines (ICE). 23 24 The standards implement section 111(b) of the CAA and are based on the Administrator's determination that stationary CI ICE cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The standards require all new, modified, and reconstructed stationary CI ICE to use the best demonstrated system of continuous emission reduction of PM, NO X , hydrocarbons and CO considering costs, non-air quality health, and environmental and energy impacts. The CI ICE NSPS affects stationary CI ICE that commenced construction, modification or reconstruction after July 11, 2005. EPA generally requires that engines affected by the rulemaking use ULSD 25 for all engines (emergency and non-emergency). EPA expects that non-emergency engines will need to use diesel particulate filters and NO X aftertreatment to meet the NSPS. The final standards will reduce NO X by an estimated 38,000 tpy, PM by an estimated 3,000 tpy, sulfur dioxide by an estimated 9,000 tpy, nonmethane hydrocarbons by an estimated 600 tpy, and CO by an estimated 18,000 tpy in the year 2015. 23 “Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule,” 71 FR 39153-39185, *www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/July/Day-11/a5968.htm* , July 11, 2006. 24 Similar to the diesel engines covered by the RICE rule, these compression ignition, internal combustion engines are also reciprocating, diesel engines. However, the 2006 NSPS rulemaking covered fewer types of engines and different pollutants than the June 2004 RICE rule. The 2006 rulemaking addressed criteria pollutants from compression ignition engines, while the 2004 RICE rule addressed HAP emissions from both compression-ignition and spark-ignition engines, both of which are reciprocating engines. For that reason, the 2004 engine rule refers to the engines it covers as “RICE” rather than the narrower term used to describe the engines covered by the 2006 engine rule: CI ICE. 25 EPA also requires ULSD for nonroad and on-highway engines that should help ensure widespread availability of the fuel for stationary engines. See “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements,” 66 FR 5001-5193, *www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/regs/2007-heavy-duty-highway.htm* , January 2001 and “Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel,” 69 FR 38957-39273, *www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr.htm* , June 29, 2004. In June 2006, EPA published a proposed NESHAP for stationary RICE that either are located at area sources of HAP emissions or that have a site rating of less than or equal to 500 BHP and are located at major sources of HAP emissions. 26 In that same action, EPA also proposed NSPS for stationary spark ignition internal combustion engines. In December 2007, EPA finalized the NSPS for spark ignition engines and the NESHAP for new stationary RICE sources. EPA will be issuing a proposed NESHAP for existing engines in 2009. 26 “Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines,” 71 FR 33803-33855, *www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rice/ricepg.html* , June 12, 2006. For new mobile source diesel engines, EPA has issued the Heavy-Duty Highway Diesel Engine and Fuel Rule 27 and the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Engine and Fuel Rule 28 regulatory programs. Overall, the substantial majority of diesel exhaust is emitted from mobile sources rather than stationary sources. Engines meeting the emission standards required by the Heavy-Duty Highway Diesel Engine and Fuel Rule achieve a greater than 98 percent reduction in PM and NO X over uncontrolled emission levels. This program, when fully phased in, will provide annual emission reductions equivalent to removing the pollution from more than 90 percent of today's trucks and buses, or about 13 million trucks and buses. We project that in 2030, when the current heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards, this program will reduce annual emissions of non-methane hydrocarbons by 115,000 tons, PM by 109,000 tons, and NO X by 2.6 million tons. Similarly, the nonroad program will reduce NO X and PM emissions from nonroad diesel engines by more than 90 percent. Both rules will provide a wide range of public health benefits. Additionally, EPA has recently proposed regulations for locomotive and marine engines. These regulatory programs will ultimately yield reductions of PM and NO X from mobile sources as high as 90%, depending upon engine category. 27 See “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements,” 66 FR 5001-5193, *www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/regs/2007-heavy-duty-highway.htm* , January 2001. 28 See “Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel,” 69 FR 38957-39273, *www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr.htm* , June 29, 2004. EPA has also developed the National Clean Diesel Campaign, which aims to reduce emissions from existing mobile source diesel engines through innovative retrofit programs. Through the campaign, as of 2005 more than 300 clean diesel projects nationwide are resulting in significant emission reductions (in lifetime tons) including: 110,000 NO X , 20,000 PM, 35,000 hydrocarbons and 25,000 carbon monoxide (CO). 29 To date, emissions from more than 200,000 diesel vehicles have been reduced through these projects. 29 For more information, see “National Clean Diesel Campaign: Innovative Strategies for Cleaner Air, 2005 Progress Report,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA420-R-06-009, *http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/documents/420r06009.pdf,* June 2006. In addition to these rulemakings, EPA is reviewing its ability to take certain steps to further encourage emission reductions from existing diesel engines, including: 1. Publishing a control techniques guideline/alternative control technology document for existing stationary diesel engines; 2. Developing guidance pertaining to EPA review of federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act and CAA section 309 addressing the characterization and mitigation of emissions from new and existing diesel engines; 3. Encouraging emission controls for existing stationary diesel engines through voluntary programs; 4. Exploring methods of promoting the use of clean diesel engines by entities in the federal government; and 5. Publishing a white paper together with an analytical tool for local areas and states to estimate health benefits of diesel emissions reduction strategies. In addition, EPA, among others, is helping to fund the study of differences in the health effects associated with PM from cleaner burning diesel engines. D. What do we know about existing stationary diesel engines? EPA's knowledge about the types of and use of stationary diesel engines consists primarily of certain general information. Based on the number of hours of operation, existing stationary diesel engines are considered either non-emergency or emergency. Generally, non-emergency engines operate about 1,000 hours per year, though they can run more or less than that. Non-emergency engines are engines that are used for several purposes or applications such as: oil and gas industry, including oil and gas extraction and transmission; agriculture (e.g., irrigation pumps); and generation of electricity in remote areas or for purposes of meeting peak demand. Emergency engines operate on an emergency or as-needed basis, including periodically for short periods of time for testing purposes to ensure engine performance in the event of an emergency. Applications for emergency engines include electric power for emergency commercial and institutional needs. For example, hospitals and any other facilities that require power in the event of a power outage may use emergency engines. Emergency engines typically operate an average of 50 hours per year. Based on

(1)sales information from diesel engine manufacturers,

(2)data from the Power Systems Research Database and

(3)estimates of the stationary source fraction of the total engine sales, EPA estimates that there are about 900,000 existing stationary compression ignition

(CI)or diesel engines in the U.S. (see Table 1). About 20% of the engines (about 180,000) are considered non-emergency and about 80% are considered emergency (about 720,000). Generally, diesel emissions from the engines reflected in Table 1 (and the other Tables in this notice) are largely uncontrolled at the Federal level as EPA's emissions standards for stationary diesel engines did not take effect until August 2004. Non-emergency engines are estimated to emit 90% of total combined PM and NO X emissions from all stationary diesel engines, while emergency engines are estimated to emit 10% of total PM and NO X emissions. Based on this information, we believe that a relatively small percentage of the total number of stationary diesel engines operating in the United States are emitting a significant amount of the HAPs from stationary diesel engines overall. Of the non-emergency engines, about 36,000 non-emergency engines rated 300 BHP or higher were built prior to 1996, which is about 21% of all non-emergency engines (see Table 2). These 36,000 engines emit about: • 57% of the total PM emissions from all stationary non-emergency diesel engines (see Table 3); and • 59% of the total HAP emissions from all stationary non-emergency diesel engines (see Table 4). Table 1.—Engine Manufacturers Association Estimates of Stationary Diesel Engines in Use in the U.S. Engine ratings < 1980 1980-1994 1995-2001 2002-2005 Totals Percent ≥50 and <100 BHP 26,200 62,759 49,919 22,521 161,399 17.9 ≥100 and <175 BHP 57,426 92,857 61,572 23,634 235,489 26.1 ≥175 and <300 BHP 27,198 63,991 57,739 40,877 189,805 21.1 ≥300 and <600 BHP 70,303 53,188 38,778 31,403 193,672 21.5 ≥600 and <750 BHP 8,562 12,664 10,743 8,648 40,617 4.5 ≥750 6,899 28,357 33,835 10,520 79,611 8.8 Totals 196,588 313,816 252,586 137,603 900,593 99.9 Percent 21.8 34.8 28.0 15.3 Notes: • The Engine Manufacturers Association engine sales data that was used to help develop these numbers represent 70% of total U.S. engine sales. • Assumes all 1999-2005 engines are currently in operation. • Total percent does not equal 100 due to rounding. Source: Engine Manufacturers Association. Table 2.—Engine Manufacturers Association Estimates of Non-Emergency Stationary Diesel Engines in Use in the U.S. Engine ratings < 1980 1980-1995 1996-2001 2002-2005 Totals Percent ≥50 and <100 BHP 4,978 14,145 7,264 4,279 30,666 17.9 ≥100 and <175 BHP 10,911 21,163 8,179 4,490 44,743 26.1 ≥175 and <300 BHP 5,168 14,700 8,429 7,767 36,064 21.1 ≥300 and <600 BHP 13,358 11,217 6,256 5,967 36,798 21.5 ≥600 and <750 BHP 1,627 2,644 1,804 1,643 7,718 4.5 ≥750 1,311 6,212 5,605 1,999 15,127 8.8 Totals 37,353 70,081 37,537 26,145 171,116 100.0 Engines > 300 BHP and < 1996: 36,369 (21.3 of all non-emergency engines) Notes: • EPA is providing the 36,369 engine number because we are considering focusing for regulation on non-emergency diesel engines that were built before 1996 and that are rated greater than 300 BHP, although EPA is open to alternatives that commenters may propose. See Section III for a more detailed discussion of this issue. Source: Engine Manufacturers Association. Table 3.—Engine Manufacturers Association Estimates of Percent PM Emissions From Non-Emergency Engines Engine ratings <1980 1980-1995 1996-2001 2002-2005 Totals ≥50 and <100 BHP 1.3 2.4 0.7 0.3 4.7 ≥100 and <175 BHP 5.0 6.5 1.3 0.4 13.2 ≥175 and <300 BHP 4.1 7.8 1.8 0.6 14.3 ≥300 and <600 BHP 20.1 11.3 2.5 0.9 34.8 ≥600 and <750 BHP 3.7 4.0 1.1 0.4 9.2 ≥750 4.4 13.9 5.0 0.7 24 Totals 38.6 45.9 12.4 3.3 100.2 Percent PM Emissions from non-emergency engines >300 BHP built prior to 1996: 57.4. Notes: • The percent estimates are based on an Engine Manufacturers Association assumption that non-emergency engines operate about 2,000 hours/year. EPA in its rulemaking analyses assumes about 1,000 hours/year of operation for non-emergency engines. The 2,000 hours/year assumption is used here because we are using the most readily available information that the Engine Manufacturers Association has provided to EPA. However, EPA would not expect the percent estimates in this table to differ significantly under the 1,000 hours/year EPA assumption. • Emissions estimates based on EPA AP-42 emission factors and recent mobile source emission factors: *www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/index.html.* • Total percent does not equal 100 due to rounding. Source: Engine Manufacturers Association. Table 4.—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Estimates of Percent HAP Emissions From Non-Emergency Engines Engine ratings <1980 1980-1995 1996-2001 2002-2005 Totals ≥50 and <100 BHP 0.5 1.4 0.5 0.2 2.6 ≥100 and <175 BHP 2.5 4.9 1.1 0.5 9.1 ≥175 and <300 BHP 2.3 6.6 1.7 1.0 11.7 ≥300 and <600 BHP 17.4 14.6 2.4 2.3 36.7 ≥600 and <750 BHP 4.4 7.1 1.1 1.0 13.5 ≥750 2.7 12.7 9.3 1.7 26.4 Totals 29.9 47.4 16.1 6.6 100.0 Percent HAP Emissions from non-emergency engines >300 BHP built prior to 1996: 58.9. Notes: • Percent estimates based on assumption that non-emergency engines run about 1,000 hours/year. EPA in its rulemaking analyses assumes about 1,000 hours/year for non-emergency engines. • HAP emissions estimates include: Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, naphthalene, and acrolein. • Emissions estimates based on EPA AP-42 emission factors and recent mobile source emission factors: *www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/index.html.* Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. III. Specific Issues on Which EPA Is Seeking Comment Although we have some limited information about larger, older stationary diesel engines, we have a need for more detailed and current data related to existing engines. We are issuing this ANPR to request information that will help inform our efforts on how best to control emissions from these engines. There are several issues that we need to understand more fully in order to implement a program for existing stationary diesel engines. In this section, we break down the specific areas of interest for which we are requesting comment. A. What particular subgroups of existing stationary diesel engines should EPA focus on and how can EPA best find information on those engines? Currently, EPA is considering focusing on non-emergency diesel engines that were built before 1996 and that are rated greater than 300 BHP, although EPA is open to alternatives that commenters may propose that are well supported with appropriate data. We are focusing on non-emergency engines, because, while they represent only 20% of the total number of stationary engines, they are responsible for a significant amount of HAP emissions from stationary engines. EPA is considering focusing on pre-1996 engines because, generally speaking, emissions controls were not implemented in a significant way on nonroad diesel engines until the 1996 engine model year. Thus, the pre-1996 engines represent stationary engines that EPA believes are largely uncontrolled. In addition, diesel retrofit controls are typically more cost effective and technically feasible the larger the engine. 30 When these three criteria are combined, it comprises a set of larger, older non-emergency engines that represent the majority of PM and toxics emissions from non-emergency engines as a whole (see Tables 3 and 4). 30 For more information, see “The Cost-Effectiveness of Heavy-Duty Diesel Retrofits and Other Mobile Source Emission Reduction Projects and Programs,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA420-B-07-006, *www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/publications.htm,* May 2007. While we believe this is an appropriate set of engines to focus on, we are requesting comment on whether there are other appropriate categories of engines that should also be considered. For example, should EPA consider requiring emission reductions for non- emergency stationary diesel engines built in the late 1990s (notwithstanding our estimates that total emissions from these engines are lower). The list below further explores diesel control technologies and associated emission reduction issues. Particular areas for categorization of engines on which we could focus include: • The model year of the engine, including engines built since 1996 and remaining useful engine life for older engines; • The type and size of engine, including engines rated less than 300 BHP in size; • The number of hours of operation and/or time profile annually or over a shorter term; • The applicable technologies, and corresponding emissions reductions available, for given ages and sizes of engines; • The duty cycle; • The sector or use; • The ability of engine owners and operators to access the lower sulfur fuel necessary to ensure the proper performance of pollution control devices; • Ease of installation and cost effectiveness of emissions reductions associated with controls on existing stationary diesel engines, including newer, later model year engines; and • Any other distinguishing characteristics commenters may think important. B. Where can EPA find better information about the location and numbers of existing stationary engines, who owns and operates them and what impact they are having (including hours of operation)? Above, EPA lays out the general information it has available on the numbers of stationary diesel engines believed operating today. EPA specifically estimates that there are approximately 36,000 non-emergency, pre-1996 stationary diesel engines larger than 300 BHP. EPA seeks comment on the accuracy of these numbers, as well as of the other estimates in Tables 3 and 4. EPA is requesting any information that informs its understanding of the number and distribution of these stationary diesel engines and the group(s) that would be most affected by any requirements to reduce emissions. We also lack detailed information on the location of these sources, including their owners and operators. If EPA proposes standards based on engine size and age criteria, then we would need detailed information on the location or the owners and operators of these sources. We are aware of the following information sources from which we need information that we currently lack: • State-managed permit databases; • State-gathered information through surveys and other means; • Engine manufacturer and owner/operator and fuel industry information such as fuel distribution/delivery records, and fuel storage tank sales, repairs, and permits; • Industry sectors that are major owners and operators of diesel engines, including their trade associations such as the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the American Petroleum Institute; and • Diesel control technology manufacturers. We would like to know if states have an accurate count of the number of engines operating in the state, including their purpose and hours of operation. If so, EPA is also interested in the source of the information (e.g., a state permit database). We are also interested in any small business impacts and other relevant information about the owners and operators and number of hours that these engines operate. C. What are appropriate and available technically-feasible, cost-effective methods of controlling emissions from existing stationary diesel engines? EPA seeks information on control technologies and other methods for reducing diesel HAP emissions from existing stationary diesel engines, particularly for non-emergency, pre-1996 engines that are rated greater than 300 BHP. These methods include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: • Retrofitting with diesel particulate filters, including both actively and passively regenerated filters; • Retrofitting with partial flow filters; • Retrofitting with oxidation catalysts; • Retrofitting with closed crankcase ventilation systems; • Engine recalibration or fuel system upgrade; • Replacement with new, state-of-the-art engines; • Use of low sulfur diesel (500 parts per million (ppm)) or ULSD (15 ppm) fuel; • Use of fuel substitution systems using natural gas; • Use of biodiesel; and • Management practices. EPA understands that there may be limitations, both economic and technical, to certain control methods and solicits engine emissions testing data, cost data and other information to inform our approach to these issues. For example, EPA would like clarification on the following: • The extent to which low sulfur and ULSD fuel may be problematic in certain older engines due to fuel system seal leakage and how this problem has been addressed through fuel additives and/or modifications to mobile source engines; • Potential for the malfunction of diesel retrofit devices on older engines (e.g., diesel particulate filters), the engine conditions that lead to this problem, and appropriate precautions to avoid malfunction; • Technical feasibility of controls for short use periods (e.g., need for controls to warm up in order to be effective, the need for these engines to start immediately without mechanical complications); • Cost-effectiveness of controls on existing engines (i.e., emissions reductions relative to cost and hours operated); • Cost, availability and emissions related to fuel substitution systems using natural gas; • The equipment and operating costs (and any challenges, including safety issues) associated with known control technologies; • Engine size limitations beyond which a control technology may become infeasible and for what reason; and • Any other technical and economic feasibility issues that would affect the control of emissions reductions from older, larger and smaller diesel engines. D. To what degree do state and local governments regulate emissions from stationary diesel engines? EPA requests comment on the extent to which state and local governments have issued regulations to reduce emissions from stationary diesel engines of all sizes, particularly the larger, older engines. EPA is aware, for example, that the States of California 31 and Wisconsin 32 have issued rules that mandate reductions of particulate emissions from existing stationary diesel engines. EPA is interested in information about other state and local governments that have issued regulations controlling emissions from existing stationary diesel engines. 31 For more information on the California rule, see: “Airborne toxic control measure for stationary compression ignition engines,” section 93115, title 17, California Code of Regulations, *www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/ag/documents/finalatcm.pdf.* 32 For more information on the Wisconsin rule, see: “Fuel, control and compliance requirements for compression ignition internal combustion engines combusting fuel oil,” section NR 445.09, *www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr445.pdf.* E. What are appropriate methods of ensuring compliance with such requirements, including recordkeeping and testing issues? Given the large population of stationary diesel engines and our lack of information on the location and owners and operators of these engines, EPA requests comment on effective methods to ensure compliance with any emission reduction requirements. EPA also requests comment on the extent to which the owners and operators of these engines are small businesses and on what the appropriate regulatory compliance requirements should be for those entities. EPA is especially interested in ways to minimize the monitoring burden to individual owners and operators, while maintaining an appropriate level of environmental protection. IV. How EPA Intends To Proceed Following Publication of This Notice Following the closing of the comment period for this notice, EPA will summarize and analyze the comments received. The summary and analysis will be used to help develop and inform the notice of proposed rulemaking that will follow this notice. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order

(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action.” Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. Generally, because this action is “advanced” in nature and does not, therefore, propose any requirements on any entities, the various administrative requirements EPA must address in the rulemaking process are not applicable. When EPA issues a notice of proposed rulemaking that contains proposed emissions standards for stationary diesel engines, EPA will address those requirements. Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air toxics. Dated: January 16, 2008. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-1118 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7759] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-chance) Flood Elevations

(BFEs)and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having an effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings. DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before April 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map

(FIRM)for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7759, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151, or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151 or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent. *Administrative Procedure Act Statement.* This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and do not fall under the APA. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: State City/town/county Source of flooding Location** * Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet

(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Existing Modified City of Jackson, Missouri Missouri City of Jackson Goose Creek Confluence with Hubble Creek +399 +401 Approximately 2.44 miles upstream of East Main Street None +476 City of Jackson Hubble Creek Confluence with Goose Creek +399 +400 Missouri State Route Y None +474 City of Jackson Neal Creek Confluence with Goose Creek +427 +428 Approximately 0.60 mile upstream of Woodland Drive None +472 City of Jackson Ramsey Branch Approximately 1.51 miles upstream of Hoppers Road None +474 Approximately 1.62 miles upstream of Hoppers Road None +477 City of Jackson Rocky Branch 0.21 miles upstream of confluence with Hubble Creek at South Farmington Road +405 +406 Approximately 130 feet upstream of North Farmington Road None +470 City of Jackson Rocky Branch West Fork Confluence with Rocky Branch None +410 Approximately 260 feet upstream of Old Toll Road None +446 City of Jackson West Fork of Williams Creek Confluence with Williams Creek None +419 Approximately 230 feet upstream of Old Cape Road None +437 City of Jackson Williams Creek Approximately 0.39 miles downstream of Highway 61 +416 +414 Approximately 0.19 miles upstream of Bainbridge Road +438 +441 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Jackson Maps are available for inspection at 101 Court Street, Jackson, MO 63755. Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation ** * Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet

(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Autauga County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas Autauga Creek 365 feet southwest of the intersection of First Street and Chestnut St. (Landward of Levee along Autauga Creek) +184 +180 City of Prattville. 300 feet northwest of the intersection of Lower Kingston Road and Sixth St. (Landward of Levee along Autauga Creek) +184 +196 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Prattville Maps are available for inspection at 101 W. Main Street, Prattville, AL 36067. Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, and Incorporated Areas Acadiana Coulee At the confluence with Vermillion River +15 +16 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish, City of Lafayette. Approximately 1800 feet Upstream of Guidry Road +27 +26 At the confluence with Vermillion River +15 +16 City of Lafayette, Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. Approximately 1189 feet upstream from intersection with Guidry Road +27 +25 Bayou Carencro Confluence with Vermillion River +23 +22 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. Intersection with Billeaux Road None +42 Bayou Parc Perdue Approximately 5445 feet downstream of Chemin Agreable (Parish Boundary) None +17 Town of Youngsville, Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. Confluence with Isaac Verot Coulee Lateral 3 None +25 Bayou Que De Tortue Approximately 11500 feet downstream of SH 35 None +17 Town of Duson, Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. Intersection of Whitmore Road None +37 Beau Basin Coulee Confluence with Vermillion River None +20 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish, Town of Carencro. Intersection with Highway 49 +40 +49 Broadmoor Coulee Confluence with Vermillion River None +16 City of Lafayette. At the intersection with Ambassader Caffery Parkway None +26 Coulee Ile Des Cannes Lateral 1 At the confluence with Coulee Ile Des Cannes None +19 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. Approximately 3,700 feet upstream of S. Fieldspan Road None +28 Lateral 3 Approximately 4,950 feet upstream from the confluence with Coulee Ile Des Cannes +29 +28 City of Scott, City of Lafayette, Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. Approximately 500 feet upstream of Mills Road +36 +35 Coulee Fortune North At the confluence with Vermilion River (Storage area) +18 +15 Town of Broussard, Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. Approximately 4,000 feet Upstream of S. Morgan Street +30 +27 Coulee Fortune South Approximately 700 feet downstream of U.S. HWY 90 East (Parish Boundary) None +20 Town of Broussard, Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of Heart D. Farm Road None +27 Coulee Ile Des Cannes At the confluence with Vermilion River None +16 City of Scott, City of Lafayette, Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. Approximately 2,800 feet upstream of Cocodrill Road None +39 Lateral 2 At the confluence with Coulee Ile Des Cannes +25 +24 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish, City of Lafayette, City of Scott. Approximately 6,700 feet upstream of Ridge Road +30 +29 Coulee LaSalle At the parish boundary line None +24 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. 4,800 feet upstream of Cane Brake Road None +25 Coulee Lantier At the confluence with Vermillion River None +22 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. 1600 feet upstream of Magellan Road None +22 Confluence with Vermillion River None +20 Approximately 1600 feet upstream of Magellan Road None +21 Coulee Mine At the confluence with Vermillion River +16 +17 City of Scott, City of Lafayette. At the intersection with Malapart Road None +46 Lateral 1 (West Channel) At the confluence with Coulee Mine +29 +25 City of Lafayette, Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. At Renaud Drive +37 +38 Dan Dabaillion Coulee At the confluence with Vermillion River +17 +19 City of Lafayette, Town of Carencro. At Guidry Lane None +49 Darby Coulee At the confluence with Vermillion River None +14 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. At the intersection of LA 339 None +19 Edith Coulee At the confluence with Vermillion River None +15 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. At the intersection with LA 733 None +21 Grand Avenue Coulee At the confluence with Vermillion River +15 +16 City of Lafayette. At the Crawford Street crossing +30 +29 IDC—Lateral 4 At the confluence with Coulee Ile Des Cannes None +27 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. 3,500 feet upstream of Darceneaux Road None +34 Isaac Verot Coulee—Lateral 3 At the confluence with Isaac Verot Coulee None +26 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish, Town of Broussard, Town of Youngsville. Approximately 2,100 feet upstream of Serenity Road None +29 Lateral 2 At the confluence with the Vermillion River +15 +16 City of Lafayette, Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. At the intersection with Highway 89 None +36 Lateral 2A At the confluence with IVC/Lateral 2 None +28 City of Lafayette, Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. 800 feet upstream of the intersection with Becky Lane None +30 Lateral 3 At the confluence with Isaac Verot Coulee None +26 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. Approximately 250 feet from the intersection with Bonin Road None +29 Jupiter Street Coulee At the confluence with Webb Coulee +30 +27 City of Lafayette, Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. At the intersection with the Southern Pacific Railroad +40 +39 Manor Park Coulee Confluence with Vermillion River (BFE REMAINS CONSTANT) +18 +19 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish, City of Lafayette. Approximately 3,600 feet upstream of Parklane Rd (BFE REMAINS CONSTANT) +18 +19 Pont Brule Coulee Approximately 4,330 feet downstream of State Highway 726 (Parish Boundary) (BFE REMAINS CONSTANT) +22 +21 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of State Highway 726 (BFE REMAINS CONSTANT) +22 +21 Vermillion River At the southern parish boundary line +14 +15 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. At the northern parish boundary line +22 +21 Webb Coulee (Lower Reach) At the confluence with Vermillion River +15 +16 Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. At the confluence with Jupiter Street Coulee +30 +27 West Coulee Mine At the confluence with Coulee Mine +36 +35 City of Lafayette, City of Scott, Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish. Approximately 6,800 feet upstream of Interstate 10 +36 +37 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Lafayette Maps are available for inspection at 705 W. University Ave., Lafayette, LA 70506. City of Scott Maps are available for inspection at 445 Lions Club Rd., Scott, LA 70583. Town of Broussard Maps are available for inspection at 416 East Main St., Broussard, LA 70518. Town of Carencro Maps are available for inspection at 210 East Saint Peter St., Carencro, LA 70520. Town of Duson Maps are available for inspection at 806 First St., Duson, LA 70529. Town of Youngsville Maps are available for inspection at 305 Iberia St., Youngsville, LA 70592. Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish Maps are available for inspection at 101 East Cypress, Lafayette, LA 70501. Benton County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas Lake of the Ozarks (Osage River and tributaries) At confluence with Big Buffalo Creek None +666 City of Warsaw, Unincorporated Areas of Benton County. At confluence with Cole Camp Creek None +667 At U.S. Highway 65 +667 +669 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Warsaw Maps are available for inspection at City Office, 181 W. Harrison, Warsaw, MO 65355. Unincorporated Areas of Benton County Maps are available for inspection at County Office, 316 Van Buren, Warsaw, MO 65355. Miller County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas Grand Glaize Creek Approximately 1 mile downstream of County Road 42-18 None +672 Unincorporated Areas of Miller County. Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of County Road 42-18 None +680 Lake of the Ozarks (Osage River and tributaries) At Bagnell Dam None +664 City of Lake Ozark, Town of Lakeside, Unincorporated Areas of Miller County. Approximately 1 mile upstream of Bagnell Dam None +664 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Lake Ozark Maps are available for inspection at City Office, 2624 Bagnell Dam Boulevard, Lake Ozark, MO 65049. Town of Lakeside Maps are available for inspection at Ameran UE, 617 River Road, Lake Ozark, MO 65049. Unincorporated Areas of Miller County Maps are available for inspection at County Office, 2001 Highway 52, Tuscumbia, MO 65082. Morgan County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas Gravois Creek At confluence with Osage River None +664 Town of Gravois Mills, Unincorporated Areas of Morgan County. Approximately 1400 feet upstream of Route TT None +667 Lake of the Ozarks (Osage River and tributaries) At confluence with Gravois Creek None +664 Town of Gravois Mills, Unincorporated Areas of Morgan County. At confluence with Little Buffalo Creek None +665 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Town of Gravois Mills Maps are available for inspection at City Office, 154 Highway 5, Gravois Mills, MO 65037. Unincorporated Areas of Morgan County Maps are available for inspection at County Office, 100 East Newton, Versailles, MO 65084. Douglas County, Nebraska, and Incorporated Areas Hell Creek Approximately 50 feet upstream of Harrison Street +1055 +1052 Village of Boys Town, City of Omaha. At I Street +1101 +1098 Just upstream of Pacific Street None +1166 North Branch West Papillion Creek Approximately 250 feet upstream of Blondo Street +1118 +1117 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County, City of Omaha. At Ida Street +1164 +1165 At North 186th Street None +1191 West Papillion Creek Approximately 1200 feet upstream of Interstate 80 +1044 +1045 City of Omaha. At U.S. Highway 6 (West Dodge Road) +1105 +1106 At NE Highway 64 (West Maple Road) +1184 +1182 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Omaha Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 1819 Farnam Street, Omaha, NE 68183. Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County Maps are available for inspection at Douglas County Courthouse, 3015 Menke Circle, Omaha, NE 68134. Village of Boys Town Maps are available for inspection at Village of Boys Town, 14100 Crawford Street, Boys Town, NE 68010. Sarpy County, Nebraska, and Incorporated Areas Hell Creek 100 feet downstream of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad +1034 +1038 City of La Vista. 150 feet upstream of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad +1053 +1039 Approximately 50 feet downstream of Harrison Street +1055 +1049 Midland Creek Approximately 700 feet downstream of Cedardale Drive +1012 +1011 City of Papillion, Unincorporated Areas of Sarpy County. 450 feet downstream of State Highway 370 +1025 +1018 South Papillion Creek Approximately 300 feet upstream of Giles Street None +1036 Unincorporated Areas of Sarpy County, City of La Vista. At South 168th Street None +1100 Approximately 300 feet upstream of South 204th Street None +1177 Unnamed Tributary of South Papillion Creek Approximately 1000 feet upstream of confluence with South Papillion Creek None +1042 Unincorporated Areas of Sarpy County, City of La Vista, City of Papillion. At Cornhuskers Road None +1056 At State Highway 370 None +1104 Unnamed Tributary of West Papillion Creek Approximately 1600 feet downstream of South 114th Street None +1034 City of Papillion, City of La Vista. Approximately 600 feet downstream of State Highway 370 None +1100 Approximately 1 mile upstream of State Highway 370 None +1158 Walnut Creek At West Lincoln Street +1026 +1023 City of Papillion. 150 feet upstream of State Highway 370 +1044 +1043 West Papillion Creek (with levees) Just downstream of South 48th Street +996 +999 City of Bellevue, City of La Vista, City of Papillion. Just upstream of South 66th Street +1004 +1007 At Interstate 80 +1042 +1043 West Papillion Creek (without left levee) Just downstream of South 48th Street +993 +999 City of Bellevue, City of La Vista, City of Papillion. Just upstream of South 66th Street +1001 +1008 Just upstream of Washington Street +1008 +1015 West Papillion Creek (without right levee) Just downstream of South 48th Street +997 +999 City of Bellevue, City of La Vista, City of Papillion. Just upstream of South 66th Street +1003 +1008 Just upstream of Washington Street +1012 +1014 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Bellevue Maps are available for inspection at 210 West Mission Avenue, Bellevue, NE 68005. City of La Vista Maps are available for inspection at 8116 Park View Boulevard, La Vista, NE 68128. City of Papillion Maps are available for inspection at 122 East 3rd Street, Papillion, NE 68046. Unincorporated Areas of Sarpy County Maps are available for inspection at Sarpy County Courthouse, 1210 Golden Gate Drive, Papillion, NE 68046. Northampton County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Ahoskie Creek Approximately 500 feet downstream of the Northampton/Hertford County boundary None +58 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 50 feet downstream of Tyler Road (State Road 1100) None +66 At the confluence with Ahoskie Creek None +60 Tributary 8 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Ahoskie Creek None +62 Bear Swamp At the confluence with Urahaw Swamp None +51 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of NC 305 Highway None +78 Beaverpond Creek At the confluence with Beaverpond Creek Tributary 1 None +98 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the North Carolina/Virginia State boundary None +216 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Beaverpond Creek None +98 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Beaverpond Creek None +111 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Beaverpond Creek None +127 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Old Emporia Road (State Road 1209) None +150 Corduroy Swamp At the confluence with Kirby Creek None +55 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of Mount Carmel Road (State Road 1333) None +128 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Corduroy Swamp None +66 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Corduroy Swamp None +70 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Corduroy Swamp None +71 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Corduroy Swamp None +78 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Corduroy Swamp None +78 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Corduroy Swamp None +84 Tributary 4 At the confluence with Corduroy Swamp None +87 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Corduroy Swamp None +93 Tributary 5 At the confluence with Corduroy Swamp None +89 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Corduroy Swamp None +98 Tributary 6 At the confluence with Corduroy Swamp None +104 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Corduroy Swamp None +106 Corwells Millpond At the confluence with Jacks Swamp None +72 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1,570 feet upstream of Big Johns Store Road (State Road 1300) None +89 Cutawhiskie Creek At the downstream side of Fennell Road (State Road 1155) None +52 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Eagletown Road (State Road 1522) None +65 Tributary 3 Approximately 50 feet downstream of the Northampton/Hertford County boundary None +51 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the Northampton/Hertford County boundary None +53 Tributary 4 At the confluence with Cutawhiskie Creek None +57 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Cutawhiskie Creek None +62 Cypress Creek At the confluence with Meherrin River None +45 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of Julian Morgan Road None +99 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Cypress Creek None +52 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of the confluence with Cypress Creek None +63 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Cypress Creek None +68 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 600 feet upstream of NC 186 Highway None +87 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Cypress Creek None +70 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Cypress Creek None +79 Tributary 4 At the confluence with Cypress Creek None +86 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1,480 feet upstream of Julian Morgan Road None +97 Fountains Creek At the confluence with Meherrin River None +46 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 4.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Meherrin River None +51 Grant Branch At the confluence with Urahaw Swamp None +49 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County, Town of Lasker. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Collier Road (State Road 1515) None +74 Hunting Branch At the confluence with Corduroy Swamp None +58 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 20 feet downstream of Frank Harris Road (State Road 1343) None +70 Ivy Creek At the confluence with Cypress Creek None +84 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Cypress Creek None +89 Jacks Swamp At the North Carolina/Virginia State boundary None +68 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 710 feet upstream of Interstate 95 (Southbound) None +135 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Jacks Swamp None +69 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Jacks Swamp None +84 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Jacks Swamp None +94 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 2.0 miles upstream of the confluence with Jacks Swamp None +121 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Jacks Swamp None +100 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Jacks Swamp None +122 Tributary 4 At the confluence with Jacks Swamp None +123 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 870 feet upstream of Interstate 95 (Southbound) None +136 Kirby Creek At the confluence with Meherrin River None +17 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. At the confluence of Corduroy Swamp and Rogers Swamp None +55 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Kirby Creek None +19 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County, Town of Severn. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of NC Highway 35 None +60 Tributary 1A At the confluence with Kirby Creek Tributary 1 None +43 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Kirby Creek Tributary 1 None +51 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Kirby Creek None +44 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County, Town of Conway. Approximately 1,280 feet upstream of Phillips Hill Road (State Road 1365) None +72 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Kirby Creek None +50 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 80 feet downstream of Barnes Loop Road (State Road 1342) None +57 Tributary 4 At the confluence with Kirby Creek None +51 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Barnes Loop Road (State Road 1342) None +70 Meherrin River At the confluence of Kirby Creek None +17 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. At the confluence of Fountains Creek None +46 Occoneechee Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Occoneechee Creek None +49 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Occoneechee Creek None +51 Paddys Delight Creek At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +50 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence of Paddys Delight Creek Tributary 1 None +77 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Paddys Delight Creek None +66 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County, Town of Conway. Approximately 140 feet downstream of Vann Street None +93 Panther Swamp At the Northampton/Hertford County boundary None +49 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Gilmer Ricks Road (State Road 1543) None +88 Potecasi Creek At the Northampton/Hertford County boundary None +36 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. At the confluences of Ramsey Creek and Wiccacanee Swamp None +65 Tributary 13 At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +55 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +61 Tributary 14 At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +57 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1,360 feet upstream of Lasker Road (State Road 1503) None +71 Tributary 15 At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +61 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 100 feet downstream of Fire Tower Road (State Road 1500) None +69 Tributary 15A At the confluence with Potecasi Creek Tributary 15 None +63 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Potecasi Creek Tributary 15 None +73 Tributary 16 At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +62 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +71 Tributary 17 At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +64 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +74 Tributary 9 At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +44 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Ashley Grove Road (State Road 1536) None +68 Quarter Swamp At the confluence with Urahaw Swamp None +60 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of W.J. Duke Service Road (State Road 1121) None +81 Ramsey Creek At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +65 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County, Town of Jackson. Approximately 580 feet downstream of Buck Howell Road (State Road 1316) None +124 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Ramsey Creek None +69 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 40 feet downstream of NC Highway 305 None +79 Reedy Creek At the confluence with Kirby Creek None +34 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1,210 feet upstream of U.S. 158 Highway None +55 Rogers Swamp At the confluence with Corduroy Swamp and Kirby Creek None +55 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 840 feet upstream of Tower Road (State Road 1341) None +88 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Rogers Swamp None +55 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Britton Road (State Road 1337) None +67 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Rogers Swamp None +61 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Rogers Swamp None +66 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Rogers Swamp None +67 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Rogers Swamp None +80 Tributary 4 At the confluence with Rogers Swamp None +69 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Rogers Swamp None +74 Tributary 5 At the confluence with Rogers Swamp None +77 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Rogers Swamp None +89 Sandy Run Tributary 3 At the confluence with Sandy Run None +37 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Sandy Run None +46 Turkey Creek At the confluence with Kirby Creek None +17 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1,060 feet upstream of U.S. 158 Highway None +51 Urahaw Swamp At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +43 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County, Town of Woodland. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Bryantown Road (State Road 1108) None +66 Tributary 4 At the confluence with Urahaw Swamp None +57 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Dick Harmony Road (State Road 1115) None +63 Tributary 5 At the confluence with Urahaw Swamp None +64 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of W.J. Duke Service Road (State Road 1121) None +71 Wiccacanee Swamp At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +65 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of U.S. Highway 158 None +107 Wiccacanee Swamp Tributary At the confluence with Wiccacanee Swamp None +69 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Wiccacanee Swamp None +75 Wildcat Swamp At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +54 Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County. Approximately 160 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 158 None +118 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Town of Conway Maps are available for inspection at Conway Town Hall, 221 West Main Street, Conway, NC. Town of Jackson Maps are available for inspection at Jackson Town Hall, 100 East Jefferson Street, Jackson, NC. Town of Lasker Maps are available for inspection at Lasker Town Hall, 203A West Church Street, Lasker, NC. Town of Severn Maps are available for inspection at Severn Town Hall, 314 Main Street, Severn, NC. Town of Woodland Maps are available for inspection at Woodland Town Hall, 300 Spruce Street, Woodland, NC. Unincorporated Areas of Northampton County Maps are available for inspection at Northampton County Office, 108 West Jefferson Street, Jackson, NC. Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and Incorporated Areas Conodoguinet Creek Approximately 7250 feet upstream of dam None +481 Township of Lower Mifflin, Township of North Newton. Approximately 7000 feet upstream of dam None +481 Dogwood Run Approximately 500 feet upstream from intersection of Creek and Williams Grove Road None +427 Township of Monroe. Approximately 1400 feet upstream from intersection of Creek and Williams Grove Road None +433 Hogestown Run Approximately 200 feet downstream of Old Stone House Road None +443 Township of Middlesex. Approximately at Old Stone House Road None +447 Middle Spring Creek Approximately at the confluence with Conodoguinet Creek None +544 Township of Hopewell. Approximately 9590 feet downstream from Hale Road +546 +547 Yellow Breeches Creek Approximately 700 feet downstream of Spangler's Mill Road None +333 Township of Lower Allen. Approximately 7100 feet upstream of Spangler's Mill Road None +342 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Township of Hopewell Maps are available for inspection at 14 Hoover Drive, Newburg, PA 17240. Township of Lower Allen Maps are available for inspection at 1993 Hummell Avenue, Camp Hill, PA 17011. Township of Lower Mifflin Maps are available for inspection at 529 Shed Road, Newville, PA 17241. Township of Middlesex Maps are available for inspection at 350 Middlesex Road, Carlisle, PA 17013. Township of Monroe Maps are available for inspection at 1220 Boiling Springs, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. Township of North Newton Maps are available for inspection at 255 Ott Road, Shippensburg, PA 17257. Salt Lake County, Utah, and Incorporated Areas Midas Creek Approximately 400 feet upstream of the Confluence with the Jordan River +4328 +4325 City of Riverton, City of South Jordan, Unincorporated Areas of Salt Lake County. Just upstream of 11800 South Street +4569 +4566 Willow Creek

(West)Just upstream of 11400 South Street +4365 +4362 City of Draper. Just downstream of 300 East Street +4441 +4442 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Draper Maps are available for inspection at 1020 East Pioneer Road, Draper, UT 84020. City of Riverton Maps are available for inspection at 12830 S. Redwood Road, Riverton, UT 84065. City of South Jordan Maps are available for inspection at 1600 West Towne Center Drive, South Jordan, UT 84095. Unincorporated Areas of Salt Lake County Maps are available for inspection at 2001 South State Street #N2100, Salt Lake City, UT 84190. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 15, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-1215 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7739] Withdrawal of Proposed Flood Elevation Determination for the Unincorporated Areas of Richland County, SC AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)withdraws the proposed flood elevation determination published October 16, 2007 for the Unincorporated Areas of Richland County, South Carolina (72 FR 58598). DATES: The proposed flood elevation determination published on October 16, 2007 at 72 FR 58598, the September 12, 2007 Physical Map Revision, and the November 1, 2007 to January 31, 2008 appeal period associated with the withdrawn proposed flood elevation determinations are withdrawn as of January 24, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151 or e-mail *bill.blanton@dhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 12, 2007, FEMA issued Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) through a Physical Map Revision to identify flood hazards along the Congaree River in the Unincorporated Areas of Richland County, South Carolina, hereafter referred to as “Richland County”. On October 16, 2007, FEMA published a proposed rule at 72 FR 58598, October 16, 2007 proposing flood elevation determinations along the Congaree River in Richland County. On October 17, 2007, FEMA issued a letter to the Chairman of the Richland County Council explaining that the appeal period for the proposed flood elevation determinations would begin on November 1, 2007 and end on January 31, 2008. The purpose of this **Federal Register** publication is to withdraw the proposed flood elevation determination published October 16, 2007 at 72 FR 58598 for the Unincorporated Areas of Richland County, South Carolina. This document also provides notice that FEMA has withdrawn the September 12, 2007 Physical Map Revision and canceled the November 1, 2007 to January 31, 2008 appeal period associated with the withdrawn proposed flood elevation determinations. The reason for this withdrawal and cancelation is to address a federal district court's November 14, 2007 finding that the October 16, 2007 notice proposing new flood elevation determinations for the Congaree River in the unincorporated areas of Richland County did not comply with the Court's November 18, 2005 Order of Vacatur. FEMA intends to initiate a new revision and propose new flood hazard information; however, affected areas should utilize the effective flood hazard information, in accordance with the November 18, 2005 Order of Vacatur, until such time as updated flood hazard information is proposed by FEMA. *Regulatory Classification.* Since this notice withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking, it is neither a proposed nor a final rulemaking and therefore is not within the scope of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 or the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are amended to withdraw the following: The proposed flood elevation determination published in 72 FR 58598, October 16, 2007 for the Unincorporated Areas of Richland County, South Carolina. Dated: January 15, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-1209 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 574 [Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0014] RIN 2127-AK11 Tire Registration and Recordkeeping AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: Our regulation for tire identification and recordkeeping requires manufacturer owned tire distributors and dealers to register the names and addresses of the people to whom they sell or lease new tires, and specifies the use of standardized paper forms for this purpose. It also requires independent distributors and dealers to provide purchasers with standardized registration forms they can complete and mail to the manufacturer or its designee. We propose to amend the regulation by codifying existing interpretations regarding opportunities under the regulation for electronic registration of tire sales and leases and by creating new opportunities. The names and addresses of purchasers and lessees are used by a tire manufacturer to contact those people in the event that the manufacturer must conduct a campaign to recall and remedy tires that either fail to comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard or have a safety-related defect. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* DOT Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2551. Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document. You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826. *Privacy Act:* Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices. *Instructions:* For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to: *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, Mr. Jeff Woods, Vehicle Dynamics Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards (Telephone: 202-366-6206) (Fax: 202-366-7002). Mr. Woods' mailing address is National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NVS-122, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. For legal issues, Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820). Ms. Nakama's mailing address is National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NCC-112, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. Tire Registration Requirements B. Rate of Tire Registration C. Increasing the Effectiveness and Reducing the Cost of Tire Registration Through Electronic Registration 1. 1984 Interpretation to Representative Wirth 2. 2003 Interpretation to RMA 3. 2005-2007 Issues Regarding Clearance of the Tire Registration Requirements Under the Paperwork Reduction Act II. Need for Rulemaking III. Today's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Tires Sold by Independent Tire Dealers—Alternative Means of Tire Registration B. Tires Sold by Dealers Controlled by Tire Manufacturers—Electronic Tire Registration IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. National Environmental Policy Act D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) E. Civil Justice Reform F. Paperwork Reduction Act G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act I. Plain Language J. Regulation Identifier Number

(RIN)K. Privacy Act V. Public Participation I. Background A. Tire Registration Requirements As originally enacted, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (now codified at Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 *Motor Vehicle Safety* ) did not include a requirement for tire registration. However, in May 1970, Congress amended the law to mandate that every tire manufacturer shall maintain records of the names and addresses of the first purchaser of tires produced by that manufacturer. 1 NHTSA was given the authority to establish procedures to be followed by manufacturers in establishing and maintaining such records, including procedures to be followed by distributors and dealers to assist manufacturers in securing the names and addresses of first purchasers. 1 Pub. L. 91-265. Pursuant to this authority, in a final rule published in the **Federal Register** (35 FR 17257) on November 10, 1970, NHTSA established the initial tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of 49 CFR part 574. The rule required all tire dealers to record the name and address of the purchaser to whom they sold the tire, along with the dealer's name and address, and forward that information to the tire manufacturer. However, under the Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost Savings Authorization Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-331), Congress amended the Safety Act to mandate that the obligations of independent distributors and dealers be limited to giving “a registration form (containing the tire identification number) to the first purchaser.” The tire purchaser could then mail the form to the tire manufacturer. Congress also mandated that NHTSA should prescribe a standardized registration form and that tire manufacturers had to ensure that they gave sufficient copies of these forms to their dealers. Congress adopted these amendments after the House Committee on Energy and Commerce found in its report on the 1982 amendments that tire dealers whose business was owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer (these dealers accounted for just under 1/3 of tire sales) registered between 80 and 90 percent of the tires they sold. 2 However, independent tire dealers, which accounted for more than 2/3 of tire sales, registered only 20 percent of the tires they sold. 2 H.R. Rep. No. 576, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 8-9 (1982). The changes mandated by the 1982 amendments were established in an interim final rule published on May 19, 1983 (48 CFR 22572). The regulation required tire manufacturers to provide both independent and non-independent distributors and dealers with standardized tire registration forms. The regulation specified the exact content of the forms given to independent distributors and dealers. No other information may appear on the forms. 3 When an independent distributor or dealer sells or leases a tire to a consumer, the distributor or dealer must fill in the tire identification number and its name and address on a registration form and give the form to the consumer. The consumer may then fill in his or her name and address, add a stamp and mail the form to the manufacturer or its designee. In a follow-up final rule published on February 8, 1984 (49 FR 4755), the agency made slight revisions to the tire registration form to improve its clarity and also reduced the size of the form so that it could be mailed using post card postage. 3 July 18, 2003 letter from Jacqueline Glassman to Ann Wilson of RMA. Letter is available at: *http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/onlinetireregistration.html.* As part of the agency's implementation of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 106-414) that was enacted on November 1, 2000, the agency increased the tire registration record retention requirements for tire manufacturers from three years to five years. The record retention period was extended in a final rule published in the **Federal Register** (67 FR 45822) on July 10, 2002. B. Rate of Tire Registration In the Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost Savings Authorization Act of 1982, Congress directed NHTSA to conduct an evaluation after two years of voluntary registration to determine the extent to which the voluntary registration procedures for independent dealers were successful in increasing the registration of tires. 4 NHTSA was also charged with determining the extent to which independent dealers have encouraged purchasers to register their tires and the extent to which independent dealers have complied with the new procedures. Finally, NHTSA was charged with deciding whether to impose any additional requirements to “significantly increase” registration of tires sold by independent dealers. 4 See Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost Authorization Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-331. Per that Congressional directive, NHTSA reported on its evaluation of voluntary tire registration by independent dealers in 1985 and 1987. 5 We found that: 5 For a discussion of NHTSA's Evaluation Reports on Voluntary Tire Registration, see 53 FR 44632-33, November 4, 1988. 1. Registration rates for independent dealers declined by half, from 18.1 percent under previous law to 9.3 percent under voluntary registration. 2. Registration rates for company stores had remained steady at 86 percent during this same period. 3. Tire manufacturers had provided plenty of registration forms. 4. There were no records of any tire registrations for more than 70 percent of the independent dealers. From this, NHTSA reached the conclusion that many independent dealers did not routinely give registration forms to tire purchasers. NHTSA stated that we did not think it would be the best use of our enforcement resources to bring compliance actions against independent tire dealers. Instead, NHTSA proposed in 1986 6 four potential steps to improve tire registration by independent dealers: 6 Advance note of proposed rulemaking; 51 FR 45916; December 23, 1986. 1. Require prepaid postage on the registration form; and/or 2. Undertake a public education campaign and a brief explanation of the tire registration process in tire information pamphlets; and/or 3. A central clearinghouse for all registration forms distributed to consumers by independent dealers; or 4. Rescind the tire registration requirements and allow tire manufacturers to devise their own contractual ways of ensuring they meet the statutory obligation for tire manufacturers to “establish and maintain records of the names and addresses of first purchasers.” After reviewing the pubic comments, NHTSA published a termination of rulemaking notice in November 1988 7 announcing that none of the four suggestions had been demonstrated to likely significantly increase the level of tire registration by independent dealers under voluntary registration. NHTSA also noted that the agency would continue to rely on media and public announcements to alert the public of tire recalls, so public safety would not be jeopardized by the low registration rate for tires sold by independent dealers. 7 Termination of rulemaking; 53 FR 44621, November 4, 1988. Although the agency has not conducted a subsequent evaluation, it believes that the registration rate for tires sold or leased by independent distributors and dealers remains largely unchanged. In a submission sent to the agency earlier this year, the Rubber Manufacturers Association

(RMA)indicated that the return rate for the mail-in registration cards is no more than 10 percent. 8 8 Docket NHTSA-2006-26554-3. C. Increasing the Effectiveness and Reducing the Cost of Tire Registration Through Electronic Registration 1. 1984 Interpretation to Representative Wirth In 1984, Representatives Wirth and Rinaldo wrote a letter to the agency expressing several concerns. First, they noted that the agency had stated in a recent rulemaking that the Vehicle Safety Act did not permit independent dealers to return the mail-in registration cards directly to the manufacturer without first providing the form to the purchaser with the required information filled in by the dealer. Second, they expressed support for computerized tire registration and argued that the 1982 amendments to the Vehicle Safety Act should be interpreted as permitting independent dealers to give the purchaser a mail-in registration form on which they had not filled in any of the required information if they attached to the form a copy of the computerized invoice bearing that information. In its response, the agency stated while a literal interpretation of the 1982 amendments would not permit independent dealers to do that, under an equitable interpretation, they would be. 9 Under the principles of equitable interpretation, a statutory requirement need not be literally applied in instances in which the underlying Congressional intent is otherwise satisfied. The agency stated: 9 February 1983 letter from Diane K. Steed to the Honorable Timothy E. Wirth. Letter is available at: *http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/83/1983-1.12.html* . Based on the principles of equitable interpretation, we believe that an independent tire dealer or distributor who

(1)Registers tires by computer;

(2)Attaches a computer-printed invoice containing all of the information necessary for registration to a blank standardized registration form; and

(3)Furnishes the two documents to the customer when the tires are purchased; fully satisfies the tire registration amendments. 2. 2003 Interpretation to RMA On July 18, 2003, 10 the agency responded to a letter from RMA asking whether Part 574 permits tire manufacturers to offer electronic registration in addition to the required mail-in form. RMA stated that it wanted to provide independent tire distributors and dealers with a supplemental form that notifies consumers that they may also register their tires by electronic means, e.g., by directing the consumer to a Web site or a toll-free telephone registration line. In support of its request, RMA noted that the agency had recently concluded that child restraint manufacturers could provide consumers with a supplemental form encouraging electronic registration. 11 RMA said that no more than 10 percent of tire registration cards were being returned to the manufacturers and that the information was often incomplete or the writing illegible. RMA expressed the belief that offering tire registration via the internet, by telephone or other electronic means would improve the registration rate and aid manufacturers in fulfilling their notification obligations. 10 July 18, 2003 letter to Ann Wilson of RMA. 11 Letter to John K. Stipancich, January 3, 2003; letter to Mark A. Rosenbaum, Esq., April 12, 2001. In its response, the agency said it agreed that the rationales in its letters relating to child restraint registration were also applicable to tire registration. The agency concluded that Part 574 permits the provision of information about electronic registration as a supplement to the required mail-in form for independent distributors and dealers. Likewise, as to non-independent distributors and dealers, the agency said that electronic registration could be offered to them. The agency cautioned, however: This interpretation does not relieve non-independent distributors and dealers from the requirements of section 574.8(b) that they themselves record the purchaser's name and address, the tire identification number(s) of the tire(s) sold, and a suitable identification of themselves as the selling dealer on a tire registration form and return the completed forms to the tire manufacturers or their designees. While we would interpret Part 574 to permit non-independent distributors and dealers to accomplish these tasks by electronic means, they may not transfer this responsibility to consumers. 3. 2005-2007 Issues Regarding Clearance of the Tire Registration Requirements Under the Paperwork Reduction Act The information collected by tire dealers from tire purchasers and retained by tire manufacturers is considered to be a “collection of information” 12 as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The significance of this definition is that approval of the “collection of information” is subject to OMB review. OMB has promulgated 5 CFR Part 1320 “Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public.” OMB states that the purpose of Part 1320 is to implement the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35)

(PRA)concerning collections of information. The procedures established in Part 1320 are designed to “reduce, minimize and control burdens and maximize the practical utility and public benefit of the information created, collected, disclosed, maintained, used, shared and disseminated by or for the Federal government.” 12 See 5 CFR 1320.3(a)(3). Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public (which includes the Federal government's directing that the information be collected from new tire purchasers by tire dealers to give to tire manufacturers, also called third-party information), it must receive approval from OMB. If OMB approves a collection of information, it assigns an OMB control number and an expiration date. OMB will not “approve any collection of information for a period longer than three years.” (See 5 CFR section 1320.12(e)(1).) The OMB control number assigned to the Part 574 collection of information is 2127-0050. The current status of OMB's approval is available online at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRASearch* . Because the Part 574 collection of information requirements are longstanding, we have, for many years, asked for and been granted, OMB approval to collect the information. As part of the periodic process to request OMB to renew approval of an existing collection of information, on December 28, 2005, we published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 76909) an announcement that NHTSA planned to ask OMB for a renewal of approval to collect the Part 574 information, and sought public comment on the proposed renewal. We received two comments in response. The first was from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA). NADA represents 20,000 franchised automobile and truck dealers that act as independent tire dealers when they sell tires to consumers under differing situations. The second comment was from Tire Recall Registry, Inc. (TRR). It raised several issues, most of which were related to its advocating electronic registration of tires. TRR cited the July 18, 2003 NHTSA interpretation letter to RMA in which NHTSA stated that information about and opportunities for electronic registration could be used to supplement the paper form specified by Part 574. TRR stated its belief that requiring paper forms resulted in an unnecessary burden under the OMB regulations at 1320.3(b)(1), given that electronic means could be used instead, thus reducing the collection of information burden. On August 31, 2006, OMB renewed the collection of information for Part 574 for a period of six months, instead of three years due to its concerns about the burdens associated with tire registration. OMB posed several questions for the agency to answer regarding DOT's compliance with PRA requirements, the effectiveness rates of the tire registration requirements, possible means to reduce the paperwork burden and encourage tire dealers and purchasers to register tires by permitting electronic registration, and a discussion of alternatives that might be permitted for electronic registration, including the use of electronic registration in lieu of the paper mail-in form. The questions were to be answered as part of NHTSA's next request to renew the Part 574 collection of information. On December 8, 2006, NHTSA published a **Federal Register** document (71 FR 71238) 13 seeking comments on the OMB questions and proposing to renew the Part 574 collection of information. 13 Docket No. NHTSA-06-26554. In response to the December 2006 document, five organizations submitted comments. In addition to comments from RMA and NADA, comments were submitted by Computerized Information and Management Services, Inc. (CIMS), National Tire Registry Recall.com (NTRR), and the Tire Industry Association (TIA). Except for CIMS, all commenters supported efforts to expand the methods of registering new tire purchaser information to include Web site registration by the purchaser and electronic registration performed by independent tire dealers. RMA stated that the continued registration of new tire purchasers is a critically important safety issue so that purchasers can be notified in the event of a product recall or other safety problem. It urged NHTSA to either interpret or revise Part 574 to allow an electronic alternative to the current paper card system. RMA said that it has data showing that less than 10 percent of tire registration cards [from independent tire dealers] are currently being returned to the tire manufacturer and many of these cards are inaccurate, incomplete, or illegible. RMA asked NHTSA to interpret or amend the current regulations in the following areas: 1. Modify Part 574 to permit tire distributor or dealer either

(a)to provide consumer with the paper registration form bearing instructions about the opportunity to register the tires at the tire manufacturer's Web site or (b), on a voluntary basis, to register the tires electronically at point of sale (without having to provide any type of registration form to the consumer). 2. The current regulation only requires [independent] distributors to provide the form to first purchasers with the tire identification number and the dealer's name and address. Any revisions to the regulations to permit electronic or point-of-sale registration should not create any new or additional obligations for tire dealers or distributors by requiring them to register the tires. 3. The tire manufacturer's obligations should remain the same. They should only be required to continue to provide the paper forms to tire dealers and distributors and, upon receipt of the forms, retain the purchaser information for five years. 4. Through a NHTSA interpretation letter, a supplemental form regarding electronic tire registration is permitted. However, the agency should amend its regulations to permit information about such registration to be placed directly on the existing paper registration form. NADA generally supported the RMA comments regarding permitting Web site registration of tires, and referred to the agency's provisions for electronic registration of child safety seats in 49 CFR 571.213 as being instructive in this regard. In addition to allowing registration by Web site or fax, NADA stated that tire dealers should also be permitted to register the tires for the purchaser, upon obtaining permission or a release from the purchaser to do so. NADA noted that it has stated in the past that franchised automobile and truck dealers act as independent tire dealers as well. Commenting on past NHTSA announcements of intent to renew the Part 574 collection of information, NADA questioned in those prior renewals, and also in the current one, NHTSA estimates of 12,000 new tire dealers and distributors, when NADA stated that there are 20,000 franchised automobile and truck dealers. CIMS stated that it provides tire registration services to over 80 percent of tire manufacturers/brand owners in the replacement tire market and to over 12,000 tire dealers and distributors. CIMS is opposed to making changes to the existing tire registration regulations. CIMS stated that the current tire registration regulations are working, and that independent tire dealers using the CIMS All Brand Form can comply with the tire registration regulation for one penny or less per tire. It stated that allowing electronic registration of tires will only cause more confusion, will remove the tire purchasers' rights and ability to ensure that their tires are registered, and will increase the liability of independent tire dealers if the tire registration information is not completely transmitted to the tire manufacturer or if they jeopardize the privacy of tire purchaser information. CIMS indicated that tire registrations by year are as follows: 1997—37,000,000 2000—41,000,000 (Prior to Ford/Firestone recall) 2003—54,000,000 (Corresponds with NHTSA estimates, Docket No. 06-26554) 2006—59,000,000 CIMS stated that there will be added costs associated with electronic tire registration including developmental costs, software upgrades and employee training. CIMS did not provide any specific cost estimates. NTRR stated its belief that changes are needed and that electronic registration would enhance public safety, and would be consistent with Paperwork Reduction Act priorities. NTRR stated that allowing electronic registration as an alternative, not merely as a supplement, would improve registration rates over the current methods. NTRR stated that the July 18, 2003 interpretation letter from NHTSA to RMA leaves unanswered the extent to which electronic registration and other alternatives to paper forms can be used in compliance with 49 CFR part 574. NTRR also stated that the tire registration form specified in Part 574 does not display the required OMB control number, and suggested that NHTSA does not adequately address privacy and confidentiality concerns under the PRA. TIA stated that it has worked closely with the RMA in reviewing the need to revise the current tire registration regulations in 49 CFR part 574, and that it agrees with the four principles identified by RMA for revisions to the regulations. TIA stated that any revisions to the regulations should not create any new or additional obligations for tire dealers and thus should not require the tire dealers to register the tires. TIA stated that many TIA member tire dealers endorse electronic registration and are making electronic registration of new tires possible. TIA recommended that NHTSA adopt the changes recommended by RMA as quickly as possible. In an additional **Federal Register** document on March 21, 2007 (72 FR 1334) 14 in which we asked that if the public had additional comments, to provide the comments directly to OMB by April 20, 2007, we provided a summary of the comments in response to the December 2006 document. In this March 2007 document, NHTSA specifically stated that we are: 14 Docket No. NHTSA-06-26554. * * * considering revisions to update 49 CFR part 574 to provide, to the extent consistent with the agency's authority, allowances for electronic and other possible means of registering new tires at the point of sale. First, the agency will consider the inclusion of Web site registration information to be placed on the tire registration form in 574.7. Second, the agency plans to update the registration form to include the OMB control number. Third, the agency will fully evaluate what appropriate regulations are permissible to allow independent tire dealers to electronically register the tires on a voluntary basis for the consumer, within the requirements specified in Title 49, U.S.C. Chapter 301, Section 30117—providing information to, and maintaining records on, purchaser. Therefore, the agency will undertake rulemaking in 2007 to address these issues and provide the public with the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. (See 72 FR at page 13345) As stated in the March 2007 notice, the agency is now proceeding with rulemaking to consider allowing registration via the internet or other electronic means for new tire purchasers. II. Need for Rulemaking NHTSA is proposing to amend the Part 574 tire registration procedures to facilitate internet and other electronic registration of tires, including voluntary registration of tires by independent tire dealers. We believe this rulemaking is needed to ensure that the regulation permits, to the extent consistent with the agency's authority, the use of new technologies in registering tires. In addition to potentially reducing costs, the procedures could also result in improved tire registration rates. A higher new tire registration rate would help in the identification of first purchasers of defective or nonconforming tires, so that the purchasers may take appropriate action in the interest of motor vehicle safety. As described below, NHTSA's most recent data on tire registration rates were included in a termination of rulemaking notice published in the **Federal Register** on November 4, 1988 (53 FR 44632). As discussed earlier, NHTSA found in a 1985 study that under the mandatory tire registration program for independent tire dealers, the registration rate was 18.1 percent. In 1987, NHTSA found that, under the voluntary independent tire dealer registration program, the tire registration rate among independent tire dealers had decreased to 9.5 percent. If the number of tires registered using computers is subtracted from 9.5 percent, the return rate for paper tire registration forms was only 8 percent. In 1987, the tire registration rate for tires sold by company-controlled dealers was found to be greater than 86 percent. We have not performed additional surveys on tire registration rates since 1987. However, February 6, 2007 comments from RMA stated that “no more than 10 percent of tire registration cards are currently returned to manufacturers and a significant number of these cards are inaccurate, incomplete or illegible.” Thus, regarding the response rate to paper forms for new tires sold through independent dealers, the agency believes that tire registration rates have not changed substantially for the past 20 years. For these reasons, the agency does not agree with those that believe the current paper-form based tire registration program is effective. Even if electronic registration does not result in significantly more purchaser responses (for new tire sales through independent dealers), NHTSA believes the overall effectiveness rate of tire registration would improve, because voluntary electronic registration would eliminate illegibility or other ambiguity caused by hand-written information. For purchasers who do not like to fill in information by hand, electronic registration could also reduce the overall burden of registration. III. Today's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking After carefully reviewing the public comments to NHTSA's December 2006 publication of the announcement of its request to OMB to extend approval of the Part 574 tire registration collection of information, we have concluded that Part 574 should be amended to facilitate internet and other electronic registration of tires, including voluntary registration of tires by independent tire dealers. Our proposal follows an approach similar to the ones suggested by RMA and NADA. Specifically, under our proposal: • Independent tire dealers could, in lieu of providing a paper registration form to the consumer, voluntarily register a tire by internet or other electronic means, so long as such means were authorized by the tire manufacturer. These dealers would also have the option of providing to the consumer the mailable standardized paper registration form that includes the tire identification number

(TIN)and the dealer's name and address (this is the current requirement set forth in Part 574), or using the same standardized paper registration form, but voluntarily completing the form and registering the tire by sending the form to the tire manufacturer or its designee. • The standardized paper registration form would be permitted to identify a Web site authorized by the tire manufacturer at which the consumer could register the tires instead of mailing in the form. • We are proposing to remove the figures showing the standardized paper registration form from the CFR. Some requirements that were expressed by referring to the forms in the regulatory text would be added to the regulatory text, but the regulation would no longer specify as many details concerning the format of the forms. • We are also proposing regulatory text that would make it clear that dealers owned or controlled by tire manufacturers may register tires by electronic means, consistent with a past interpretation. The figure showing the form used for these tires would also be removed. Our proposal would not impose new obligations on tire dealers or tire manufacturers. Instead, it would accommodate and facilitate internet and other electronic registration of tires, including voluntary registration of tires by independent dealers. We note that are proposing a provision that would clarify that tire manufacturers must meet requirements concerning retention of information for registration information submitted to them by electronic or other means they authorize, in addition to that submitted to them on the standardized paper forms. The details of our proposal are discussed below. A. Tires Sold by Independent Tire Dealers—Alternative Means of Tire Registration As noted in our March 2007 document, we are considering revisions to update 49 CFR part 574 to allow, to the extent consistent with the agency's authority, for use of electronic and other possible means of registering new tires at the point of sale. The statutory requirements relevant to independent tire dealers are found at 49 U.S.C. 30117(b)(2)(B), which reads as follows: The Secretary shall require each distributor and dealer whose business is not owned or controlled by a manufacturer of tires to give a registration form (containing the tire identification number) to the first purchaser of a tire. The Secretary shall prescribe the form, which shall be standardized for all tires and designed to allow the purchaser to complete and return it directly to the manufacturer of the tire. The manufacturer shall give sufficient copies of forms to distributors and dealers. Not surprisingly, given the pre-internet date of enactment of the statute, the statutory provision appears to contemplate a mail-in paper form (“the manufacturer shall give sufficient copies of forms to distributors and dealers”). Also, the legislative history (House report) 15 refers to forms that are suitable for mailing and addressed to the manufacturer or its designee. 15 H.R. Rep. No. *97-576* , p. 8. One relevant issue is the effect of voluntary tire registration by independent tire dealers on their obligations under section 30117(b)(2)(B). While the statute provides for a program in which purchasers of tires from independent tire dealers may register their tires by returning a form to the tire manufacturer, NHTSA's letter to Congressman Timothy Wirth 16 addressed the situation in which independent tire dealers may wish to register tires voluntarily for consumers. Invoking the principles of equitable interpretation, the agency concluded that voluntary registration would partially relieve independent dealers of their statutory obligations. Under those principles, a statutory requirement need not be literally applied in instances in which the underlying Congressional intent is otherwise satisfied. More specifically, the agency stated: 16 February 1983 letter from Diane K. Steed to the Honorable Timothy E. Wirth. Letter is available at: *http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/83/1983-1.12.html* . Based on the principles of equitable interpretation, we believe that an independent tire dealer or distributor who

(1)registers tires by computer;

(2)attaches a computer-printed invoice containing all of the information necessary for registration to a blank standardized registration form; and

(3)furnishes the two documents to the customer when the tires are purchased; fully satisfies the tire registration amendments. * * * While, as discussed below, we now believe that this interpretation goes to some extent beyond what is necessary to satisfy Congressional intent, we believe the basic principle is correct. In particular, if an independent tire dealer voluntarily registers tires for the consumer, it serves no purpose to require the full procedures necessary to enable consumers to also register those tires. Several other issues are whether the statute can be interpreted to permit the use of electronic forms in lieu of paper forms and, assuming that the answer to that issue is “yes,” the meaning of the statutory command to “* * * give a registration form (containing the tire identification number) to the first purchaser * * *” in the context of electronic forms. As to the term “form,” it could be interpreted broadly enough to include electronic as well as paper forms, notwithstanding the statutory language and legislative history mentioned above that suggests the forms are to be paper ones. As to the term “give,” it could readily be interpreted in the context of the statute to mean physically provide either “take away” means of registration (i.e., mailable form) or means of “on-the-spot” registration (i.e., an in-store computer terminal accessible to purchaser). It is not apparent how the term could be further interpreted to mean simply inform the purchaser about the opportunity to use means not physically present in the dealer's store (e.g., use of a computer terminal located at the purchaser's home or elsewhere.) It is even less apparent how such further interpretation could be given the term “give” given the additional requirement that the form given the purchaser “* * * contain the tire identification number * * *” A possible scenario that could be viewed as meeting all of the statutory requirements would be one in which the purchaser was provided access to a computer at the dealership where the screen showed the form with the tire identification numbers already filled in, and the purchaser could register the tires with the manufacturer by entering his or her name and address and clicking on a button to register the tires. We do not know whether manufacturers and dealerships would be interested in an option along these lines, but note that we are requesting comments below on this type of approach. We also note that a number of approaches for electronic registration by purchasers would appear not to meet these statutory requirements, but could be viewed as supplemental means of transmitting tire registration to manufacturers. In light of the above discussion and in considering alternative means for registration of tires sold by independent dealers, we believe:

(1)The regulation must include a basic procedure consistent with the statutory requirement that enables purchasers of tires from independent tire dealers to register their tires by returning a form with the TIN already filled in to the tire manufacturer;

(2)the regulation may provide options under which an independent tire dealer may voluntarily register tires for consumers, in which case the dealer need not meet the full procedures necessary to enable consumers to register those tires; and

(3)the regulation may accommodate means that tire manufacturers may provide for tire registration (e.g., internet registration) that consumers may use instead of mailing in the form. *Voluntary registration by independent dealers.* As indicated above, after reviewing our 1984 interpretation to Congressman Wirth, we now believe that it went to some extent beyond what was necessary to satisfy Congressional intent. In particular, the agency believes that electronic registration of the tires by independent dealers would satisfy the statutory requirements, without the need to provide an additional blank form to the purchaser. The purpose of the statutory requirement is to enable the purchaser to register the tire purchase with the manufacturer. As such, if the dealer registers the tires electronically for the purchaser and provides a blank form to the purchaser, confusion could result, since the purchaser might think there was a need to submit the paper form to the manufacturer. Regarding the statement in the interpretation that the purchaser be given a computer-printed invoice with the information on the tire registration paper form, the agency now believes that statement also exceeds what is necessary. The tire registration information is kept by the tire manufacturer (or its designee). There is no need for the dealer or purchaser to retain that information, and NHTSA has no record retention requirement for either tire dealers or tire purchasers. Instead of duplicating the required information on the invoice given to the purchaser, the agency believes that a written statement on the invoice regarding the registration of the tires by the dealer would be sufficient to inform the consumer that the tires have been registered. We are therefore proposing that independent tire dealers have the option of voluntarily electronically registering tires with the tire manufacturer. We note, however, that whether this option can be used depends on the tire manufacturer's providing a means to receive this information electronically, or designating an agent to do so for it. The agency is not aware of what specific means might be used to provide electronic registration, such as specific software that identifies tire sales and then automatically uses the internet to transmit the information to the tire manufacurer or its designee. However, the agency believes that many company-controlled tire dealers have autonomous systems in place to register the tires as part of the sale transaction. Such systems do not require additional or separate actions by sales personnel to register the tires. The agency welcomes additional details on the methods that are currently in place and also other methods that might be used, including how independent tire dealers may be able to register tires electronically. Our proposal also includes an option in which independent tire dealers could use the standardized paper registration form, but voluntarily complete the form and register the tires by sending the form to the tire manufacturer or its designee. One issue that arises with independent dealers being permitted to register tires voluntarily for consumers is whether they could charge a separate registration fee. We have tentatively concluded that this should not be permitted, as it could discourage registration and cause confusion. We request comments on this issue. Another issue that arises with electronic registration of tires is the security of the information being transmitted. The proposed regulatory text would require that electronic registration be by secure means, e.g., use of https on the web. We request comments on the need for such a provision, and whether it should be more specific. We note that in September 2005 we decided not to include an “encryption” requirement for electronic registration of child safety seats. 17 We may or may not adopt a requirement concerning secure means for electronic registration of tires, but would like to have the benefit of public comments before reaching a decision. 17 70 FR 53569, 53572-73, September 9, 2005. Regarding CIMS' comment that additional burden would shift to the tire dealer if it decided to use electronic registration, NHTSA notes that registration by independent tire dealers would be voluntary. Nothing in this rulemaking would require independent tire dealers to register tires for the purchaser. NADA's comments regarding an optional electronic registration program stated that the tire dealer should obtain permission or a release from the purchaser before being permitted to register the tires on behalf of the purchaser. The agency believes that this would create an additional collection of information or other burden that would not be necessary if, instead, a registration statement is provided to the purchaser indicating that the tire dealer is performing tire registration for the purchaser. We also observe that such releases are not required for tire dealers controlled by tire manufacturers, which are required to register tires for consumers. For the new electronic registration requirements, NHTSA also proposes to permit the tire manufacturer to designate a third party to collect or store the tire registration information. Such third party designation is currently allowed for the paper registration forms under 574.7, and NHTSA is not aware of any reason not to extend third party designation to electronic tire registrations methods. Since we do not have any detailed information on how designees would collect and retain tire registration information, the agency welcomes additional details that would assist the agency in establishing requirements. *Alternative means of registration by tire purchasers.* Consistent with our interpretation letter to RMA, we are including in the proposed regulatory text a provision stating that tire manufacturers may voluntarily provide means for tire registration via the internet, by telephone or other electronic means. RMA and NADA commented that the tire registration paper form should be allowed to include instructions for purchasers about registering tires directly on the tire manufacturer's Web site. NADA stated that the electronic registration provisions for child safety seats in FMVSS No. 213 are instructive about the value of permitting this. TIA stated that it agreed with the four principles for new tire registration requirements described by RMA (one of which is to allow Web site registration). NTRR's comments did not specifically address putting Web site information on the paper form. The agency tentatively agrees that including, at the tire manufacturer's option, a Web site address for purchasers to register tires could facilitate registration for tire purchasers, and also improve the quality of information received by the tire manufacturer. As RMA stated, many of the paper registration forms that are received by tire manufacturers are inaccurately filled out, incomplete, or illegible. By allowing purchasers to type in the information directly on the tire manufacturer's Web site, the issue of illegibility should be eliminated. NHTSA checked several tire manufacturers' Web sites, for both widely-known tire brands and lesser-known tire brands, and found in all but one case that the tire manufacturers already have Web site-based tire registration capability. Inclusion of Web site registration information would be performed at the option of the tire manufacturer. We are proposing simple text to keep information on the form to a minimum: “Instead of mailing this form, you can register online at [insert tire manufacturer's Web site address]”. This proposed language deviates slightly from the FMVSS No. 213 text that includes references to registering online on both sides of the form, although the text on the mailing label side of that form is on a part of the form that is removed prior to mailing. However, the tire registration form is not of that design, and much of the form space is needed for recording the tire identification numbers. We welcome comments on the proposed text and location of the optional Web site registration information. We request comments on whether information about other possible means of supplemental registration should be permitted to be placed on the tire registration paper form. We note, as indicated above, that the available space on the form is limited. *Other possible options for tire registration.* We request comments on whether the regulation should specify additional options for registering tires sold by independent tire dealers that would be consistent with our statutory authority. We intend for the scope of this proposal to be broad and, depending on the comments, may adopt additional options in the final rule. We note that, as indicated above, it is our goal to accommodate and facilitate internet and other electronic registration of tires, including voluntary registration of tires by independent dealers. We also note that since additional options would also be voluntary, there is no reason to specify ones that would be unlikely to be used by independent tire dealers, tire manufacturers, and/or consumers. We seek comment on whether there should be some type of option in which independent tire dealers might be able to use electronic forms in lieu of paper forms to enable consumers to register their tires. Such an approach might, for example, involve independent tire dealers setting up computer terminals at their dealerships in which tire purchasers would see a form on the computer screen with the TIN and possibly other information already filled in, which tire purchasers could use to register their tires. We note that if such an approach involved the consumer's being given the electronic form with the TIN filled in, the approach could, consistent with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30117(b)(2)(B), be an option that independent tire dealers could use in lieu of paper forms. We also note that if such an option were permitted in lieu of paper forms instead of as a supplement, the electronic form would need to be standardized. We specifically request that any commenters recommending additional options for tire registration, beyond those in the proposed regulatory text, provide specific recommended regulatory text for those additional options. Registration forms. As discussed above, for tires sold by independent tire dealers, NHTSA is required by statute to prescribe a standardized tire registration form for all tires. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 30117(b)(2)(B) provides “(t)he Secretary shall prescribe the form, which shall be standardized for all tires * * *” The statute provides that tire manufacturers must give sufficient copies of the registration forms to distributors and dealers. Also, Part 574.8 permits distributors and dealers to use registration forms obtained from other sources. Pursuant to the requirement to prescribe a standardized tire registration form, NHTSA has adopted requirements through rulemaking and placed them in Part 574. The details of some of the requirements, including size and data elements, are set in the regulatory text. The details of certain other requirements are not set out in the regulatory text. Instead, the regulatory text requires that forms conform in content and format to the forms depicted in the figures included in Part 574. See 574.7(a)(2). To promote flexibility, we are proposing to remove the figures showing the forms in Part 574. To ensure that the forms remain standardized, we are proposing to add some requirements to the regulatory text that are currently expressed by referring to the figures, but with fewer details concerning format. We are also proposing to update the size standards to reflect the current U.S. Postal Service's “Domestic Mail Manual” (Updated 12-6-07) at Section 6.3 “Cards Claimed at Card Rates” that specifies physical standards that postcards must meet in order to be eligible for mailing at card rates. Under our proposal, on the address side of the form, the following would continue to be required to be provided: The name and address of the manufacturer or its designee, and, in the upper right hand corner, the statement: “Affix a postcard stamp.” The other side of the form would continue to include the tire manufacturer's name (unless it already appears on the address side), and the statement: “IMPORTANT, In case of a recall, we can reach you only if we have your name and address.” There would also continue to be a statement indicating that sending in the card will add a person to the manufacturer's recall list. However, the regulation would no longer specify that the statement indicate that a person “must” send in the card to be on the recall list, since manufacturers may provide alternative means of registering tires. Under our proposal, if a tire manufacturer provides a Web site where its tires can be registered, it may (but is not required to) include the following sentences: “Instead of mailing this form, you can register online at [insert tire manufacturer's registration web site address]”. The form would also include the admonition: “Do it today.” The form would also continue to include space for recording the tire identification numbers for six tires. There would also continue to be shading to distinguish between areas of the form to be filled in by sellers and customers. As indicated above, under our proposal, the regulation would no longer specify as many details concerning the format of the form. We request comments on the removal of these figures and on what requirements expressed by reference to the figures should be added to the regulatory text. *Registration rates.* We request comments on the current registration rates of tires sold by independent tire dealers. Commenters are asked to provide information concerning the total number of such tires that are sold and the number of those tires that are currently being registered by each alternative means, e.g., the number of tires registered by returning the paper form, the number registered using the tire manufacturer's Web site, etc. The agency requests that commenters provide the specific basis for any numbers or rates that are provided. We also request comments on how and why these registration rates may change if the agency adopts this proposed rule. *Other issues.* We request comments on other issues related to our proposal. As indicated above, we intend the scope of this proposal to be broad. We specifically invite comments related to NHTSA's provisions for electronic registration of child safety seats in S5.8.2 of FMVSS No. 213. See final rule published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 53569) on September 9, 2005. 18 The agency considered a number of issues related to electronic registration and electronic registration forms in that rulemaking. To what extent should the requirements we adopt related to electronic registration of tires be similar/different from the ones we adopted for child safety seats, and why? 18 Docket NHTSA-2005-22324. B. Tires Sold by Dealers Controlled by Tire Manufacturers—Electronic Tire Registration The tire registration form in Figure 4 of Part 574 is the form that is to be filled out by company-controlled tire dealers and returned to the manufacturer upon the sale of new tires. We note that we have no data on the continued use of this form, or what percentage of company-controlled dealers continue to use this form versus submit the registration information to the tire manufacturer using electronic means. As noted above, the agency has previously provided an interpretation letter to the RMA (July 18, 2003 agency letter) stating that while company-controlled dealers are permitted to register tires electronically: This interpretation does not relieve non-independent distributors and dealers from the requirements of section 574.8(b) that they themselves record the purchaser's name and address, the tire identification number(s) of the tire(s) sold, and a suitable identification of themselves as the selling dealer on a tire registration form and return the completed forms to the tire manufacturers or their designees. While we would interpret Part 574 to permit non-independent distributors and dealers to accomplish these tasks by electronic means, they may not transfer this responsibility to consumers. In this NPRM, NHTSA is proposing to include a provision expressly reflecting this existing option in the Part 574 requirements. Specifically, NHTSA proposes that electronic means be permitted as an alternative to the paper registration forms specified in S574.7(b). As earlier stated, we have little information on how these systems are configured, so we are proposing simple language and we welcome comments on alternative language. As to Part 574's requirements for these forms, requirements concerning data elements are set forth in the regulatory text, and the regulatory text also specifies that the forms must be similar in format and size to that in Figure 4. We note that the statutory requirement that NHTSA prescribe a standardized tire registration form does not apply to ones for tires sold by dealers controlled by tire manufacturers. To promote flexibility, we are proposing to remove Figure 4 showing the registration forms to be used. We are proposing to add several requirements currently expressed by reference to the figure, and otherwise leave all other details to the tire manufacturer. Under our proposal, the form would continue to be required to include: • A statement indicating where the form should be returned, including the name and mailing address of the manufacturer or its designee. • The tire manufacturers' logo or other identification, if the manufacturer is not identified as part of the statement indicating where the form should be returned. • The statement: “IMPORTANT; FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES TIRE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS MUST BE REGISTERED.” We request comments on the removal of this figure and on what requirements expressed by reference to the figure should be added to the regulatory text. VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The Office of Management and Budget reviewed this rulemaking document under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This rulemaking action has been determined to be significant under the DOT Policies and Procedures because of public interest. In this document, NHTSA is proposing to amend Part 574 by permitting collection of the names and addresses of first purchasers of new tires by internet and other computerized means. Nothing in the proposed rule, if made final, would require any tire dealer to use these new procedures. All collection of the names and addresses of first purchasers of new tires may continue to be collected as at present. However, we believe that permitting electronic means of tire registration will increase the rate of registrations, which will in turn increase the effectiveness of future tire recalls and thus improve motor vehicle safety. There would be some cost impacts, in terms of time and/or money, associated with increased registrations of tires by electronic means. Since the options we are proposing are voluntary, we do not know to what extent they will be utilized by independent tire dealers and tire manufacturers. However, we are providing analysis to show the potential cost impacts. *Increased registrations by consumers using the internet.* Under the proposed rule, tire manufacturers can provide, on a voluntary basis, internet registration information on the tire registration form that is given to purchasers by independent tire dealers. Consumers could then register their tires online instead of filling out the paper form and mailing it to the tire manufacturer or its designee. The cost of printing this information on the form is negligible, and therefore there would be no cost increase to tire manufacturers that are responsible for printing the forms and providing them to independent tire dealers. However, the tire manufacturers offering the option of internet-based tire registration on their Web sites would incur some cost to include a registration site. The agency has found that most tire manufacturers already have tire registration sites included on their Web sites. This method of registration would save consumers the cost of a postcard postage stamp, and it would save costs for tire manufacturers because they (or their designee) would not have to transcribe the information on the paper forms into a tire registration data base. In the table which follows, we are providing estimates of the monetized costs associated with various rates of increased tire registration using the internet. Under this scenario, paper forms would continue to be provided to purchasers, but the additional registrations would occur via the internet rather than by the forms being mailed in. Therefore, although tire registrations would increase, mailing and other paperwork costs would remain the same. We are assuming, for purposes of these estimates, that the costs associated with the current level of tire registration would not change. The additional costs associated with this scenario would be the time consumers spent registering tires via the internet that they otherwise would not register. We also assume that because the tire registration information is collected using purely electronic means, there would be no additional labor burden for the tire manufacturer for recordkeeping associated with these additional registrations. To monetize the costs of consumers filling out paper forms or using the internet, a labor rate of $14.61 per hour is used. 19 19 The median hourly rate among all occupations, May 2006, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; see *http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b00-0000* . Consumer Cost Projections Associated With Increased Tire Registrations With Consumers Registering Tires Using the Internet Current tire registrations Future tire registrations using internet-based registration by consumers 10 percent increase 15 percent increase 20 percent increase Consumer Hour Burden Estimates: Number of Consumers 10,000,000 11,000,000 11,500,000 12,000,000 Total Tire Registrations 54,000,000 59,400,000 62,100,000 64,800,000 Tire Registration Hours 225,000 247,500 258,750 270,000 Monetized Costs (Consumer time valued @ $14.61/Hour $3,287,250 $3,615,975 $3,780,338 $3,944,700 *Voluntary registration by independent tire dealers* . Under the proposed rule, independent tire dealers could voluntarily register tires for consumers, if this was authorized by the tire manufacturer. Dealers that did this would incur additional costs to upgrade their computer systems, with both initial startup costs and then costs for periodic maintenance of the systems. We assume that many independent tire dealers, especially the larger ones, already collect tire purchaser information as part of the sales process. For these manufacturers, we believe it may be possible to upgrade the sales system to include automatic electronic registration on behalf of the purchaser. We do not know the details of how this process may work, which would be up to the tire manufacturer and the independent tire dealers. The process might also include companies designated by the tire manufacturers to provide services in this area. We also do not know what actual startup and annual costs might be to independent tire dealers. However, once these systems are installed, tire registration rates would be 100 percent for tires sold through these dealers. This compares with overall current registration rates of 10 percent for tires sold through independent dealers. The costs associated with voluntary tire registration by independent tire dealers would be offset, or partially offset, by the fact that these dealers would no longer need to provide paper forms to consumers, or fill out these forms with tire identification numbers. The agency has estimated that there are a total of 59,000 tire dealers in the U.S., including 13,000 that are company-controlled dealers. The remaining 46,000 tire dealers include 20,000 car and truck dealers and 26,000 independent tire dealers. There are two unknowns for estimating the cost impacts on independent tire dealers—how many independent dealers would voluntarily upgrade computer systems to register tires, and what the cost of these computer systems would be in terms of initial cost and annual maintenance. Each year, a number of independent dealers will install or upgrade computer systems, and they continue to maintain their systems in subsequent years. We will assume that an initial installation cost of providing an upgraded system is $750 and that annual maintenance thereafter is $200. We do not know whether each tire manufacturer would work directly with each independent tire dealer, or whether third party designees would provide an interface service for all tire manufacturers and independent tire dealers. We note that third party designees could provide efficiencies of having a single contact company that could be the interface for an independent tire dealer and multiple tire manufacturers. We are providing cost estimates assuming that 30 percent of independent tire dealers would participate in such a voluntary program, with 10 percent beginning the first year (4,600 dealers), an additional 10 percent beginning the second year, and the third 10 percent beginning the third year. These costs can be summarized as follows: Year Startup costs for computer systems Annual maintenance costs Total cost 2009 $3.45 M 0 $3.45 M 2010 3.45 M $0.92 M 4.37 M 2011 3.45 M 1.84 M 5.29 M 2012 and Beyond 0 2.76 M 2.76 M Since the proposed rule, if made final, would establish collection of information procedures that would be used entirely at the discretion of the tire dealer, and the estimated paperwork burdens of tire dealers electing to use these procedures are not expected to exceed $100 million annually, the agency does not consider this rulemaking to be “economically significant,” as defined by E.O. 12866. Thus, it has not prepared a full regulatory evaluation. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR § 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As explained above, NHTSA is proposing to amend Part 574 by permitting collection of the names and addresses of first purchasers of new tires by internet and other computerized means. Electronic collection would be permitted in place of paper forms. This regulatory flexibility analysis does not apply to manufacturer-owned tire dealers, because they are not considered small businesses under SBA's affiliation rule at 5 CFR section 121.103(a)(1) which states in part: “Concerns and entities are affiliates of each other when one controls or has the power to control the other * * *” The tire manufacturer either “controls or has the power to control” dealerships that it owns. Under SBA's size standard regulations (at 5 CFR Part 121), “tire dealers” are classified under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 441320 with a size standard of average yearly sales of $6 million. “New car dealers” are classified under NAICS Code 441110 with a size standard of average yearly sales of $24.5 million. “Used car dealers” are classified under NAICS Code 441120 with a size standard of average yearly sales of $19.5 million. In its February 27, 2006 comments to NHTSA, NADA stated that of its “20,000 franchised automobile and truck dealers who sell new and used motor vehicles,” a “significant number are small businesses as defined by the SBA.” NADA did not specify the number that would be considered “small businesses.” In the **Federal Register** of March 21, 2007 (54 FR 133440), we estimated the number of independent tire dealers to be 26,000. Assuming all NADA members are small businesses, the total number of independent tire dealers that are small businesses would be 46,000. I hereby certify that if made final, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification is that if made final, this proposed rule would not substantively change existing 49 CFR Part 574 requirements for small businesses that are independent tire dealers. The electronic collection of information procedures would be voluntary for independent tire dealers. The statement on the paper form giving Web site information about online registration of new tires (and the paper form itself) would be provided by the tire manufacturer. If it chooses not to adopt electronic tire registration procedures, the responsibilities of the independent dealer would remain the same, to pass out the paper forms to first purchasers of new tires. C. National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment. D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) NHTSA has examined today's proposal pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the proposal does not have federalism implications because, if made final, the rule would not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” If the proposed rule is made final, a State requirement would be preempted if it conflicted with the rule. E. Civil Justice Reform With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:

(1)Clearly specifies the preemptive effect;

(2)clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation;

(3)provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;

(4)clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any;

(5)adequately defines key terms; and

(7)addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement. Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court. F. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)control number. The proposed changes to the tire registration and recordkeeping rule, if made final, would be “collections of information,” as that term is defined by OMB at 5 CFR 1320. Before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must publish a document in the **Federal Register** providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:

(i)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii)How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv)How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including 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. In compliance with the requirements of 5 CFR part 1320, NHTSA requests comment on the collection of information that would be revised if this NPRM were made final. *Title:* 49 CFR part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. *OMB Control Number:* 2127-0050. *Requested Expiration Date of Approval:* Three years from date of last approval. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection, with changes. *Summary of the Collection of Information:* 49 U.S.C. 30117(b) requires each tire manufacturer to collect and maintain records of the first purchasers of new tires. To carry out this mandate, 49 CFR part 574 requires tire dealers and distributors owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer to record the names and addresses of retail purchasers of new tires and the identification number(s) of the tires sold. A specific form is provided to tire dealers and distributors by tire manufacturers for recording this information. The completed forms are returned to the tire manufacturers where they are retained for not less than five years. Part 574 requires independent tire dealers and distributors to provide a registration form to consumers with the tire identification number already recorded and information identifying the dealer/distributor. The consumer can then record his/her name and address and return the form to the tire manufacturer. These forms are also provided to tire dealers and distributors by tire manufacturers. Additionally, motor vehicle manufacturers are required to record the names and addresses of the first purchasers (for purposes other than resale), together with the identification numbers of the tires on the new vehicles, and retain this information for not less than five years. *Description of the Need for the Information and the Proposed Use of the Information:* The information is used by a tire manufacturer after it or the agency determines that some of its tires either fail to comply with an applicable safety standard or contain a safety related defect. With the information, the tire manufacturer can notify the first purchaser of the tires and provide them with any necessary information or instructions or remedy. Without this information, efforts to identify the first purchaser of tires that have been determined to be defective or nonconforming pursuant to Sections 30118 and 30119 of Title 49 U.S.C. would be impeded. Further, the ability of the purchasers to take appropriate action in the interest of motor vehicle safety may be compromised. *Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information):* *March 21, 2007 Federal Register Notice* —In the 30-day notice announcing NHTSA's request for an extension to collect the tire registration and recordkeeping information had been forwarded to OMB, we estimated that the collection of information affects 10 million respondents annually. This group consists of approximately 20 tire manufacturers, 59,000 new tire dealers and distributors, and 10 million consumers who choose to register their tire purchases with tire manufacturers. A response is required by motor vehicle manufacturers upon each sale of a new vehicle and by non-independent tire dealers with each sale of a new tire. A consumer may elect to respond when purchasing a new tire from an independent dealer. *Today's Estimate Resulting From the Proposed Collection of Information Including Electronic Reporting* —If made final, today's NPRM would affect the tire registration and recordkeeping collection of information as follows: The publication “Modern Tire Dealer” reports that the tire industry's annual unit sales of new tires in the United States for the past three years were as follows: 2004—319 million; 2005—326 million; 2006—313 million. Thus, over the past three years, the average sales of tires per year in the U.S. were roughly 320 million. *Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Resulting from the Collection of Information:* *March 21, 2007 Federal Register Notice* —In the March 21, 2007 notice, we provided the following estimated burden: New tire dealers and distributors 59,000. Consumers 10,000,000. Total tire registrations (manually) 54,000,000. Total tire registration hours (manually) 225,000 hours. Recordkeeping hours (manually) 25,000 hours. Total annual tire registration and recordkeeping hours 250,000 hours. We note that with today's proposed rule, tire registration by purchasers would be facilitated by accommodating electronic means. We believe that if electronic registration were accommodated, the response rate for purchasers may increase. Moreover, some independent tire dealers may voluntarily register tires for consumers, thereby resulting in a higher registration rate. Given that the various options we are proposing would be voluntary, we do not know to what extent they would be utilized by independent tire dealers, tire manufacturers and consumers. Therefore, based on the information that is available, these are our estimates of burden. The same information (name and address of the purchaser) would be collected regardless of the format, paper form, or typing in information on a company Web site. Because some people type faster and some people write faster, NHTSA believes that the amount of time it will take to provide information about the name and address of the purchaser would be very roughly the same, regardless of the format. To the extent more consumers registered their tires, actual burdens realized could thus increase concomitantly with the higher registration rates. On the other hand, it may be possible for tire manufacturers and independent tire dealers to develop electronic systems, tied in with the systems used for monitoring inventory and recording sales information, that could automatically register the tires with the tire manufacturer at little additional cost. NHTSA believes that virtually all recordkeeping by tire manufacturers is already done electronically. NHTSA estimates that it takes roughly 25,000 hours to transfer handwritten data to an electronic format for storage. Because, with Web site-based information, there would be no change in format (i.e., going from electronic reporting to electronic storage), NHTSA believes there would be virtually no burden hours imposed in transferring information provided on a tire manufacturer's Web site to a recordkeeping site. For these reasons, NHTSA believes the recordkeeping burden hours would remain at 25,000 hours. NHTSA solicits comments on the proposed changes in the collection of information associated with part 574 and on NHTSA's analysis of how the changes will affect the number of burden hours affecting the public. Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers cited at the beginning of this NPRM and be submitted to: Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. After carefully reviewing the available information, NHTSA has determined that there are no voluntary consensus standards relevant to this rulemaking, as the information to be collected and sent to tire manufacturers is needed only in the event of a tire recall. Accordingly, this proposed rule is in compliance with Section 12(d) of NTTAA. H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of more than $100 million annually. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared an Unfunded Mandates assessment. I. Plain Language Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions: —Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs? —Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? —Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? —Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? —Would more (but shorter) sections be better? —Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? —What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand? If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this NPRM. J. Regulation Identifier Number

(RIN)The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number

(RIN)to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda. K. Privacy Act Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477 at 19478) or you may visit *http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/* . V. Public Participation How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments? Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. 20 We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. 20 *See* 49 CFR § 553.21. Please submit your comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical Character Recognition

(OCR)process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain portions of your submissions. 21 21 Optical character recognition

(OCR)is the process of converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into computer-editable text. Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.* DOT's guidelines may be accessed at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.* How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received? If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. 22 22 *See* 49 CFR 512. In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of the methods set forth above. Will the Agency Consider Late Comments? We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we will also consider comments received after that date. Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should consider that information for the final rule. If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action. How Can I Read the Comments Submitted By Other People? You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document (e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other interested persons) at any time by going to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the street address given above under ADDRESSES . The Docket Management Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 574 Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Tires. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 574 as follows: PART 574—TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDKEEPING 1. The authority for part 574 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Section 574.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) and adding new paragraphs

(e)and

(f)to read as follows: § 574.7 Information requirements—tire manufacturers, new tire brand name owners. (a)(1) * * *

(2)Each tire registration form provided to independent distributors and dealers pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall contain space for recording the information specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (a)(4)(iii) of this section. Each form shall:

(i)Have the following physical characteristics:

(A)Be rectangular;

(B)Be not less than 3 1/2 inches high, 5 inches long, and 0.007 inches thick;

(C)Be not more than 4 1/4 inches high, or more than 6 inches long, or greater than 0.016 inch thick.

(ii)On the address side of the form, be addressed with the name and address of the manufacturer or its designee, and include, in the upper right hand corner, the statement “Affix a postcard stamp.”

(iii)On the other side of the form:

(A)Include the tire manufacturer's name, unless it appears on the address side of the form;

(B)Include a statement explaining the purpose of the form and how a consumer may register tires. The statement shall: ( *1* ) Include the heading “IMPORTANT”. ( *2* ) Include the sentence: “In case of a recall, we can reach you only if we have your name and address.” ( *3* ) Indicate that sending in the card will add a person to the manufacturer's recall list. ( *4* ) If a tire manufacturer provides a Web site where its tires can be registered, it may (but is not required to) include the following sentence: “Instead of mailing this form, you can register online at [insert tire manufacturer's registration Web site address].” ( *5* ) Include the sentence: “Do it today.”

(C)Include space for recording tire identification numbers for six tires.

(D)Use shading to distinguish between areas of the form to be filled in by sellers and customers. ( *1* ) Include the statement: “Shaded areas must be filled in by seller.” ( *2* ) The areas of the form for recording tire identification numbers and information about the seller of the tires must be shaded. ( *3* ) The area of the form for recording the customer name and address must not be shaded.

(D)Include, in the top right corner, the phrase “OMB Control No. 2127-0050”.

(3)Each tire registration form provided to distributors and dealers that are not independent distributors or dealers pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section must contain space for recording the information specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (a)(4)(iii) of this section. Each form must include:

(A)A statement indicating where the form should be returned, including the name and mailing address of the manufacturer or its designee.

(B)The tire manufacturers' logo or other identification, if the manufacturer is not identified as part of the statement indicating where the form should be returned.

(C)The statement: “IMPORTANT: FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES TIRE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS MUST BE REGISTERED”.

(D)In the top right corner, the phrase “OMB Control No. 2127-0050”.

(e)Tire manufacturers may voluntarily provide means for tire registration via the internet, by telephone or other electronic means.

(f)Each tire manufacturer shall meet the requirements of paragraphs (b),

(c)and

(d)of this section with respect to tire registration information submitted to it or its designee by any means authorized by the manufacturer in addition to the use of registration forms. 3. Section 574.8 is revised to read as follows: § 574.8 Information requirements—tire distributors and dealers.

(a)*Independent distributors and dealers.*

(1)Each independent distributor and each independent dealer selling or leasing new tires to tire purchasers or lessors (hereinafter referred to in this section as “tire purchasers”) shall comply with paragraph (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii) or (a)(1)(iii) of this section:

(i)At the time of sale or lease of the tire, provide each tire purchaser with a paper tire registration form on which the distributor or dealer has recorded the following information:

(A)The entire tire identification number of the tire(s) sold or leased to the tire purchaser, and

(B)The distributor's or dealer's name and street address. In lieu of the street address, and if one is available, the distributor or dealer's e-mail address or Web site may be recorded. Other means of identifying the distributor or dealer known to the manufacturer may also be used.

(ii)Record the following information on a paper tire registration form and return it to the tire manufacturer, or its designee, on behalf of the tire purchaser, at no charge to the tire purchaser and within 30 days of the date of sale or lease:

(A)The purchaser's name and address,

(B)The entire tire identification number of the tire(s) sold or leased to the tire purchaser, and

(C)The distributor's or dealer's name and street address. In lieu of the street address, and if one is available, the distributor or dealer's e-mail address or Web site may be recorded. Other means of identifying the distributor or dealer known to the manufacturer may also be used.

(iii)If authorized by the tire manufacturer, electronically transmit the following information on the tire registration form to the tire manufacturer, or its designee, using secure means (e.g., https on the web), at no charge to the tire purchaser and within 30 days of the date of sale or lease:

(A)The purchaser's name and address,

(B)The entire tire identification number of the tire(s) sold or leased to the tire purchaser, and

(2)Each independent distributor or dealer that complies with paragraph (a)(1)(i) or

(ii)of this section shall use either the tire registration forms provided by the tire manufacturers pursuant to § 574.7(a) or registration forms obtained from another source. Paper forms obtained from other sources must comply with the requirements specified in § 574.7(a) for forms provided by tire manufacturers to independent distributors and dealers.

(3)Multiple tire sales or leases by the same tire purchaser may be recorded on a single paper registration form or in a single Web site transaction.

(4)Each independent distributor or dealer that is complying with paragraph (a)(1)(iii) with respect to a sale or lease shall include a statement to that effect on the invoice for that sale or lease and provide the invoice to the tire purchaser.

(b)*Other distributors and dealers.*

(1)Each distributor and each dealer, other than an independent distributor or dealer, selling new tires to tire purchasers:

(i)shall submit, using paper registration forms or, if authorized by the tire manufacturer, secure electronic means, the information specified in § 574.7(a)(4) to the manufacturer of the tires sold, or to the manufacturer's designee.

(ii)shall submit the information specified in § 574.7(a)(4) to the tire manufacturer or the manufacturer's designee, not less often than every 30 days. A distributor or dealer selling fewer than 40 tires of all makes, types and sizes during a 30 day period may wait until a total of 40 new tires is sold. In no event may more than six months elapse before the § 574.7(a)(4) information is forwarded to the respective tire manufacturers or their designees.

(c)Each distributor and each dealer selling new tires to other tire distributors or dealers shall supply to the distributor or dealer a means to record the information specified in § 574.7(a)(4), unless such means has been provided to that distributor or dealer by another person or by a manufacturer.

(d)Each distributor and each dealer shall immediately stop selling any group of tires when so directed by a notification issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 30118, *Notification of defects and noncompliance* . 4. In Part 574, Figures 3a, 3b and 4 are removed. Issued on: January 16, 2008. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E8-1099 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 73 16 Thursday, January 24, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Notice of Funds Availability: Inviting Applications for the Emerging Markets Program *Announcement Type:* New. *(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number: 10.603.)* SUMMARY: The Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC)announces the availability of funding for the Emerging Markets Program

(EMP)for fiscal year

(FY)2008. The intended effect of this notice is to solicit applications from the private sector and from government agencies for FY 2008 and award funds in early 2008. The EMP is administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). DATES: All proposals must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time February 25, 2008. Applications received after this time will not be considered. Note: Another notice regarding the availability of FY 2009 EMP funds will be published later this year. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Entities wishing to apply for funding should contact the Grants Management Branch, Foreign Agricultural Service, Portals Office Building, Suite 400, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20024, phone:

(202)720-5306, fax:

(202)690-0193, e-mail: *emo@fas.usda.gov.* Information is also available on the Foreign Agricultural Service Web site at *http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/em-markets/em-markets.asp.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Funding Opportunity Description Authority: The EMP is authorized by section 1542(d)(1) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (The Act), as amended. The EMP regulations appear at 7 CFR part 1486. 1. *Purpose:* The EMP assists U.S. entities in developing, maintaining, or expanding exports of U.S. agricultural commodities and products by funding technical assistance activities that promote U.S. products in emerging foreign markets. The Program is intended primarily to support export market development efforts of the private sector, but program resources may also be used to assist public organizations. All U.S. agricultural commodities and products, except tobacco, are eligible for consideration. Agricultural product(s) should be comprised of at least 50 percent U.S. origin content by weight, exclusive of added water, to be eligible for funding. Proposals which seek support for multiple commodities are also eligible. EMP funding may only be used to support exports of U.S. agricultural commodities and products through generic activities. 2. *Appropriate Activities:* Following are the types of project activities that may be considered for funding under the EMP: —Projects designed specifically to improve market access in emerging foreign markets. Example: Activities intended to mitigate the impact of political or economic events in order to maintain U.S. market share; —Marketing and distribution of value-added products. Examples: Market research on the potential for consumer-ready foods; new uses of a product; —Studies of food distribution channels in emerging markets, including infrastructural impediments to U.S. exports. Examples: Grain storage handling and inventory systems; distribution infrastructure development; —Projects that specifically address various constraints to U.S. exports, including sanitary and phytosanitary issues and other non-tariff barriers. Examples: Seminars on U.S. food safety standards and regulations; assessing and addressing pest and disease problems that inhibit U.S. exports; —Assessments and follow up activities designed to improve country-wide food and business systems, and to determine potential use of general export credit guarantees. Example: Product needs assessments and market analysis; —Projects that help foreign governments collect and use market information and develop free trade policies that benefit U.S. exporters as well as the target country or countries. Examples: Agricultural statistical analysis; development of market information systems; and —Short-term training in broad aspects of agriculture and agribusiness trade that will benefit U.S. exporters. Examples: Retail training; transportation and distribution seminars. EMP funds may not be used to support normal operating costs of individual organizations, nor as a source to recover pre-award costs or prior expenses from previous or ongoing projects. Proposals that counter national strategies or duplicate activities planned or already underway by U.S. non-profit agricultural commodity or trade associations (“cooperator”) organizations will not be considered. Ineligible expenditures include branded product promotions (in-store, restaurant advertising, labeling, etc.); advertising; administrative and operational expenses for trade shows; Web site development; equipment purchases; and the preparation and printing of brochures, flyers, posters (except in connection with specific technical assistance activities such as training seminars). For a more complete description of ineligible activities, please refer to the EMP Regulations. 3. *Eligible Markets:* The Act defines an emerging market as any country that the Secretary of Agriculture determines:

(a)Is taking steps toward developing a market-oriented economy through the food, agriculture, or rural business sectors of the economy of the country; and

(b)Has the potential to provide a viable and significant market for United States agricultural commodities or products of United States agricultural commodities. Because EMP funds are limited and the range of potential emerging market countries is worldwide, consideration will be given to proposals that target countries or regional groups with per capita income of less than $11,115 (the current ceiling on upper middle income economies as determined by the World Bank [World Development Indicators; July 2007, *http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/CLASS.XLS* ]) and populations of greater than 1 million. Income limits and their calculation can change from year to year with the result that a given country may qualify under the legislative and administrative criteria one year but not the next. Therefore, CCC has not established a fixed list of “emerging market” countries. A few countries technically qualify as emerging markets but may require a separate determination before funding can be considered because of political sensitivities. II. Award Information In general, all qualified proposals received before the application deadline will compete for EMP funding. Priority consideration will be given to proposals that identify and seek to address specific problems or constraints to agricultural exports in emerging markets through technical assistance activities that are intended to expand or maintain U.S. agricultural exports. The applicants' willingness to contribute resources, including cash, goods and services will be a critical factor in determining which proposals are funded under the EMP. Proposals will also be judged on the potential benefits to the industry represented by the applicant and the degree to which the proposal demonstrates industry support. The limited funds and the range of eligible emerging markets worldwide generally preclude CCC from approving large budgets for individual projects. While there is no minimum or maximum amount set for EMP-funded projects, most projects are funded at a level of less than $500,000 and for a duration of approximately one year. Private entities may submit multi-year proposals requesting higher levels of funding that may be considered in the context of a detailed strategic implementation plan. Funding in such cases is normally provided one year at a time with commitments beyond the first year subject to interim evaluations and funding availability. Government entities are not eligible for multi-year funding. Funding for successful proposals will be provided through specific agreements. The CCC, through FAS, will be kept informed of the implementation of approved projects through the requirement to provide regular progress reports and final performance reports. Changes in the original project timelines and adjustments within project budgets must be approved by FAS. EMP funds awarded to federal government agencies must be expended or otherwise obligated by COB September 30, 2008. III. Eligibility and Qualification Information *1. Eligible Applicants.* Any United States private or government entity with a demonstrated role or interest in exports of U.S. agricultural commodities or products may apply to the program. Government entities consist of Federal, State, and local agencies. Private entities include non-profit trade associations, universities, agricultural cooperatives, state regional trade groups, and profit-making entities and consulting businesses. Proposals from research and consulting organizations will be considered if they provide evidence of substantial participation and financial support from the U.S. industry. For-profit entities are also eligible but may not use program funds to conduct private business, promote private self-interests, supplement the costs of normal sales activities, or promote their own products or services beyond specific uses approved by CCC in a given project. U.S. market development cooperators and state regional trade groups (SRTGs) may seek funding to address priority, market specific issues and to undertake activities not suitable for funding under other marketing programs, e.g., the Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program and the Market Access Program (MAP). Foreign organizations, whether government or private, may participate as third parties in activities carried out by U.S. organizations, but are not eligible for funding assistance from the program. *2. Cost Sharing.* No private sector proposal will be considered without the element of cost-share from the applicant and/or U.S. partners. The EMP is intended to complement, not supplant, the efforts of the U.S. private sector. There is no minimum or maximum amount of cost share, though the range in recent successful proposals has been between 35 and 75 percent. The degree of commitment to a proposed project, represented by the amount and type of private funding, is used in determining which proposals will be approved for funding. Cost-share may be actual cash invested or professional time of staff assigned to the project. Proposals for which private industry is willing to commit cash, rather than in-kind contributions such as staff resources, will be given priority consideration. Cost-sharing is not required for proposals from U.S. federal, state or local government agencies, but is mandatory for all other eligible entities, even when they may be party to a joint proposal with a U.S. government agency. Contributions from USDA or other U.S. government agencies or programs may not be counted toward the stated cost share requirement. Similarly, contributions from foreign (non-U.S.) organizations may not be counted toward the cost share requirement, but may be counted in the total cost of the project. 3. *Other.* Proposals should include a justification for funding assistance from the program—an explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without federal funding assistance and why the participating organization(s) would be unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance. Applicants may submit more than one proposal. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address To Request Package.* EMP applicants may use the Unified Export Strategy

(UES)application process, an online system which allows interested applicants to submit a consolidated and strategically coordinated single proposal that incorporates funding requests for any or all of the market development programs administered by FAS. Applicants are not required to use the UES, but are strongly encouraged to do so because it reduces paperwork and expedites the FAS processing and review cycle. Applicants planning to use the online UES system must contact the Program Policy Staff at

(202)720-4327 to obtain site access information including a user id and password. The Internet-based application, including step-by-step instructions for its use, is located at the following URL address: *http://www.fas.usda.gov/cooperators.html* . A Help file is available to assist applicants with the process. Applicants using the online system should also provide, promptly after the deadline for submitting the online application, a printed or e-mailed version of each proposal (using Word or compatible format) to one of the following addresses: *Hand Delivery (including FedEx, DHL, UPS, etc.):* U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Grants Management Branch, Portals Office Building, Suite 400, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20024. *U.S. Postal Delivery:* U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Grants Management Branch, STOP 1042, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1042. Applicants electing not to use the online system must submit both

(1)a printed copy of their application to the addresses above and

(2)an electronic version to the e-mail address above. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission.* It is highly recommenced that any organization considering applying to the program first obtain a copy of the EMP Regulations. The regulations contain information on requirements that a proposal meet to be considered for funding under the program, along with other important information. EMP regulations and additional information are available at the following URL address: *http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/em-markets/em-markets.asp* . In addition, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's policy directive regarding the use of a universal identifier for all Federal grants or cooperative agreements, all applicants must submit a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number prior to submitting applications. An applicant may request a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711. Applications should be no longer than ten

(10)pages and include the following information:

(a)Date of proposal;

(b)Name of organization submitting proposal;

(c)Organization address, telephone and fax numbers;

(d)Tax ID number;

(e)DUNS number;

(f)Primary contact person;

(g)Full title of proposal;

(h)Target market(s);

(i)Current conditions in the target market(s) affecting the intended commodity or product;

(j)Description of problem(s), i.e., constraint(s), to be addressed by the project, such as inadequate knowledge of the market, insufficient trade contacts, lack of awareness by foreign officials of U.S. products and business practices, impediments (infrastructure, financing, regulatory or other non-tariff barriers), etc.;

(k)Project objectives;

(l)Performance measures: benchmarks for quantifying progress in meeting the objectives;

(m)Rationale: Explanation of the underlying reasons for the project proposal and its approach, the anticipated benefits, and any additional pertinent analysis;

(n)Clear demonstration that successful implementation will benefit a particular industry as a whole, not just the applicant(s);

(o)Explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without federal funding assistance and why the participating organization(s) would be unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance;

(p)Specific description of activity/activities to be undertaken;

(q)Timeline(s) for implementation of activity, including start and end dates;

(r)Information on whether similar activities are or have previously been funded with USDA sources in target country/countries (e.g., under MAP and/or FMD programs); and

(s)Detailed line item activity budget. Cost items should be allocated separately to each participating organization. Expense items constituting a proposed activity's overall budget (e.g., salaries, travel expenses, consultant fees, administrative costs, etc.), with a line item cost for each, should be listed, clearly indicating:

(1)Which items are to be covered by EMP funding;

(2)Which by the participating U.S. organization(s); and

(3)Which by foreign third parties (if applicable). Cost items for individual consultant fees should show calculation of daily rate and number of days. Cost items for travel expenses should show number of trips, destinations, cost, and objective for each trip. Qualifications of applicant(s) should be included as an attachment. 3. *Submission Dates and Times.* All proposals must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on [insert date 30 days after day of publication], in the Grants Management Branch, either electronically, hand delivered, or by mail. Proposals received after this date and time will not be reviewed or considered for program funding. 4. *Funding Restrictions.* Certain types of expenses are not eligible for reimbursement by the program, and there are limits on other categories of expenses such as indirect overhead charges, travel expenses and consulting fees. CCC will not reimburse unreasonable expenditures or expenditures made prior to approval of a proposal. Full details of the funding restrictions are available in the EMP regulations. V. Application Review Information 1. *Criteria.* Key criteria used in judging proposals include: —Appropriateness of the activities for the targeted market(s) and the extent to which the project identifies market barriers, e.g., a fundamental deficiency in the market, and/or a recent change in market conditions; —Potential of the project to expand U.S. market share, increase U.S. exports or sales, and/or improve awareness of U.S. agricultural commodities and products; —Quality of the project's performance measures and the degree to which they relate to the objectives, deliverables, and proposed approach and activities; —Justification for federal funding; —Overall cost of the project and the amount of funding provided by the applicant and any partners; and —Evidence that the organization has the knowledge, expertise, ability, and resources to successfully implement the project. Additional evaluation criteria are discussed in the EMP regulations. 2. *Review and Selection Process.* All applications undergo a multi-phase review within FAS, including appropriate FAS overseas offices, and by the private sector Advisory Committee on Emerging Markets to determine the qualifications, quality and appropriateness of projects, and reasonableness of project budgets. 3. *Anticipated Announcement Date.* EMP funding decisions will be announced in the spring of 2008. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices.* FAS will notify each applicant in writing of the final disposition of its application. FAS will send an approval letter and project agreement to each approved applicant. The approval letter and agreement will specify the terms and conditions applicable to the project, including the level of EMP funding and cost-share contribution requirements. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements.* Interested parties should review the EMP regulations which are available at the following URL address: *http://www.fas.usda/mos/em-markets/em-markets.asp* . 3. *Reporting.* Quarterly progress reports for all programs one year or longer in duration are required. Projects of less than one year generally require a mid-term progress report. Final performance reports are due 90 days after completion of each project. Content requirements for both types of reports are contained in the Project Agreement. Final financial reports are also due 90 days after completion of each project as attachments to the final performance report. VII. Agency Contact(s) For additional information and assistance, contact the Grants Management Branch, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agricultural, Portals Office Building, Suite 400, Stop 1042, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20024, phone:

(202)720-5306, fax:

(202)690-0193, e-mail: *emo@fas.usda.gov* . Signed at Washington, DC, on January 17, 2008. W. Kirk Miller, Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service and Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation. [FR Doc. 08-238 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 25

Traces to 25 documents