Unknown. Direct final rule; correcting amendment
25,961 words·~118 min read·
/register/2008/03/11/08-946A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-03-11.xml --- 73 48 Tuesday, March 11, 2008 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Natural Resources Conservation Service Alcohol Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau RULES Establishment of the Lehigh Valley Viticultural Area, 12870-12875 E8-4786 Expansion of the Alexander Valley Viticultural Area, 12875-12878 E8-4789 Expansion of the San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area, 12878-12881 E8-4785 Army Army Department NOTICES Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement:
De Soto National Forest and Implementation of Installation Mission Support Activities at Camp Shelby, MS, 12956 E8-4535 Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at Scotts Hill, NC, 12886 E8-4812 Bonfouca Bayou, Slidell, LA., 12889-12891 E8-4815 Intracoastal Waterway Beach Thorofare, NJ, 12888-12889 E8-4813 Liberty Bayou, Slidell, LA., 12884-12886 E8-4816 Tchefuncta River, Madisonville, LA., 12886-12888 E8-4818 Final Rule:
Special Local Regulations Concerning Fireworks, 12881-12884 E8-4830 Safety Zone: Fireworks Display, Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, NC, 12891-12893 E8-4799 PROPOSED RULES Temporary Restricted Anchorage: Seventh Coast Guard District, Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, 12925-12928 E8-4757 NOTICES Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council Charter Renewal, 13007 E8-4820 Random Drug Testing Rate for Covered Crewmembers, 13007-13008 E8-4800 Commerce Commerce Department See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Mission Statement;
Assistant Secretarial Trade Mission to Vietnam, 12947-12948 E8-4798 Defense Defense Department See Army Department Education Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12956-12958 E8-4778 E8-4779 Employee Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Hearing on Reasonable Contracts or Arrangements Under Section 408(b)(2); Fee Disclosure, 13012-13013 E8-4658 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration:
Precision Magnetics Division of Arnold Magnetics Technologies, Wayne, NJ, 13013 E8-4667 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13013-13015 E8-4657 Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, etc.: Atreum-Brighton et al., Brighton, Michigan, 13015 E8-4666 Cooper Standard Automotive, Fluid Systems Division; Archbold, Ohio Plant et al., OH, 13015 E8-4665 Determinations for Eligibility to Apply for Adjustment Assistance, etc., 13016-13017 E8-4664 Investigations for Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Adjustment Assistance, etc., 13017-13018 E8-4663 Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration:
J.J. Peiger Co., Pittsburg, PA, 13018-13019 E8-4668 Termination of Investigation: Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corporation Muskegon, MI, 13019 E8-4670 Lear Corporation, Fenton, MI, 13019 E8-4669 Robert Half Management Resources, Atreum-Brighton, Brighton, MI, 13019 E8-4662 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Application to Export Electric Energy: ConocoPhillips Company, 12958-12959 E8-4842 Meetings: International Energy Agency, 12959 E8-4831 National Electric Transmission Congestion Report, 12959-12971 E8-4811 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans:
Maryland; Correction, 12895-12897 E8-4566 Wisconsin, 12893-12895 E8-4582 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12996-12997 E8-4797 Meetings: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; Public Teleconference of the Carbon Monoxide NAAQS Review Panel, 12998 E8-4825 EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; Public Teleconference Meeting of the CASAC Ozone Review Panel, 12998-12999 E8-4826 SAB Drinking Water Committee, 12999-13000 E8-4828 Export Export-Import Bank NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 13000 08-1005 FAA Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 737 600, 700, 700C, 800, and 900 Series Airplanes, 12910-12912 E8-4773 Bombardier Model CL 600 2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes, 12901-12905 E8-4769 Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplane, 12905-12907 E8-4770 Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, DHC-8-106, DHC-8-201, DHC-8-202, DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC-8-315 Airplanes, 12912-12915 E8-4772 Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401, and DHC 8 402 Airplanes, 12907-12910 E8-4771 NOTICES Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Shafter-Minter Field Airport, Shafter, CA, 13066 E8-4520 Meetings:
RTCA Program Management Committee, 13066-13067 E8-4519 Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received, 13067 E8-4801 FCC Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Television Broadcasting Services; Riverside, California, 12928-12929 E8-4909 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13000-13001 E8-4814 FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13002 E8-4756 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Arkansas:
Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration, 13008 E8-4777 Kansas: Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration, 13008 08-997 Tennessee: Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration, 13009 E8-4783 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Notice of Filings, 12971-12972 E8-4746 Filing: Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 12972 E8-4743 Grays Landing Hydro, LLC, 12973-12974 E8-4742 Green River 2 Hydro, LLC, 12974-12975 E8-4739 Kentucky Hydro 6, LLC, 12975-12976 E8-4740 Lyonsdale Associates, LLC, 12976 E8-4729 Newburgh Hydro, LLC, 12976-12977 E8-4741 Nolin Hydro, LLC, 12978-12979 E8-4737 Providence Water Supply Board, 12979 E8-4733 Uniontown Hydro, LLC, 12979-12980 E8-4738 Virginia Electric and Power Co., 12980-12981 E8-4732 Filing;
Complaint: TransCanada Power Marketing Ltd. v. ISO New England Inc., 12981-12982 E8-4730 Filing; Request Under Blanket Authorization: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, 12982 E8-4736 Records Governing Off-the Record Communications, 12982-12983 E8-4735 Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements for Electric Quarterly Reports, 12983-12995 E8-4753 Supplemental Designation of Commission Staff: Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., et al., 12996 E8-4731 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statement:
Brown County, WI, 13067-13068 E8-4775 Hernando And Citrus Counties, FL, 13068 E8-4792 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Filing of Complaint and Assignment: Nathan Freeman v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. and Shipco Transport, Inc., 13002-13003 E8-4860 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies, 13003 E8-4774 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 13003-13004 08-1011 FTC Federal Trade Commission PROPOSED RULES Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting, 12916-12923 E8-4699 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:
North American Wolverine, 12929-12941 E8-4197 MISSING FOR: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Application for Expansion: Foreign-Trade Zone 104; Savannah, GA, 12948-12949 E8-4835 Foreign-Trade Zone 23; Stockton, CA, 12949 E8-4840 Application for Subzone: Foreign-Trade Zone 122, Corpus Christi, TX, 12949-12950 E8-4834 Withdrawal of Requests for Subzone Status: Foreign-Trade Zone 93 - Raleigh/Durham, NC, et al., 12950 E8-4841 Health Health and Human Services Department See Health Resources and Services Administration See National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings:
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee, 13004 E8-4791 Secretarys Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections, 13004-13005 E8-4793 Health Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13005-13006 E8-4787 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Federal Emergency Management Agency See U.S. Customs and Border Protection Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Renewal of the Sporting Conservation Council, 13009 E8-4857 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 12950 E8-4833 Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden, 12950-12952 E8-4824 Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Review: Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Germany, 12953-12954 E8-4827 Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan; Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review, Intent to Revoke Antidumping Duty Finding in Part, 12954-12955 08-1003 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 13010 E8-4763 Justice Justice Department NOTICES Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: United States v. Reynolds Metals Company, et al., 13010 E8-4784 Lodging of Settlement Agreement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: United States v. Ruetgers Organics Corp., 13010-13011 E8-4720 Labor Labor Department See Employee Benefits Security Administration See Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13011-13012 E8-4678 E8-4703 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13019-13020 E8-4868 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: National Council on the Arts, 13020 E8-4745 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13068-13069 08-1002 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Blue Ribbon Panel, 13006 E8-4849 National Center for Research Resources, 13006 E8-4565 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 13006-13007 E8-4564 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the Gulf of Alaska, 12897-12898 08-1001 Prohibited Species Bycatch Management, 12898-12900 E8-4810 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States;
Northeast Multispecies Fishery: 2008 Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan and Agreement, and Allocation of Georges Bank Cod Total Allowable Catch, 12941-12945 E8-4803 Listing Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Designating Critical Habitat: 90-day Finding for a Petition to Reclassify the Loggerhead Turtle in the Wester, 12941 08-1000 NOTICES Availability for Public Comment on the Draft Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology Interagency Working Group on Ocean Observation, etc., 12955 E8-4693 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 13021 08-1008 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Pine Barren Creek Watershed, Escambia County, AL, 12946-12947 08-993 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses for No Significant Hazards Considerations, 13021-13029 E8-4690 Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License etc.: Exelon Generation Co., LLC, 13029-13032 E8-4861 Final Environmental Assessment etc.:
PSEG Nuclear, LLC, 13032-13044 E8-4858 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 13045 08-1007 Request for License to Import Radioactive Waste, 13045-13046 E8-4859 Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License: Duke Power Co. LLC, 13046 E8-4852 Postal Postal Service RULES Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Disciplinary Action for Violations of Restrictions on Post-Employment Activity, 12893 08-946 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Application: Pruco Life Insurance Company, et al., 13046-13049 E8-4685 Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation, et al., 13049-13052 E8-4684 RSI Retirement Trust, 13052 E8-4750 Notice of Application:
CUNA Mutual Insurance Society, et al., 13052-13057 E8-4686 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 13057-13060 E8-4682 E8-4748 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 13060-13064 E8-4749 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 13064-13065 E8-4747 SBA Small Business Administration RULES Small Business Size Standards; Adoption of Size Standards by 2007 North American Industry Classification System for Size Standards, 12869-12870 E8-4788 NOTICES Idaho: Declaration of Economic Injury, 13065 E8-4790 Meetings:
Region VII Regulatory Fairness Board, 13066 E8-4855 Social Social Security Administration PROPOSED RULES Representative Payment Under Titles II, VIII and XVI of the Social Security Act, 12923-12925 E8-4781 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemption: Mid-Michigan Railroad, Inc.; Kent, Ionia, and Montcalm Counties, MI, 13069-13070 E8-4522 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board Treasury Treasury Department See Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau NOTICES Meetings:
Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession, 13070 E8-4794 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Tuna; Tariff-Rate Quota, 13009 E8-4806 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 13070 E8-4850 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 73 48 Tuesday, March 11, 2008 Rules and Regulations SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 121 RIN 3245-AF66 Small Business Size Standards;
Adoption of Size Standards by 2007 North American Industry Classification System for Size Standards AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Direct final rule; correcting amendment. SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)is correcting the direct final rule it published in the **Federal Register** on August 29, 2007, that amended its Small Business Size Regulations by incorporating the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)2007 modifications of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) into its table of small business size standards. The direct final rule published on August 29, 2007 established an incorrect small business size standard for NAICS 517919, All Other Telecommunications. The correct small business size standard is $23.0 million in average annual receipts. Also, the descriptive titles for 19 NAICS codes are also being amended by this action. SBA is changing the industry descriptions in its table of size standards so they will match the descriptions published by OMB in NAICS 2007. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 11, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Jordan, Program Analyst, Division of Size Standards, at
(202)205-6618 or *sizestandards@sba.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SBA published a direct final rule in the August 29, 2007 **Federal Register** (72 FR 49639) to amend its Small Business Size Regulations by incorporating the OMB 2007 modifications of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) into its table of small business size standards. In the direct final rule, SBA included Table 1 which provided rules for establishing size standards upon incorporating NAICS 2007 into its table of size standards. Rule #3 in Table 1 stated the following: Table 1 If the NAICS 2007 industry is composed of The size standard for the NAICS industry will be 3. More than one NAICS 2002 industry; parts of more than one NAICS 2002 industry; or one or more NAICS 2002 industry and part(s) of one or more NAICS 2002 industry, and they do not all have the same size standard. The same size standard as for the NAICS 2002 industry or NAICS 2002 industry part(s) that most closely matches the economic activity described by the NAICS 2007 industry. Applying Rule #3 from Table 1, SBA had indicated on pages 49642 and 49643 of the direct final rule that the small business size standard for NAICS 517919, All Other Telecommunications, would be $23.0 million in average annual receipts. However, SBA incorrectly stated in item 2(n) on page 49644 that the small business size standard is $23.5 million in average annual receipts. Because SBA properly applied Rule #3 from Table 1 of the direct final rule, the correct size standard is $23.0 million, and this action corrects 13 CFR 121.201 to reflect the correct size standard. In addition, SBA is correcting the Industry Descriptions for 19 NAICS industries in its table of size standards to match the industry descriptions in NAICS 2007. Table 2, below, is a list of the NAICS codes with the titles as published in the August 29, 2007 **Federal Register** , and as corrected. The following changes to the industry descriptions do not affect any small business size standards; the small business size standards for these NAICS codes remain unchanged. Table 2 NAICS code Industry descriptions in August 29, 2007 Federal Register direct final rule Industry descriptions corrected 112920 Horse and Other Equine Production Horses and Other Equine Production. 311340 Non-Chocolate Confectionery Manufacturing Nonchocolate Confectionery Manufacturing. 311613 Rendering and Meat By-Product Processing Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing. 322223 Plastics, Foil, and Coated Paper Bag Manufacturing Coated Paper Bag and Pouch Manufacturing. 323118 Blankbook, Loose-leaf Binder and Device Manufacturing Blankbook, Looseleaf Binders and Devices Manufacturing. 326111 Unsupported Plastics Bag Manufacturing Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing. 326112 Unsupported Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet Manufacturing Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing. 326113 Unsupported Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing. 326121 Unsupported Plastics Profile Shapes Manufacturing Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing. 326122 Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing. 326130 Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet and Shape Manufacturing Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Manufacturing. 331221 Cold-Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing. 485113 Bus and Motor Vehicle Transit Systems Bus and Other Motor Vehicle Transit Systems. 522298 All Other Non-Depository Credit Intermediation All Other Nondepository Credit Intermediation. 522320 Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and Clearing House Activities Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and Clearinghouse Activities. 561330 Employee Leasing Services Professional Employer Organizations. 721191 Bed and Breakfast Inns Bed-and-Breakfast Inns. 812921 Photo Finishing Laboratories (except One-Hour) Photofinishing Laboratories (except One-Hour). 812922 One-Hour Photo Finishing One-Hour Photofinishing. List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 121 Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Government property, Grant programs—business, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses. For the reasons set forth in the preamble to this rule, SBA amends 13 CFR part 121 as follows: PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 636(b), 637(a), 644, and 662(5); and Pub. L. 105-135, sec. 401, *et seq.* , 111 Stat, 2592. 2. Amend § 121.201, in the table “Small Business Size Standards by NAICS Industry” as follows: a. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 112920 “Horses and Other Equine Production” to read “Horses and Other Equine Production”. b. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 311340 “Non-Chocolate Confectionery Manufacturing” to read “Nonchocolate Confectionery Manufacturing”. c. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 311613 “Rendering and Meat By-Product Processing” to read “Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing”. d. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 322223 “Plastics, Foil, and Coated Paper Bag Manufacturing” to read “Coated Paper Bag and Pouch Manufacturing”. e. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 323118 “Blankbook, Loose-leaf Binders and Devices Manufacturing” to read “Blankbook, Looseleaf Binder and Device Manufacturing”. f. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 326111 “Unsupported Plastics Bag Manufacturing” to read “Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing”. g. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 326112 “Unsupported Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet Manufacturing” to read “Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing”. h. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 326113 “Unsupported Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing” to read “Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing”. i. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 326121 “Unsupported Plastics Profile Shapes Manufacturing” to read “Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing”. j. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 326122 “Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing” to read “Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing”. k. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 326130 “Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet and Shape Manufacturing” to read “Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Manufacturing”. l. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 331221 “Cold-Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing” to read “Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing”. m. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 485113 “Bus and Motor Vehicle Transit Systems” to read “Bus and Other Motor Vehicle Transit Systems”. n. Revise the Size standards in millions of dollars amount in the entry for 517919 to read “$23.0”. o. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 522298 “All Other Non-Depository Credit Intermediation” to read “All Other Nondepository Credit Intermediation”. p. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 522320 “Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and Clearing House Activities” to read “Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and Clearinghouse Activities”. q. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 561330 “Employee Leasing Services” to read “Professional Employer Organizations”. r. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 721191 “Bed and Breakfast Inns” to read “Bed-and-Breakfast Inns”. s. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 812921 “Photo Finishing Laboratories (except One-Hour)” to read “Photofinishing Laboratories (except One-Hour)”. t. Revise the industry description of NAICS code 812922 “One-Hour Photo Finishing” to read “One-Hour Photofinishing”. Dated: March 4, 2008. Arthur E. Collins, Director, Government Contracting. [FR Doc. E8-4788 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [T.D. TTB-66; Re: Notice No. 67] RIN 1513-AB19 Establishment of the Lehigh Valley Viticultural Area (2005R-415P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. SUMMARY: This Treasury decision establishes the 1,888-square mile Lehigh Valley viticultural area in southeastern Pennsylvania in portions of Lehigh, Northampton, Berks, Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe Counties. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, CA 94952; phone 415-271-1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)administers the regulations promulgated under the FAA Act. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include— • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey
(USGS)maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. Lehigh Valley Viticultural Area Background John Skrip III, chairman of the Lehigh Wine Trail Appellation Committee submitted a petition to TTB proposing the establishment of the 1,888-square mile Lehigh Valley viticultural area in southeastern Pennsylvania. The proposed area is located approximately 45 miles north-northwest of Philadelphia and includes portions of Lehigh, Northampton, Berks, Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe Counties. TTB notes that the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area does not overlap any other viticultural area. As of 2005, the proposed viticultural area included 9 wineries and 13 vineyards with 220 acres devoted to viticulture, according to the petitioner. The petitioner notes that the distinguishing features of the proposed viticultural area include its rolling hills and a similar agricultural climate throughout. The evidence submitted with the petition is summarized below. Name Evidence The petitioner explains that Lehigh Valley derives its name from the Lehigh River, which flows through the proposed viticultural area and into the Delaware River at Easton, Pennsylvania. The petitioner states that the word “Lehigh” originated with the Delaware Indians in the 1600s, who named the area “Lechauwekink,” meaning an area with river forks. The petitioner notes that through a series of translations of the original Indian name, the name “Lehigh” now identifies the area. The petitioner also notes that the “Lehigh Valley” name applies to a much larger area than the immediate region bordering the Lehigh River and is, in fact, associated with the entire proposed viticultural area. The petitioner provides evidence for the use of the Lehigh or Lehigh Valley name throughout the proposed viticultural area by businesses, cities, schools, and the National Highway System. For example, Lehigh Street is a major thoroughfare in the city of Allentown, Lehigh University is located on the outskirts of Bethlehem, and the Lehigh Tunnel was constructed on the Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, just north of the Lehigh County line. Also, two pages of the Lehigh Valley telephone book include nine columns of businesses located within the proposed viticultural area that use “Lehigh Valley” as part of the company name. The petition also includes brochures for inns, golf courses, covered bridges, a chamber orchestra, and a wine trail that use the Lehigh Valley name. The January 11, 2005, edition of the Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Express-Times newspaper claims on its front page that it is “The Lehigh Valley's fastest growing newspaper.” An article in the business section of the March 31, 2002, edition of the Allentown Morning Call newspaper discusses the economic development of the Lehigh Valley area. The article notes that six community organizations incorporated “Lehigh Valley” in their names between 1984 and 2002, including the Lehigh Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, the American Red Cross of the Greater Lehigh Valley, the United Way of Greater Lehigh Valley, and the Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce. In addition, the petitioner provides copies of two regional magazines, “Lehigh Valley Style,” dated March/April 2003, and “Lehigh Valley,” dated July/August 2004. The “Lehigh Valley” magazine includes a full page advertisement for the Lehigh Valley Hospital in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Other petitioner evidence includes a toll receipt for the Lehigh Valley exit of the Pennsylvania Turnpike extension (Interstate 476) and a copy of the home page from the Lehigh Valley International Airport Web site. A U.S. post office and mail distribution center located off Route 22 between Allentown and Bethlehem is referred to as the Lehigh Valley Post Office, according to the petitioner. Boundary Evidence The proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area encompasses the Lehigh River valley from the town of Jim Thorpe to the river's mouth at Easton, as well as the regions to the northeast and southwest of the immediate river valley. In addition to the Lehigh River valley, the proposed viticultural area includes portions of the Schuylkill River valley in the southwest and the Brodhead River valley in the northeast. The proposed area also includes all or portions of the cities of Stroudsburg, Easton, Bethlehem, Allentown, and Reading, Pennsylvania. Commercial grape growing started in the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area in 1974, the petitioner explains, when Vynecrest Winery and Clover Hill Winery started planting grapes. Two years later, Franklin Hill Winery planted grapes near Bangor in Northampton County. The proposed viticultural area is oriented southwest to northeast in the approximate shape of a rectangle. The petitioner states that the proposed boundary runs for 92 miles along its northern side, 24 miles along its eastern side, 56 miles along its southern side, and 28 miles along its western side. Along the proposed viticultural area's boundary in the north, a portion of the Appalachian ridge, including Second Mountain and Wildcat Mountain in Schuylkill County, Mauch Chunk Ridge, Bear Mountain, and Call Mountain in Carbon County, and a series of lower hills in Monroe County, separates the proposed area from the cooler mountains of northeastern Pennsylvania. To the east, between Stroudsburg and Easton, the Delaware River separates Pennsylvania from New Jersey and marks the eastern limit of the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area. The petitioner notes that the region of northwestern New Jersey bordering the proposed area is not considered part of the Lehigh Valley region. To the southeast, another long Appalachian mountain ridge, South Mountain, separates the proposed viticultural area from the immediate Philadelphia region. To the west, the southwestern Berks County and Schuylkill County lines separate the Lehigh Valley region from the counties of south-central Pennsylvania, which is considered a separate geographical region of the State, according to the petitioner. Distinguishing Features The distinguishing features of the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area, according to the petitioner, include its rolling hills and a similar agricultural climate throughout. These features contrast with the regions to the north and south of the proposed viticultural area, according to the petitioner. To document these differences, the petitioner uses data collected from 1961 to 1996 by the United States Department of Agriculture and its Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). In addition, the petitioner submitted maps of Pennsylvania with information on soil moisture, soil temperature, frost-free periods, and agro-climatic regions. Climate The agricultural-climatic features of the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area include heat accumulation measurements of 2,601 to 3,000 annual degree days and an annual moisture surplus of 351 to 450 millimeters of water, as shown on the Agro-Climate Regions of Pennsylvania map submitted with the petition. (As a measurement of heat accumulation during the growing season, one degree day accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees, which is the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth. See “General Viticulture,” by Albert J. Winkler, University of California Press, 1974.) The USGS and the NRCS integrate degree-days and annual moisture surplus data to identify regions of relatively homogeneous heat and moisture characteristics related to crop production. This information is shown on the Agro-Climate Regions of Pennsylvania map submitted with the petition and is summarized in the table below. Lehigh Valley Area Degree Day and Water Balances North of Lehigh Valley region Lehigh Valley area South of Lehigh Valley region Growing season degree-days 1,801-2,600 2,601-3,000 3,001-3,400 Annual water balance (surplus) 451-550 351-450 351-450 The petitioner presents annual temperature data collected from 1975 to 2004 at three airports—one to the north of the proposed viticultural area, one to the south of the proposed area, and one within the proposed area. The data, as summarized in the table below, shows differences in average annual precipitation and temperatures, with a warming trend from north to south. Lehigh Valley Area Climatic Temperature Data Averages 1975-2004 Fahrenheit temperatures Wilkes-Barre Scranton Airport (25 miles north of Lehigh Valley) Lehigh Valley Airport (within the proposed viticultural area) Philadelphia International Airport (45 miles south of Lehigh Valley) Average High 58.8° 61.5° 64.4° Average Mean 49.7° 51.7° 55.4° Average Low 40.6° 42° 46.6° Maximum High 94.4° 96.5° 97.3° Minimum Low −4.2° 0.7° 5.2° Frequency of days below 5° 14 7 3 Average rain in inches 37.5″ 43.6″ 41.6″ The proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area's growing season ranges from 161 to 180 consecutive frost-free days, with the proposed area's southern portion having fewer days with frost than its northern portion, according to the Frost-Free Period of Pennsylvania Landscapes map submitted with the petition. A frost-free period, based on 32 degrees Fahrenheit or above, the petitioner explains, represents the consecutive days from the final killing frost in the spring to the first killing frost in the fall. This 161- to 180-day timeframe defines the length of the regional growing season for most agronomic crops. The region north of the proposed viticultural area, the petitioner states, is cooler during the growing season, with 1,801 to 2,600 degree days of heat accumulation. The region to the north also is wetter, with an annual surplus water balance of 451 to 550 millimeters of water. The higher elevations to the north of the Lehigh Valley region create a climate with cooler temperatures and more soil moisture retention. As evidence, the petitioner submitted the Agro-Climate Regions of Pennsylvania map, which shows a distinctively cooler and wetter climate north of the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area. Also, the meteorological data collected during the years 1975 to 2004 from the Wilkes-Barre Scranton International Airport, located 25 miles north of the proposed viticultural area, shows consistently lower temperatures than are found in the proposed viticultural area, with twice as many days dipping below 5 degrees Fahrenheit annually. The petitioner describes the area to the south of the proposed viticultural area as marginally, yet consistently, warmer. Meteorological information included in the petition from the Philadelphia International Airport, 45 miles south of the Lehigh Valley, confirms that temperatures to the south of the proposed area are warmer by an average of 4 degrees Fahrenheit. The petitioner also explains that to the south of the proposed area the warmer temperatures, combined with different soils, create a longer grape-growing season and mature grapes with lower acidities and different flavors than those of the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area. Areas to the east and west of the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area are, for geopolitical and social reasons, considered to be outside of the Lehigh Valley. Across the Delaware River to the east of the proposed viticultural area is the State of New Jersey. The petitioner states that the residents of this northwestern New Jersey region do not consider themselves to be a part of the Lehigh Valley region of Pennsylvania. The region to the west of the proposed viticultural area also is not considered to be part of the Lehigh Valley, according to the petitioner. The counties to the west of the proposed area considered by most to be part of south-central Pennsylvania, which is often called “Pennsylvania Dutch Country.” Topography The topography of the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area largely consists of rolling hills with elevations generally between 500 feet and 1,000 feet, according to the petitioner and the USGS maps provided. Creeks and several rivers flow through the region, while lakes dot the landscape, as shown on the USGS maps of the region. Also, a small portion of the proposed northeastern boundary area, along the foothills of the Blue Mountain range, rises to the 1,600-foot contour line. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail meanders through the proposed area's higher elevations, as shown on the USGS maps. Beyond the northern boundary of the proposed viticultural area, the terrain transitions from the lower, rolling hills of the Lehigh Valley to higher foothills and mountains with elevations ranging from 1,000 feet to 1,900 feet. While the region southeast of the proposed viticultural area begins on the heights of South Mountain, the region quickly falls to the lower and flatter elevations of the Delaware River valley. Soils The petitioner states that the soils within the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area are mainly based on shale, sandstone, and siltstone. A 1972 Soil Conservation Service publication, General Soil Map—Pennsylvania, verifies that the area contains shale, sandstone, and siltstone. Soils to the south of the proposed area, according to the petitioner, are based on schist, gneiss, and porcelanite, rather than shale, limestone, and sandstone. According to data submitted by the petitioner, a lack of soil moisture during the growing season puts the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area in the Typic Udic moisture regime (less than 90 days of drying), as determined by USGS and NRCS data and shown on the Soil Moistures Regimes of Pennsylvania Landscapes map. The petitioner explains that the region typically has a June through August dry season when the grape vines rely on stored moisture rather than rain. The estimated annual mean soil temperature of the proposed viticultural area is Typic Mesic, ranging from 10.5 degrees Centigrade, or 50.9 degrees Fahrenheit, to 12.0 degrees Centigrade, or 54 degrees Fahrenheit. This information is based on temperatures at 20 inches below the soil surface and shown on the Soil Moistures Regimes of Pennsylvania Landscapes map. Geology The geology of the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area, as depicted on the Geologic Map of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, revised in 2000, includes Ordovician features in the south and Permian features in the north. The Ordovician geology, predominantly consisting of shale, limestone, dolomite, and sandstone, dates back 430 million to 500 million years. The Permian geology, dating back 250 million to 290 million years, consists of coal, in addition to the sandstone, shale, and limestone that is similar to that found in the Ordovician geology to the south of the proposed viticultural area. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received TTB published Notice No. 67 regarding the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 65437) on November 8, 2006. We received no comments in response to that notice. TTB Finding After careful review of the petition, TTB finds that the evidence submitted supports the establishment of the proposed viticultural area. Therefore, under the authority of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and part 4 of our regulations, we establish the Lehigh Valley American viticultural area in southeastern Pennsylvania in portions of Lehigh, Northampton, Berks, Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe Counties, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document. Boundary Description See the narrative boundary description of the viticultural area in the regulatory text published at the end of this document. Maps The maps for determining the boundary of the viticultural area are listed below in the regulatory text. Impact on Current Wine Labels Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. With the establishment of this viticultural area and its inclusion in part 9 of the TTB regulations, its name, “Lehigh Valley,” is recognized under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3) as a name of viticultural significance. In addition, the name “Lehigh” standing alone will be considered a term of viticultural significance because consumers and vintners could reasonably attribute the quality, reputation, or other characteristic of wine made from grapes grown in the Lehigh Valley viticultural area to the name Lehigh itself. The text of the new regulation clarifies these points. Consequently, wine bottlers using “Lehigh Valley” or “Lehigh” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, must ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area's full name or “Lehigh” as an appellation of origin. For a wine to be labeled with a viticultural area name or with a brand name that includes a viticultural area name or other term specified as having viticultural significance in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible to use the viticultural area name or other term of viticultural significance as an appellation of origin and that name or other term appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name or other term of viticultural significance appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name or other term of viticultural significance that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information N. A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. The Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we amend 27 CFR, chapter I, part 9, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Amend subpart C by adding § 9.210 to read as follows: § 9.210 Lehigh Valley.
(a)*Name* . The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Lehigh Valley”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Lehigh Valley” and “Lehigh” are terms of viticultural significance.
(b)*Approved maps.* The seven United Stages Geological Survey 1:50,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Lehigh Valley viticultural area are titled:
(1)Berks County, Pennsylvania, 1978;
(2)Schuylkill County (West Half), Pennsylvania, 1979;
(3)Schuylkill County (East Half), Pennsylvania, 1979;
(4)Carbon County, Pennsylvania, 1991;
(5)Monroe County, Pennsylvania, 1980;
(6)Northampton County, Pennsylvania, 1981; and
(7)Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, 1987.
(c)*Boundary.* The Lehigh Valley viticultural area is located in portions of Lehigh, Northampton, Berks, Schuylkill, Carbon, and Monroe Counties, Pennsylvania. The boundary of the proposed Lehigh Valley viticultural area is as described below:
(1)The beginning point is on the Berks County map at the intersection of the Berks-Lancaster County line and the single-track Conrail rail line located near Cacoosing Creek in South Heidelberg Township;
(2)From the beginning point, proceed northwest along the Berks County line and, crossing onto the Schuylkill County (West Half) map, continue northwest along the Schuylkill-Lebanon County line to the county line's intersection with the northern boundary of Pine Grove township; then
(3)Proceed northeast along the northern boundary of Pine Grove, Washington, and Wayne Townships and, crossing onto the Schuylkill County (East Half) map, continue along the northern boundary of Wayne Township to the northeast corner of that township, then
(4)Proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line to the confluence of Beaver Creek and Cold Run at the northeast corner of State Game Lands No. 222 in Walker township; then
(5)Proceed north-northeasterly in a straight line to the 1,402-foot elevation point on Wildcat Mountain in Walker township; then
(6)Proceed easterly in a straight line, crossing onto the Carbon County map, and continue to Bench Mark
(BM)1032 located on Highway 902, south of the village of Bloomingdale; then
(7)Proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line to BM 555 located immediately east of the Lehigh River in the city of Jim Thorpe; then
(8)Proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line to the northern most point of Lehighton Reservoir; then
(9)Proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line to the western end of the dam at the Penn Forest Reservoir; then
(10)Proceed easterly in a straight line and, crossing onto the Monroe County map, continue to the 847-foot elevation point located at the intersection of Highway 534 and an unnamed road locally know as Dotters Corner Road in Polk township; then
(11)Proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line to the intersection of Highway 115 and an unnamed secondary road locally known as Astolat Road immediately north of the village of Effort; then
(12)Proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line to St. Johns Cemetery, located along Appenzell Creek northwest of the village of Neola; then
(13)Proceed straight northeast to the intersection of Interstate 80 and an unnamed road locally known as Hamilton Turnpike at the town of Bartonsville; then
(14)Proceed east-southeast along Interstate 80 through Stroudsburg to the west bank of the Delaware River; then
(15)Proceed south (downstream) along the west bank of the Delaware River, and, crossing onto the Northampton County map, continue south along the west bank of the Delaware River to the mouth of Lehigh River at Easton; then
(16)Proceed southwesterly (upstream) along the south bank of the Lehigh River, and crossing onto the Lehigh County map, continue along the south bank of the Lehigh River to the mouth of Jordan Creek in Allentown; then
(17)Proceed westerly (upstream) along Jordan Creek to the first railroad bridge over the creek, and then, following the Conrail rail line on that bridge, proceed southerly along the Conrail rail line (paralleling Trout Creek at first) through Emmaus, Macungie, and Alburtis, and continue along the rail line to the Lehigh-Berks County line; then
(18)Crossing onto the Berks County map, continue southerly along the Conrail rail line through Mertztown, Topton, Lyons, Fleetwood, Blandon, and Muhlenburg to the Conrail rail bridge across the Schuylkill River in Reading; then
(19)Following the Conrail rail line on the Schuylkill River bridge, proceed southerly along the rail line through Wyomissing to the rail line's junction with a single-track Conrail rail line in Sinking Springs; then
(20)From the Conrail rail line junction in Sinking Springs, follow the single track Conrail rail line through Montello, Fritztown, and Vinemont, and return to the beginning point. Signed: April 4, 2007. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: November 16, 2007. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy). Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on March 6, 2008. [FR Doc. E8-4786 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [T.D. TTB-65; Re: Notice No. 61] RIN 1513-AB23 Expansion of the Alexander Valley Viticultural Area (2005R-501P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. SUMMARY: This Treasury decision expands the Alexander Valley viticultural area in Sonoma County, California, by 1,300 acres along its northwestern boundary line. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, CA 94952; telephone 415-271-1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)administers the regulations promulgated under the FAA Act. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Petitioners may use the same procedure to request changes involving existing viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include— • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, elevation, physical features, and soils, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey
(USGS)maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. Alexander Valley Viticultural Area Expansion Petition Background Patrick Shabram of Shabram, Inc., with the support of vineyard owner Anthony Martorana, proposes a 1,300-acre expansion of the Alexander Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.53) along the current diagonal northwestern boundary line. The expansion would result in a viticultural area of 67,710 acres. The proposed expansion area starts 1 mile south-southwest of Cloverdale and continues south for another 2 miles, according to the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map and written boundary description submitted by the petitioner. The shape of the proposed expansion area resembles a triangle with one side running along the Alexander Valley viticultural area's existing diagonal northwestern boundary line. According to the petitioner, Seven Arches Vineyards straddles that diagonal northwestern boundary line, with about 10 acres outside of the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area. The proposed expansion area, the petitioner continues, would incorporate into the Alexander Valley viticultural area all of Seven Arches Vineyards and the entire 20 acres of Icaria Vineyards, both of which are located along Hiatt Road and Icaria Creek. Another vineyard, Jeke Vineyards, lies immediately inside the existing boundary line, according to a petition map outlining the vineyards of the area. The table below explains the relationship of these three vineyards to the existing diagonal northwestern boundary line of the Alexander Valley viticultural area. Vineyard name (Icaria Creek and Hiatt Road areas) Vineyard location Jeke Vineyards 1/10 mile inside of the boundary line. Seven Arches Vineyards Straddles the boundary line. Icaria Vineyards 4/10 mile outside of the boundary line. Shortly after the establishment of the original viticultural area, the petitioner states, some wine industry members erroneously believed that the proposed expansion area already lay inside the Alexander Valley viticultural area boundary. As an example, the petitioner states that Jade Mountain Vineyards labeled a 1985 Icaria Vineyards wine with the Alexander Valley viticultural area name, while a map submitted with the petition shows Icaria Vineyards as lying within the proposed expansion area. We summarize below the evidence presented in the petition in support of the proposed expansion of the Alexander Valley viticultural area. Name Evidence The proposed expansion area is historically identified with Cloverdale, a town located at the northern end of the Alexander Valley viticultural area. In his “History of the Sonoma Viticultural District,” Nomis Press, 1998, pages 186-187, Ernest P. Peninou notes that in 1890 Parker Vineyards was established in the proposed expansion area. The author identifies Parker Vineyards as a part of the viticultural history of Cloverdale. The petitioner explains that vineyards in the Cloverdale area, except for the two vineyards in the proposed expansion area, lie within the boundaries of the currently established Alexander Valley viticultural area. An article entitled “The Early Wineries of the Cloverdale Area,” by William A. Cordtz, PhD, which ran in the March/April 1985 edition of Wine West, states that grape growing started in Cloverdale before it began in other areas of the Alexander Valley. It explains that viticulture in the upper Alexander Valley centered around Cloverdale, flourishing between 1880 and Prohibition. Also, the Cloverdale Reveille, a local area newspaper, ran articles about grape growing, and in 1878 reported prices of local grapes at $8 per ton. Boundary Evidence On October 24, 1984, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), our predecessor agency, published T.D. ATF-187 (49 FR 42724), the final rule establishing the Alexander Valley viticultural area. Several groups of petitioners had proposed differing boundaries for that viticultural area. Ultimately, in the final rule ATF established the boundary of the Alexander Valley viticultural area as encompassing an area from southeast of Healdsburg to north of Cloverdale in Sonoma County. Since the establishment of the Alexander Valley viticultural area, ATF has published four other final rules, all revising the boundaries of the viticultural area. In T.D. ATF-233 (51 FR 30354, August 26, 1986), ATF expanded the southern boundary of the viticultural area to include an area known as Digger Bend, and extended the northeastern corner boundary to include newly planted vineyards. In T.D. ATF-272 (53 FR 17022, May 13, 1988), ATF adjusted the shared border of the Chalk Hill and Alexander Valley viticultural areas, and expanded the southeastern corner of the Alexander Valley viticultural area to include vineyards previously located immediately within the Chalk Hill viticultural area. In T.D. ATF-300 (55 FR 32402, August 9, 1990), ATF amended the eastern and northeastern boundary of the Alexander Valley viticultural area to encompass a nearby mountainous area. In T.D. ATF-486 (66 FR 50564, October 4, 2001), ATF realigned a small portion of the western boundary of the Alexander Valley viticultural area along the border shared with the Dry Creek viticultural area to encompass the Gill Creek watershed. However, not one of those revisions is related to the boundary of the expansion in this final rule. The current Alexander Valley viticultural area's western boundary line trends northwest-southeast, connecting section 24, T. 11 N., R. 11 W. to a point on the map at 38°45′ latitude and 123°00′ longitude in section 5, T. 10 N., R. 10 W., on the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map. The expansion area would incorporate into the current viticultural area a triangular-shaped area west of its western boundary line. The petitioner provided a map of the Alexander Valley viticultural area published by the Sonoma County Grape Growers Association in 1998. The map shows the current viticultural area boundaries and displays the vineyards within the proposed expansion area with the same shade of dark green used for the vineyards within the current viticultural area boundary. In contrast, the vineyards outside the existing boundary carry a significantly lighter shade of green. The petitioner contends that the wine industry used the map as a geographic analytical tool to group all vineyards on the floor and the lower slopes of the Alexander Valley. Distinguishing Features The petitioner provides geographic data and other evidence to document that the proposed expansion area is similar in topography, elevation, soils, and climate to the northwestern region of the Alexander Valley viticultural area along Hiatt Road and Icaria Creek. The petitioner explains that the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area and the proposed expansion area, located on opposite sides of the diagonal boundary line, have similar distinguishing features. The topography, including range in elevation and the flood plains along Icaria Creek, water resources, soils, and climate combine to create a similar viticultural environment on both sides of the diagonal boundary line, according to the petitioner. Topography The petitioner describes the similar topographic features scattered throughout the Icaria Creek area on both sides of the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area's diagonal northwestern boundary line. The proposed expansion area is at elevations of 360 feet on the flood plain along Icaria Creek to 874 feet, according to the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map. The topography is similar immediately east and inside the Alexander Valley viticultural area's diagonal boundary line. Elevations there, as noted on the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map, range from a low of 320 feet on the flood plain along Icaria Creek to a high of 884 feet. The petitioner explains that the terrain west of the proposed expansion area becomes increasingly steep and mountainous and that elevations climb to 1,600 feet, as shown on the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map. The mountainous terrain contrasts with the lower elevations and the gentle valley landscape of the Alexander Valley region shown on the map. The petitioner adds that the westerly mountainous terrain creates an unsuitable environment for viticulture. Icaria Creek and several of its tributaries, as part of the Alexander Valley watershed, run through the proposed expansion area and drain into the Russian River. In an interview in the Healdsburg Tribune of December 7, 1979, Robert Young observed that there is only one watershed in the entire Alexander Valley. His observation, according to the petitioner, supports the expansion petition because the expansion area also falls within that watershed. The vineyards in the proposed expansion area generally lie on the lower, flatter terrain of the flood plain along Icaria Creek, according to the diagrams on the map in the petition. The elevations generally range between 350 and 450 feet, but the southernmost part of the Seven Arches Vineyards reaches 590 feet. Jeke Vineyards, which is within the Alexander Valley viticultural area's western boundary line, lies between 350 and 380 feet of elevation on the flood plain along Icaria Creek, the petitioner states. Thus, Jeke Vineyards, which is immediately inside the east side of the diagonal boundary line, and the Icaria and Seven Arches Vineyards, which are in the proposed expansion area on the west side of the diagonal boundary line, do not vary substantially in their overall elevations and relative locations on the flood plain. Soils The petitioner explains that the distinguishing soils in the Icaria Creek and Hiatt Road areas in the proposed expansion area include the Hugo-Josephine-Laughlin association. According to the Soil Survey of Sonoma County, California, issued in 1972 by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, the soils in this association are well drained, gently sloping to very steep gravelly loam. This soil association, according to the petitioner, is common on the western slopes of the Alexander Valley, including much of the existing viticultural area. The predominant soil associations in the Alexander Valley viticultural area, the petitioner continues, are the Yolo-Cortina-Pleasanton, Goulding-Toomes-Guenoc, and Hugo-Josephine-Laughlin associations, which are also in the proposed expansion area. Climate The petitioner states that the climate of the proposed expansion area closely reflects that of the area to its immediate east and inside the viticultural area boundary line. Both areas, the petitioner states, are similar in vegetative cover, elevation, topographic features, and latitudinal coordinates. The entire Alexander Valley viticultural area has a coastal warm climate type, according to the model Climate Types of Sonoma County, originally developed by Robert Sisson, shown on the 1986 Vossen map, and provided with the petition. This model uses the total daily hours of temperatures between 70 and 90 degrees F. The petitioner explains that the temperature range is the most significant factor for photosynthesis in the grapevines. Climatic variations have not been recorded along Icaria Creek and Hiatt Road between the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area and the proposed expansion area. However, the manager of the Seven Arches Vineyards writes that along Hiatt Road, on both sides of the diagonal boundary line of the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area, the climate is similar, if not identical. The petitioner explains that the reason for the similar or identical climate in both the existing and proposed expansion areas is that the coastal, or marine, influence is diminished in the inland, northern part of Sonoma County, including the northern part of the Alexander Valley. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received TTB published Notice No. 61 regarding the proposed expansion of the Alexander Valley viticultural area in the **Federal Register** on July 17, 2006 (71 FR 40465). We received three comments in response to that notice. All three comments, including one from the Alexander Valley Winegrowers, support the proposed expansion of the Alexander Valley viticultural area. TTB Finding After careful review of the petition, TTB finds that the evidence submitted supports the expansion of the Alexander Valley viticultural area as requested in the petition. Therefore, under the authority of the FAA Act and part 4 of our regulations, we amend our regulations to expand the Alexander Valley viticultural area, in Sonoma County, California, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document. Boundary Description See the narrative boundary description of the expanded viticultural area in the regulatory text published at the end of this document. Maps The petitioner(s) provided the required maps, and we list them below in the regulatory text. Impact on Current Wine Labels The expansion of the Alexander Valley viticultural area does not affect any currently approved wine labels. The approval of this expansion may allow additional vintners to use “Alexander Valley” as an appellation of origin on their wine labels. Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with a viticultural area name or with a brand name that includes a viticultural area name or other term identified as viticulturally significant in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information Nancy Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this ruling. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. The Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we amend 27 CFR, chapter I, part 9, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Section 9.53 is amended by revising the heading of paragraph (c), revising paragraph (c)(5), redesignating paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(44) as (c)(9) through (c)(47), and adding new paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(8) to read as follows: Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas § 9. 53 Alexander Valley.
(c)Boundary.
(5)Then straight south along the eastern boundary line of Section 25, to its intersection with Kelly Road, a medium-duty road, T. 11 N., R. 11 W.;
(6)Then southwest along Kelly Road to its intersection with the northern boundary line of Section 36, T. 11 N., R. 11 W.;
(7)Then straight south to its intersection with 38° 45′ N. latitude along the southern border of the Cloverdale Quadrangle map, T. 10 N., R. 11 W. and R. 10 W.;
(8)Then straight east to its intersection with 123° 00′ E. longitude at the southeastern corner of the Cloverdale Quadrangle map, T. 10 N., R. 10 W.; Signed: March 1, 2007. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: November 16, 2007. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy). [FR Doc. E8-4789 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [T.D. TTB-67; Re: Notice No. 70] RIN 1513-AB21 Expansion of the San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area (2005R-413P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. SUMMARY: This Treasury decision expands the San Francisco Bay viticultural area in northern California. The expansion adds 88 square miles to the viticultural area to its north in Solano County, California. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, California 94952; telephone 415-271-1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)administers the regulations promulgated under the FAA Act. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Petitioners may use the same procedure to request changes involving existing viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include— • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey
(USGS)maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. San Francisco Bay and Central Coast Expansion Petition Hestan Vineyards, LLC, of Vallejo, California, represented by Holland and Knight LLP of San Francisco, California, submitted a petition for an 88-square-mile boundary expansion that includes portions of Solano County to the north of the Carquinez Strait, and would apply to both the established San Francisco Bay viticultural area (27 CFR 9.157) and the established Central Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.75). After reviewing the petition, TTB determined that the evidence submitted in support of the proposed expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area merited rulemaking action. TTB also determined that there was insufficient documentation to proceed with rulemaking for the proposed expansion of the Central Coast viticultural area. Accordingly, TTB notified the petitioner of these determinations, and the petitioner agreed to proceed only with the portion of the petition for the expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area. San Francisco Bay Expansion Petition Evidence The petitioner submitted the following information in support of the expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area. The petition states that the San Francisco Bay area is a loosely bound region that includes other bodies of water, including San Pablo Bay, the Carquinez Strait, and Suisun Bay. USGS maps of the region show that San Francisco Bay joins San Pablo Bay to its north. Also, the Carquinez Strait connects San Pablo Bay on the west with Suisun Bay on the east. The petition states that the area covered by the proposed expansion, which is located adjacent to the north shores of San Pablo Bay and the Carquinez Strait, is an area historically, economically, and socially considered to be a part of the San Francisco Bay region. With the exception of the 4,480 acres, or 7 square miles, of the Carquinez Strait waterway, the petition explains, the entire proposed expansion area is on land in western Solano County. Name Evidence As documented in the petition, a number of Government agencies and interest groups provide services to the nine counties in the recognized San Francisco Bay area, including the proposed expansion area in Solano County. The Bay Area Council's Web site as of April 12, 2005, lists its nine counties, which include Solano, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Sonoma, and Marin. Other government agencies and interest groups using the same nine-county San Francisco Bay area parameter include the Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Water Transit Authority, Bay Area Marketing Partnership, and Bay Area Economic Forum. The petition documents that the City of Vallejo, in southwest Solano County and within the proposed San Francisco Bay expansion area, serves as a key ferry transportation hub into the City of San Francisco. The Vallejo ferry system, as explained on the Bay Area Water Transit Authority Web site, carries thousands of passengers each week from Solano County to the City of San Francisco and back. In 1987, the State of California legislature passed a bill establishing the “San Francisco Bay Trail,” as noted on page 160 of *San Francisco Bay: Portrait of an Estuary* , by John Hart, and published by the University of California Press in 2003. Mr. Hart states that this trail system includes the Vallejo area of Solano County, which the petition notes is a part of the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural expansion area. Boundary Evidence The proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural area expansion area comprises an 88-square-mile area that lies northeast of the City of San Francisco and San Francisco Bay, the petition explains. The proposed boundary line of the expansion area includes portions of San Pablo Bay's shoreline, the Solano and Napa Counties boundary line, a railroad track, and an interstate highway. The proposed expansion area's northern boundary line follows the dividing line between Napa and Solano Counties and the Southern Pacific railroad track between Creston and Cordelia, as found on the USGS Cuttings Wharf and Cordelia maps. TTB notes that the proposed expansion area boundary line coincides with various portions of the established boundaries for the North Coast (27 CFR 9.30), Napa Valley (27 CFR 9.23), and Solano County Green Valley (27 CFR 9.44) viticultural areas. Distinguishing Features David G. Howell, Ph.D., Geologist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, Deborah Harden, Ph.D., Geologist at San Jose State University, San Jose, California, and Robert Bornstein, Ph.D., Meteorologist at San Jose State University, San Jose, California, combined efforts to provide petition evidence and documentation substantiating the proposed northerly expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area. The petition addresses the commonality of distinguishing features shared by the established San Francisco Bay viticultural area and the proposed northern expansion area. Geology The petition explains the similarity of geology between the northern portion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area and the proposed viticultural area expansion into Solano County. According to the petition, the Franklin Ridge landform of Contra Costa County, located in the northern most portion of the established San Francisco Bay viticultural area, continues northward into the proposed expansion area in Solano County. Franklin Ridge becomes known as Sulphur Mountain Ridge in Solano County, with the two ridges joining beneath the Carquinez Strait. According to the petition, the north-south linkage between the established San Francisco Bay viticultural area and the proposed expansion area is based on the continuity of the underlying geology. The bedrock formations, earthquake faults, landforms, and soils of the northern San Francisco Bay viticultural area continue north into the proposed expansion area. The petition identifies the geological bedrock core of the proposed expansion area as Cretaceous sandstone and shale. This body of rock, the petition explains, extends northward from the Mount Diablo region in Contra Costa County into the proposed expansion in Solano County. Soil The two general categories of soils in the proposed expansion area are those formed in salt marshes and those formed in sandstone over shale bedrock on uplands, as described in the Soil Survey of Solano County, California, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1977. The Solano County general soil map documents that soils in salt marshes dominate in areas at a low elevation south of Vallejo. Also, the map shows that some of the soils in the predominant Joice, Reyes, Suisun, and Tamba soil series are mucks or peaty mucks. The soils on uplands in Solano County are common to other parts of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area, including areas of Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, the petition explains. The most prevalent soils on uplands are in the Dibble and Los Osos series, and are moderately deep soils formed in weathered sandstone and shale under climatic conditions of seasonal soil moisture. The Altamont, Gaviota, and Millsholm series are also on uplands, according to the petitioner; the Rincon series are on alluvial fans. Climate The eastward and inland movement of marine air through the Golden Gate Gap, the petition explains, dominates the climate of the land areas adjacent to San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay and within the established viticultural area boundaries. The Carquinez Strait joins San Pablo Bay at the bay's southeast corner, according to USGS maps, and receives the same marine air that cools the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. According to the petition, the Carquinez Strait funnels the marine air to both the north and south sides of its shoreline, according to the petition. (TTB notes that the current San Francisco Bay viticultural area's northern boundary line extends along the south shoreline of the Carquinez Strait, following the Contra Costa County northern boundary line to BM 15 on the Honker Bay USGS map.) The proposed expansion area extends northward to include all the Carquinez Strait and portions of Solano County, according to the written boundary description and maps provided with the petition. The current expansion petition provides evidence and documentation that the marine air flow, with its cooling effect, travels north and east from the Golden Gate, into San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, the Carquinez Strait, and to the proposed expansion area. Although the proposed expansion area was not included in the original San Francisco Bay AVA petition, since the filing of the original petition, additional observation sites have become available that provide a more detailed analysis of the air flow patterns in and around the Carquinez Strait. Figures obtained from a new observation site that show the typical summer afternoon flow pattern on both the north and south sides of the Carquinez Strait clearly show that the Carquinez Strait is not the northern boundary of the influence of the marine air that has entered through the Golden Gate Gap. The California Air Resources Board maps, submitted with the petition, show that the marine influence extends both north and south of the Carquinez Strait. A San Francisco Bay Air Quality Management District map shows air flow through the Carquinez Strait on July 31, 2000, a typical summer day. The air flow pattern through the Carquinez Strait brings the marine influence to the north, east, and south of the waterway, according to the map. Another computerized map of the air flow, also documented on July 31, 2000, shows the marine air entering San Francisco Bay through the Golden Gate Gap, then traveling through San Pablo Bay, and continuing east through the Carquinez Strait, north into Suisun Bay, and south into Livermore Valley. The information submitted with the petition concludes that the Carquinez Strait should not be considered the northernmost boundary of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area. Marine air, which is a significant distinguishing climatic characteristic of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area and region, is also significant in the proposed expansion area, according to the petition. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received TTB published Notice No. 70 regarding the proposed expansion to the San Francisco Bay viticultural area in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 70472) on December 5, 2006. We received one comment in response to that notice. That comment supported the expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area. TTB Finding After careful review of the petition and the comment received, TTB finds that the evidence submitted supports the expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area as requested in the petition. Therefore, under the authority of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and part 4 of our regulations, we amend our regulations to expand the San Francisco Bay viticultural area in northern California, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document. Boundary Description See the modified narrative boundary description reflecting the expanded viticultural area in the regulatory text amendment published at the end of this document. Maps The petitioner provided the required maps pertaining to the expansion, and we list them below in the amended regulatory text. Impact on Current Wine Labels The expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area does not affect any currently approved wine labels. The approval of this expansion may allow additional vintners to use “San Francisco Bay” as an appellation of origin on their wine labels. Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with a viticultural area name or with a brand name that includes a viticultural area name or other term identified as viticulturally significant in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information N. A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. The Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we amend 27 CFR, chapter I, part 9, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Section 9.157 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (b), removing the word “and” at the end of paragraph (b)(42), replacing the period with a semicolon at the end of paragraph (b)(43), adding new paragraphs (b)(44) through (b)(47), revising the introductory text of paragraph (c), revising paragraph (c)(24), redesignating paragraphs (c)(25) through (c)(38) as (c)(31) through (c)(44), and adding new paragraphs (c)(25) through (c)(30), to read as follows: § 9.157 San Francisco Bay.
(b)*Approved Maps* . The appropriate maps for determining the boundary of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area are 47 1:24,000 Scale USGS topographic maps. They are titled:
(44)Cuttings Wharf, Calif.; 1949; Photorevised 1981;
(45)Sears Point, Calif.; 1951; Photorevised 1968;
(46)Cordelia, Calif.; 1951; Photorevised 1980; and
(47)Fairfield South, Calif.; 1949; Photorevised 1980.
(c)*Boundary* . The San Francisco Bay viticultural area is located mainly within five counties, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa, which border the San Francisco Bay. The area also includes portions of three other counties, Solano, Santa Cruz, and San Benito, which are in the general vicinity of the greater San Francisco Bay metropolitan area. The boundary of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area is as described below.
(24)Then proceed west-southwest along the south shoreline of the Suisun Bay and the Carquinez Strait to its intersection with Interstate 680 at the Benicia-Martinez Bridge and BM 66, T3N/R2W, on the Vine Hill Quadrangle.
(25)Then proceed generally north following Interstate 680, crossing over and back on the Benicia Quadrangle map and continuing over the Fairfield South Quadrangle map, to its intersection with the Southern Pacific railroad track at Cordelia, Section 12, T4N/R3W, on the Cordelia Quadrangle map.
(26)Then proceed generally west along the Southern Pacific railroad track to its intersection with the Napa and Solano Counties boundary line in Jameson Canyon at Creston, Section 9, T4N/R3W, on the Cordelia Quadrangle map.
(27)Then proceed generally south-southeast, followed by straight west along the Napa and Solano Counties boundary line; continue straight west, crossing over the Cuttings Wharf Quadrangle map, to its intersection with the east shoreline of Sonoma Creek slough, which coincides with the Highway 37 bridge on the Solano County side of the creek, T4N/R5W, on the Sears Point Quadrangle.
(28)Then proceed generally southeast along the north and east shorelines of San Pablo Bay, also known as the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge, crossing over the Cuttings Wharf Quadrangle map, to its intersection with the Breakwater line, located within the Vallejo City boundary and 0.7 mile west-southwest of the beacon, T3N/R4W, on the Mare Island Quadrangle.
(29)Then proceed straight south-southwest 1.2 miles to its intersection with the San Pablo Bay shoreline at BM 14, west of Davis Point, T3N/R4W, on the Mare Island Quadrangle.
(30)Then proceed generally south along the contiguous eastern shorelines of San Pablo Bay and San Francisco Bay, crossing over the Richmond and San Quentin Quadrangle maps, to its intersection with the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge on the Oakland West Quadrangle. Signed: March 16, 2007. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: November 16, 2007. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy). Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on March 6, 2008. [FR Doc. E8-4785 Filed 3-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2007-0111] RIN 1625-AA08 Final Rule: Special Local Regulations Concerning Fireworks Displays in Norwich and Middletown, CT AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: By this final rule, the Coast Guard is amending the coordinates given for two previously established special local regulations. The listed coordinates for the Taste of Italy Fireworks in Norwich, CT; and for the Middletown Fireworks on the Connecticut River in Middletown Harbor, Middletown, CT are being amended to properly reflect the geographic location where the events have been held in the past and will be held in the future. DATES: This rule is effective April 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2007-0111 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 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, and the Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, 120 Woodward Ave., New Haven, CT 06512, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call LT Doug Miller at
(203)468-4596 or write him at the Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, 120 Woodward Ave., New Haven, CT 06512-3628. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The Coast Guard has determined that a notice and comment period is unnecessary as the change consists only of a correction to reflect the true location of the events. A notice of proposed rulemaking (64 FR 18587) was published on April 15, 1999 prior to the creation of these special local regulations which clearly noted the geographic location of these events. Additionally, these two special local regulations have been in effect for each of the past eight years and the Coast Guard has not received any public comments regarding the provisions of these regulations. Therefore, it is unnecessary to publish an NPRM. Background and Purpose Taste of Italy Fireworks The Taste of Italy Fireworks display takes place annually on a night during the weekend following Labor Day from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. A permanent special local regulation around the fireworks launch location was created in 33 CFR 100.114 on June 28, 1999. The final rule establishing the regulation was preceded by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (64 FR 18587) published on April 15, 1999. The NPRM listed the location of the fireworks as Norwich Harbor but did not give geographic coordinates. No comments or requests for public hearings were received. The special local regulation was published as a final rule in 64 FR 34544 on June 28, 1999, and geographic coordinates were included; however, the geographic coordinates published in the regulation were incorrect. Historically, this event has occurred at the approximate position 41°31′20.9″ N, 072°04′45.9″ W in Norwich Harbor and the Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR 100.114(a)(9.5) to reflect the location where it has been held in the past and where it will continue to be held in the future. The currently published position of 41°31′20″ N, 073°04′83″ W is being changed because the longitude position of 073°04′83″ W is incorrect. The longitude position where the event is held is at 072°, not the longitude position of 073° currently listed in the regulation. Also, the coordinate position 83″ does not exist as a proper geographic coordinate and thus is being amended in this final rule. Publishing the special local regulation's correct location is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the hazards posed by the fireworks display. Having a properly established special local regulation will protect the maritime public by prohibiting entry into or movement within this portion of Norwich Harbor from approximately one hour prior to, during and one hour after the stated event. Middletown Fireworks The Middletown Fireworks display takes place annually on July 4th from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. A permanent special local regulation around the fireworks launch location was created in 33 CFR 100.114 on June 28, 1999. The final rule establishing the regulation was preceded by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (64 FR 18587) published on April 15, 1999. The NPRM listed the location of the fireworks as on the Connecticut River at Middletown Harbor but did not give geographic coordinates. No comments or requests for public hearings were received. The revision of the special local regulation was published as a final rule in 64 FR 34544 on June 28, 1999, and geographic coordinates were included at that time; however, the geographic coordinates published in the regulation were incorrect. Historically, this event has occurred at the approximate position 41°33′47.5″ N, 072°38′39.6″ W in Middletown Harbor and therefore the Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR 100.114(a)(7.37) to properly reflect the location where it has been held in the past and where it will continue to be held in the future. The currently published position of 41°33′79″ N, 073°38′83″ W is being changed because these coordinates are inaccurate and the location does not exist as the coordinates are not properly formatted for plotting purposes. The longitude position where the event is held is at 072°, not the longitude position of 073° currently listed in the regulation. Also, the coordinate positions 79′ and 83″ do not exist as proper geographic coordinates and thus are being amended in this final rule. Accordingly, the Coast Guard is amending section 100.114(a)(7.37) to state the correct approximate position of the display to be 41°33′47.5″ N, 072°38′39.6″ W. Publishing the special local regulation's correct location is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the hazards posed by the fireworks display. Having a properly established special local regulation will protect the maritime public by prohibiting entry into or movement within this portion of the Connecticut River at Middletown Harbor from approximately one hour prior to, during and one hour after the stated event. Discussion of Rule This amendment to 33 CFR 100.114 (a)(9.5) will correct the coordinates currently listed in this regulation for the Taste of Italy Fireworks display. The special local regulation established on the navigable waters of Norwich Harbor will have the approximate position 41°31′20.9″ N, 072°04′45.9″ W. The zone created by this special local regulation will be outlined by temporary marker buoys installed by the event organizers. This action is intended to prohibit vessel traffic in a navigable portion of Norwich Harbor to provide for the protection of life and property of the maritime public. The special local regulation will continue to be enforced from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on a night during the weekend following Labor Day as specified by the event organizers. Specific dates for future events will be published in the **Federal Register** . Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the zone created by the special local regulation during the event thereby allowing navigation of the rest of Norwich Harbor except for the portion delineated by this rule. The amendment to CFR 100.114(a)(7.37) will correct the approximate position of the Middletown Fireworks display. This change is needed to accurately convey the geographic coordinates of the fireworks event and the special local regulation so that mariners can plan their voyages accordingly thus enhancing the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels. This action is intended to prohibit vessel traffic in a navigable portion of the Connecticut River at Middletown Harbor to provide for the protection of life and property of the maritime public. The special local regulation will continue to be enforced from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. annually on the 4th of July. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the zone created by the special local regulation during the event thereby allowing navigation of the rest of Middletown Harbor except for the portion delineated by this rule. The Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic from either of these special local regulations due to the limited area covered by the regulations and the short enforcement periods. In addition, public notification will be made via the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and marine safety broadcasts. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. These regulations may have some impact on the public, but the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: Vessels will only be excluded from the areas of the special local regulations for two hours and vessels will be able to operate in other areas of Norwich Harbor, Norwich, CT and Middletown Harbor, Middletown, CT during the enforcement periods. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in those portions of Norwich Harbor covered by the special local regulations and the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the portion of the Connecticut River at Middletown Harbor covered by the special local regulations. For reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if the rule has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation as the rule modifies a special local regulation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. In § 100.114 (a), in the Fireworks Display Table, revise the entries for Connecticut: 7.37 and Connecticut: 9.5 as follows: § 100.114 Fireworks Displays within the First Coast Guard District
(a)* * * Fireworks Display Table * * * * * * * Connecticut: 7.37 July 4th Name: Middletown Fireworks. Sponsor: City of Middletown. Time: 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Location: Connecticut River, Middletown Harbor, Middletown, CT. 1°33′47.5″ N, 072°38′39.6″ W (NAD 1983). * * * * * * * Connecticut: 9.5 A night during the weekend following Labor Day Name: Taste of Italy Fireworks. Sponsor: Italian Heritage CommitteeTime: 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Location: Norwich Harbor, off Norwich Marina, Norwich, CT. 41°31′20.9″ N, 072°04′45.9″ W (NAD 1983). * * * * * * * Dated: February 28, 2008. T.S. Sullivan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-4830 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2007-0078] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Liberty Bayou, Slidell, LA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulation governing the operation of the State Route 433
(S433)Bridge across Liberty Bayou, mile 2.0, at Slidell, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana and cancelling the test deviation presently in effect for this bridge. This change is being made in order to reduce the hours of manned operation of the bridge to make more efficient use of personnel and operating resources. DATES: This rule is effective April 10, 2008. The test deviation, USCG-2007-0081, published on November 15, 2007, under docket number CGD08-07-032, (72 FR 64152) is cancelled as of April 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2007-0078, previously published under docket number CGD08-06-010. The docket is available at *http://www.regulations.gov* . This material is also available for inspection of copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 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 and the office of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, 500 Poydras Street, Room 1313, New Orleans, LA 70130-3310 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Johnson, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone
(504)671-2128. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202)366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On November 15, 2007, we published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Liberty Bayou, Slidell, LA” in the **Federal Register** , (72 FR 64177), USCG-2007-0078, previously published under docket number CGD08-06-010. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Concurrent with the publication of the SNPRM, a Test Deviation, USCG-2007-0081, old docket number CGD08-07-032, was published on November 15, 2007 entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Liberty Bayou, Slidell, LA” in the **Federal Register** , (72 FR 64152) to allow the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development to test the proposed schedule and to obtain data and public comments. The Coast Guard received no public comments from this SNPRM or the above referenced Test Deviation. This deviation is being cancelled upon this final rule going into effect because there have been no comments or complaints, and the new operating schedule will be permanent upon cancellation. This deviation from the operating regulations was authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Background and Purpose On May 4, 2006, The Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the **Federal Register** (86 FR 26290), under docket number CGD08-06-010. The proposed rule would have changed the notice required for an opening from 12 hours to 4 hours. The Coast Guard did not receive any comments as a result of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, but a final rule was not published. Subsequently, the bridge owner requested that the operating regulation for the bridge again be revised so that the bridge will open on signal, except that from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., the bridge will open on signal if at least 2 hours notice is given. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has requested that the operating regulation of the S433 pontoon span bridge be changed in order to make more efficient use of operating resources. Currently, the draw of the S433 Bridge opens on signal except that from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. the draw will open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given, as required by 33 CFR 117.469. Traffic counts indicate that an average of 6000 vehicles cross the bridge daily and approximately 1025, or 17.1% of those, cross between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Bridge tender logs for a three-month period show that the bridge opened 540 times, or an average of 6 times per day, to pass vessels. Of those vessel openings during the three-month period, 56, or 10.2% of them, were between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Most of the boats requesting openings are recreational fishing vessels, recreational powerboats and sailboats that routinely transit this waterway and are able to give advance notice. On November 24, 2006 a Coast Guard Bridge Permit was issued approving the construction of a new swing span bridge to be constructed to replace the existing pontoon span bridge. Upon completion of construction, the new bridge will provide a vertical clearance of 7.59 feet above the 2% flow line. While this vertical clearance will accommodate many small recreational boats, larger vessels will still require an opening of the draw for passage. The schedule, placed into effect by this final rule, will be carried over to this new bridge. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard did not receive any comments or responses to the SNPRM or the test deviation. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the fact that all vessel traffic will still be able to transit through the bridge between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. after providing the two-hour advance notice for bridge openings. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not significantly impact any small entities because they are able to give notice prior to transiting through this bridge and most vessel operators that require an opening are currently providing advance notice. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. The Coast Guard provided contact information, so that small entities could ask questions concerning this rule. No small entities contacted the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction because this rule involves drawbridge regulations. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. § 117.469 is revised to read as follows: § 117.469 Liberty Bayou. The draw of the S433 Bridge, mile 2.0, at Slidell, shall open on signal, except that between 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given. Dated: February 27, 2008. Joel R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-4816 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [USCG-2008-0116] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), at Scotts Hill, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Figure Eight Swing Bridge, at AIWW mile 278.1, at Scotts Hill, NC. From February 29, 2008 at 6 p.m. until March 11, 2008 at 5:30 p.m., this deviation is necessary to complete sandblasting and painting operations along with mechanical repairs. The drawbridge will remain closed-to-navigation each day from 6 p.m. to 9:30 a.m., from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., and from 2 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 p.m. on February 29, 2008 to 5:30 p.m. on March 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(757)398-6222. Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary S. Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at
(757)398-6629. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Figure Eight Swing Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 20 feet, above mean high water (MHW). Also, the vertical clearance in this location is limited to 85 feet, above MHW, by the overhead power line. On December 27, 2007, we published a notice of temporary deviation from regulations entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), at Scotts Hill, NC” in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 56013). Contractors, on behalf of the Figure Eight Homeowners Association (the bridge owner), requested an additional temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(3) to close the drawbridge to navigation in order to complete sandblasting, cleaning and painting of the bridge superstructure along with mechanical repairs. To complete this operation, the Figure Eight Swing Bridge will be further maintained in the closed-to-navigation position each day from February 29, 2008, until March 11, 2008, from 6 p.m. to 9:30 a.m., from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., and from 2 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Commercial vessel openings will be provided from the 6 p.m. to 9:30 a.m. work-block if at least three hours notice is given by calling
(910)686-0635 or via marine radio on Channel 13. At all other times, the drawbridge will operate in accordance with 33 CFR 117.821(a)(3). The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure period for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. We analyzed this temporary deviation under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The environmental impact of this temporary deviation will be minimal because closing the drawbridge to vessels in order to perform routine repair and maintenance will not result in a change in functional use, or an impact on a historically significant element or setting. Dated: February 25, 2008. Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-4812 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2007-0079] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Tchefuncta River, Madisonville, LA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulation governing the operation of the State Route 22
(S22)Bridge across the Tchefuncta River, mile 2.5, at Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana and cancelling the test deviation presently in effect for this bridge. This change is being made in order to enhance the flow of vehicles across the bridge during peak traffic hours. DATES: This rule is effective April 10, 2008. The test deviation, docket number USCG-2007-0082, old docket number CGD08-07-034, (72 FR 64152) is cancelled as of April 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2007-0079, previously published under docket number CGD08-07-038. The docket is available at *http://www.regulations.gov* . This material is also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 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 and the office of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, 500 Poydras Street, Room 1313, New Orleans, LA 70130-3310 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Johnson, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone
(504)671-2128. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On November 15, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Tchefuncta River, Madisonville, LA” in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 64175) under docket number CGD08-07-033. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Concurrent with the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Test Deviation, USCG-2007-0082, old docket number CGD08-07-037, was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 64152) on November 15, 2007 to allow the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development to test the proposed schedule and to obtain data and public comments. The test period was in effect during the entire Notice of Proposed Rulemaking comment period. The Coast Guard has reviewed the public comments from this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the above referenced Temporary Deviation and determined that a permanent special drawbridge operating regulation is warranted. Background and Purpose The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development requested that the operating regulation of the S22 swing span bridge be changed in order to better accommodate the vehicular traffic crossing the bridge during peak, weekday rush hours. Currently 33 CFR 117.500 reads: The draw of the S22 Bridge, mile 2.5, at Madisonville shall open on signal except that, from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour. The bridge owner requested that the operating regulation be changed to read as follows: The draw of the S22 Bridge, mile 2.5 at Madisonville, shall open on signal from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. From 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour and half hour, except that, from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need only open on the hour. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and the Coast Guard believe that this change to the operating regulation will accommodate most vehicular traffic, and that the needs of navigation will also be met. Most of the vessels that request openings are recreational powerboats and sailboats that routinely transit this waterway and are able to adjust their schedules to coincide with the proposed drawbridge operating schedule. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received a total of twelve letters of comment in response to the NPRM and the test deviation. Three of the letters were from Federal or state environmental agencies, stating that there was no objection to the proposal. Nine letters were from local citizens, seven of which stated approval of the proposed change. One of the approval letters indicated a desire for the period for opening only on the hour beginning at 2:30 p.m. to accommodate more of the school traffic. The Coast Guard believes that extending the restriction to open only on the hour beginning at 2:30 p.m. will cause the boating traffic to be too severely restricted through the majority of the day. Thus, the suggested change to the proposed regulation is not considered by the Coast Guard to be in the best interest of boaters who have already been restricted from bridge openings in the mornings and afternoons. Two of the letters neither opposed nor supported the proposal, but generally expressed dissatisfaction with the usual daily movement of vehicular traffic through Madisonville and across the S22 Bridge. These letters were forwarded to LDOTD for their consideration. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This is because the current and historical waterway traffic is comprised almost entirely of recreational vessels that can easily adjust schedules for transits through the bridge. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect a limited number of small entities. These entities include operators of pleasure powerboats and sailboats using the waterway. This proposed rule will not significantly impact these small entities because they are able to schedule transits through this bridge. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. The Coast Guard provided contact information, so that small entities could ask questions concerning this rule. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for Federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction because this rule involves drawbridge regulations. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. § 117.500 is revised to read as follows: § 117.500 Tchefuncta River. The draw of the S22 Bridge, mile 2.5, at Madisonville, shall open on signal, from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. From 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour and half hour, except that, from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need only open on the hour. Dated: February 27, 2008. Joel R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-4818 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [USCG-2008-0113] RIN 1625-AA-09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Intracoastal Waterway (ICW); Beach Thorofare, NJ AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has approved a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the Margate Bridge, at ICW mile 74.0, across Beach Thorofare at Margate, New Jersey. This deviation is necessary to make emergency structural steel repairs. DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on March 1, 2008, to 11:59 p.m. on May 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(757)398-6557. Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Sandra S. Elliott, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at
(757)398-6557. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subcontractor on behalf of the Margate Bridge Company, who owns and operates this double-leaf bascule drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.5 that requires the bridge to open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to open is given. Margate Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 14 feet above mean high water (MHW). Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will provide partial openings of the lift spans for vessels. The emergency structural steel repairs require immobilizing half of the draw span to single-leaf operation each day, beginning 7 a.m. on Saturday, March 1, 2008, until and including 11:59 p.m. Thursday, May 1, 2008, with a work barge occupying one-half of the 58-foot wide channel under the bridge, so passage through the bridge will be limited to a 29-foot width for the duration of the project. The opposite connecting span while not under repair will continue to open for vessels if at least a half-hour advance notice is given to the bridge tender at
(609)822-9175 or via marine radio on channel 13 VHF. Also, mariners requiring the full opening of the lift spans or the full width of the channel under the bridge will be directed to use the Atlantic Ocean as the alternate route between Absecon and Great Egg Harbor Inlets. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the partial openings of the draw span to minimize transiting delays caused by the temporary deviation. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: February 26, 2008. Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-4813 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2007-0070] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Bonfouca Bayou, Slidell, LA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulation governing the operation of the State Route 433
(S433)Bridge across Bonfouca Bayou, mile 7.0, at Slidell, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana and cancelling the test deviation presently in effect for this bridge. This change is being made in order to reduce the hours that the bridge must be manned during the period between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., making more efficient use of operating resources. DATES: This rule is effective April 10, 2008. The test deviation, USCG-2007-0068, published on November 9, 2007, old docket number CGD08-07-034, (72 FR 63486) is cancelled as of April 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2007-0070, previously published under docket number CGD08-07-033. The docket is available at *http://www.regulations.gov* . This material is also available for inspection of copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 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 and the Office of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, 500 Poydras Street, Room 1313, New Orleans, LA 70130-3310 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Johnson, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone
(504)671-2128. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On November 9, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Bonfouca Bayou, Slidell, LA” in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 63530) under docket number CGD08-07-033. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Concurrent with the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning this schedule of operation, a Test Deviation was published on November 9, 2007, entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Bonfouca Bayou, Slidell, LA” in the **Federal Register** , (72 FR 63486) under docket number USCG 2007-0068, previously docket number CDG08-07-034. This test deviation was issued to allow the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development to test the proposed schedule and to obtain data and public comments. This deviation is being cancelled upon this final rule going into effect because there have been no comments or complaints, and the new operating schedule will be permanent upon cancellation. This deviation from the operating regulations was authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Background and Purpose The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development requested that the operating regulation on the S433 Bridge be changed in order to reduce the hours that the bridge must be manned during the period between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., making more efficient use of operating resources. Currently 33 CFR 117.433 reads: The draw of the S433 Bridge, mile 7.0, at Slidell shall operate as follows:
(a)The draw need not open for passage of vessels from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 1:45 p.m. to 2:45 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.
(b)The draw need open only on the hour and half-hour from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.
(c)The draw shall open on signal from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., if at least four hours notice is given to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Security Service at
(504)375-0100.
(d)At all other times the draw shall open on signal. In order to reduce the hours that the bridge must be manned during the period between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., making more efficient use of operating resources, the owner of the bridge has requested that the operating regulation be changed to read as follows: The draw of the S433 Bridge, mile 7.0 at Slidell, shall open on signal, except that from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given. On Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 1:45 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. The rule will also delete the incorrect area code and the telephone number provided in paragraph
(c)of the regulation, which is not necessary since the telephone number is required to be posted on the bridge. The S433 Bridge located on Bonfouca Bayou at mile 7.0 in Slidell, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana has a vertical clearance of 8.2 feet above mean high water, elevation 3.2 feet Mean Sea Level(MSL) in the closed position and unlimited clearance in the open position. Traffic counts indicate that the majority of vehicular traffic crosses the bridge between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. and between 1:45 p.m. and 2:45 p.m., rush hours for commuters and school buses. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development believes that the proposed operating regulation will accommodate most vehicular traffic, and that the needs of navigation will also be met, while making the best use of available personnel to operate the bridge. Most of the vessels that request openings are commercial vessels consisting of small tugboats with one or two barges, shrimp trawlers and large recreational powerboats and sailboats that routinely transit this waterway and are able to give advance notice. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the NPRM or the test deviation. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The current and historical waterway traffic is very minimal with an average of 2.5 signals to open a day. Most signals come from commercial vessels and recreational craft that are able to schedule an opening in advance. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect a limited number of small entities. These entities include operators of tug boats and trawlers using the waterway. This rule will not significantly impact these small entities because they are able to give notice prior to transiting through this bridge and most vessel operators that require an opening are currently providing advance notice. Lastly, no comments or complaints were received concerning this new operating schedule. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. The Coast Guard provided contact information, so that small entities could ask questions concerning this rule. No small entities contacted the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for Federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction because this rule involves drawbridge regulations. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. § 117.433 is revised to read as follows: § 117.433 Bonfouca Bayou. The draw of the S433 Bridge, mile 7.0, at Slidell, shall open on signal, except that from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given. On Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 1:45 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. Dated: February 27, 2008. Joel R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-4815 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0147] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Fireworks Display, Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a 300 foot radius safety zone around a fireworks display for the Roanoke Bible College occurring on April 4, 2008 on the Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, NC. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic on the Pasquotank River. This safety zone is necessary to protect mariners from the hazards associated with firework displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on April 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0147 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 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, and Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, 2301 East Fort Macon Rd., Atlantic Beach, North Carolina, 28512 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary rule, call Christopher Humphrey, Marine Event Coordinator, Sector North Carolina,
(252)247-4569. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Immediate action is needed to protect the maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display and fallout over the water. The necessary information to determine whether this firework display would impact the marine public was not determined within sufficient time to publish an NPRM. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public's best interest to have this regulation in place during the display. Coast Guard personnel will be on scene to provide actual notice to mariners who may not know about this safety zone. Also, a notice to mariners will be broadcast for this event. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the public's safety. Background and Purpose On April 4, 2008, the Roanoke Bible College will conduct a fireworks display adjacent to Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, North Carolina. Spectators will be observing from both shore and from vessels. Due to the need to protect the mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the fireworks display, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted in this portion of the river. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on specified waters on the Pasquotank River, adjacent to Elizabeth City, North Carolina. The regulated area will consist of a 300 feet radius safety zone around the launch site in approximate position 36°18′16″ N 076°12′52″ W, which is located approximately 500 yards east of the Camden Causeway Bridge Highway 158. The safety zone will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on April 4, 2008. General navigation in the safety zone will be restricted during the event. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which are small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in that portion of the Pasquotank River on April 4, 2008, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. The safety zone will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the zone will only be in place for a limited amount of time, 2 hours late in the evening when vessel traffic is low. In addition maritime advisories will be issued in advance, so the mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Christopher Humphrey, Marine Event Coordinator, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina at
(252)247-4569. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting & Recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5.; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T05-014 to read as follows: § 165.T05-014 Safety Zone: Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
(a)*Location:* The following area is a safety zone: All waters of Pasquotank River within a 300 foot radius of approximate position 36°18′16″N 076°12′52″W in the Captain of the Port Sector North Carolina zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.25-20.
(b)*Definition:* As used in this section; Captain of the Port Representative means any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.
(c)*Regulation:*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated representative.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone shall:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign;
(ii)Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(3)The Captain of the Port, Sector North Carolina can be contacted at telephone number
(252)247-4570 or
(252)247-4571.
(4)Coast Guard vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio, Channel 13 (156.65Mhz) and Channel 16 (156.8Mhz).
(d)*Enforcement period:* This regulation will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on April 4, 2008.
(e)*Effective Date:* This regulation is effective from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on April 4, 2008. Dated: February 28, 2008. G.D. Case, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Sector North Carolina. [FR Doc. E8-4799 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 956 Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Disciplinary Action for Violations of Restrictions on Post-Employment Activity AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Postal Service is removing the Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Disciplinary Action for Violations of Restrictions on Post-Employment Activity. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 11, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane M. Mego,
(703)812-1905. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal Service is removing the Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Disciplinary Action for Violations of Restrictions on Post-Employment Activity. These provisions have been superseded by the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch issued by the Office of Government Ethics. This revision is a mandated charge in the agency rules of procedure before the Judicial Officer and, therefore, it is appropriate for its adoption by the Postal Service to become effective immediately. Accordingly, the Postal Service removes and reserves 39 CFR part 956 as set forth below: PART 956—[REMOVED AND RESERVED] 1. Remove and reserve Part 956. Stanley F. Mires, Chief Counsel, Legislative. [FR Doc. 08-946 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 29
Traces to 29 documents
CFR
- What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes?§ 121.201
- Appellations of origin.§ 4.25
- Prohibited practices.§ 4.39
- Alexander Valley.§ 9.53
- San Francisco Bay.§ 9.157
- Central Coast.§ 9.75
- North Coast.§ 9.30
- Napa Valley.§ 9.23
- Solano County Green Valley.§ 9.44
- Temporary change to a drawbridge operating schedule.§ 117.35
- Liberty Bayou.§ 117.469
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
- Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Albermarle Sound to Sunset Beach.§ 117.821
- Tchefuncta River.§ 117.500
- When the drawbridge must open.§ 117.5
- Bonfouca Bayou.§ 117.433
- Sector North Carolina Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone.§ 3.25-20
U.S. Code
17 references not yet in our index
- 13 CFR 121
- Pub. L. 105-135
- 27 CFR 9
- 27 CFR 4
- 33 CFR 100
- 33 CFR 100.114
- 33 CFR 100.114(a)
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- 33 USC 1233
- 33 CFR 117
- 33 CFR 165
- 33 USC 1231
- 39 CFR 956
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Direct final rule; correcting amendment
Cite13 CFR 121
Pub. L.Pub. L. 105-135
Cite27 CFR 9
Cites 46 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources