Rules and Regulations. Interim final rule with request for comments
15,787 words·~72 min read·
/register/2008/03/17/08-1034A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service 7 CFR Part 3570 RIN 0575-AC75 Community Facilities Grant Program AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: This rule sets forth the regulation changes for the Community Facilities Grant program, which is available to rural communities impacted by a Presidentially declared disaster. The rule establishes the requirements to qualify for additional funding.
This rule is being issued on an emergency basis due to the severe economic and social conditions caused by disasters, which occur every year in rural America. In order to prepare for these disasters, this rule is being published before the Spring/Summer disasters strike. This will allow USDA to target limited funds to the most devastated communities/counties in rural areas. The revisions will allow USDA to increase potential funding for several essential community facilities in rural communities already designated as a Presidential disaster area.
DATES: This rule will be effective on March 17, 2008. Written comments on the interim final rule must be submitted on or before May 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to this rule by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Submit written comments via the U.S. Postal Service to the Branch Chief, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Submit written comments via Federal Express Mail or other courier service requiring a street address to the Branch Chief, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 300 7th Street, SW., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chad Parker, Director, Direct Loan and Grant Division, Community Programs; USDA Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, STOP 0787, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250; telephone
(202)720-1502; e-mail: *Chad.Parker@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 This rule has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act since the Rural Housing Service is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. Environmental Review The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Rural Housing Service regulations for compliance with NEPA at 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G. The regulatory changes were determined to have no potential impact upon the human and natural environment because the changes only impact the amount of funding that a potential project is eligible for, not the selection for funding or the establishment of an essential community facility. Executive Order 12372 This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372. The Community Facilities Grant program is not listed as a participating in the intergovernmental review process as delineated in RD Instruction 1940, Subpart J, § 1940.453. Executive Order 13132 This rule does not have Federalism implications that warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Executive Order 12988 This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988. This interim rule is not retroactive and it does not pre-empt State law. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA for State, local, and tribal government or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Programs Affected The affected program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.766, Community Facilities Loans and Grants. Paperwork Reduction Act There are no new requirements associated with this rule. USDA Rural Development does not expect to receive any additional applications due to this regulatory change. Applications that would have been eligible for a certain percentage of the project through Community Facilities grants will now be able to apply for a higher percentage if the community has been impacted by a Presidentially declared disaster and has had a 60 percent loss of the communities population. E-Government Act Compliance USDA Rural Development is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-GOV compliance related to this rule, please contact Chad Parker, Director, Direct Loan and Grant Division, Community Programs; USDA Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, STOP 0787, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250; telephone
(202)720-1502; e-mail: *Chad.Parker@wdc.usda.gov.* Discussion of Interim Rule The rule is effective immediately because Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)requirements that plan for use of FEMA funds must be submitted within one year after a disaster has occurred. Several disasters have occurred in the past year and the eligible timeframe for project submission to FEMA for these disaster areas will close in the near future. Community Facilities Grant funds are needed as part of the total funding package to complete several of these essential community facilities. This interim final rule implements regulatory changes for the Community Facilities Grant program. The present USDA regulation requires that data from the most recent decennial Census of the United States be used to determine the percentage of grant funds that a project is eligible for in a particular rural community. If there is reason to believe that the census data is not an accurate representation of the present conditions within the area to be served, this will be documented and reliable data from local, regional, State, or Federal sources or from a survey conducted by a reliable impartial source may be used. USDA has found that often rural communities impacted by a Presidential declared disaster, where a 60 percent decline in the rural community's population occurs, do not have the resources or employees to develop the survey data with so many other immediate concerns. The regulatory change will allow USDA to look at population loss, a much more readily available figure to more quickly ascertain the extent of the damage to the economic well-being of the rural community. The interim final rule will only impact projects in communities that were already eligible for Community Facilities funding. The only communities affected by the rule are communities impacted by a Presidentially declared disaster with a 60 percent loss in population. The interim final rule will allow USDA to consider the impact of such a disaster and increase the percentage of grant funds available to projects in the impacted rural communities. Under the interim final rule, communities impacted by a disaster that has resulted in a loss of 60 percent of the community's population and is located in a rural community designated as a major disaster area by the President will be eligible for up to 60 percent of eligible project cost under the Community Facilities Grant program. List of Subjects for 7 CFR Part 3570 Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Conflicts of interests, Environmental impact statements, Fair housing and civil rights laws, Grant programs—Housing and community development, Loan programs—Housing and community development, Rural areas, Subsidies. Therefore, chapter XXXV, title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows. PART 3570—COMMUNITY PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 3570 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989. Subpart B—Community Facilities Grant Program 2. Section 3570.63 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as paragraph (b)(6), adding a new paragraph (b)(5), and revising newly designated paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows: § 3570.63 Grant limitations.
(b)* * *
(5)60 percent when the proposed project is:
(i)Located in a rural community having a population of 20,000 or less; and
(ii)The median household income of the population to be served by the proposed facility is below the higher of the poverty line or 90 percent of the State non-metropolitan median household income. The 60 percent grants are only available to communities impacted by a disaster that has resulted in a loss of 60 percent of the community's population and is located in a rural community designated as a major disaster area by the President.
(6)Grant assistance cannot exceed the higher of the applicable percentages contained in this section which the applicant is eligible to receive and may be further limited due to availability of funds or by the maximum grant assistance allowable determined in accordance with § 3570.66. Dated: March 10, 2008. Russell T. Davis, Administrator, Rural Housing Service. [FR Doc. E8-5271 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 141 and 385 [Docket No. RM07-18-000; Order No. 709] Elimination of FERC Form No. 423 Issued: March 11, 2008. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending its regulations to eliminate the collection of the FERC Form No. 423, *Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants* . The Commission is eliminating collection of the FERC Form No. 423 following the December 2007 report, which was due February 15, 2008. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule will become effective April 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Greenfield (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-6415, *lawrence.greenfield@ferc.gov* . James M. Krug (Technical Information), Division of Administration, Case Management and Strategic Planning, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-8419, *james.krug@ferc.gov* . Patricia Morris (Technical Information), Division of Administration, Case Management and Strategic Planning, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-8730, *patricia.morris@ferc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff. Table of Contents Paragraph Nos. I. Background 3 II. Discussion 7 III. Information Collection Statement 30 IV. Environmental Analysis 31 V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 32 VI. Document Availability 33 VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification 36 1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending its regulations, 18 CFR 141.61, to eliminate the collection of the FERC Form No. 423, *Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants* (Form 423). The Commission is eliminating collection of the Form 423 following the submission of the December 2007 report, which was due February 15, 2008. 2. As a separate matter, we note that Energy Information Administration
(EIA)has expressed a need for the information previously collected on Form 423 and intends to collect such information starting January 1, 2008, as part of its newly authorized EIA-923. 1 As discussed below, however, to ensure the continuity of data collection, the Commission will, by separate notice, indicate that it will continue to collect such information if EIA is not prepared to begin its collection, but not beyond the December 2008 Form 423, due in February 2009. 1 Energy Information Administration Electric Power Survey, OMB Control No. 1905-0129, Supporting Statement A (submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review on October 4, 2007), available at: *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=200709-1905-003.* I. Background 3. Form 423 gathers information on the cost and quality of fuels delivered to steam electric generating plants of 50 MW or greater. This information had been used over the years for a variety of purposes, including:
(1)To conduct fuel reviews under Federal Power Act
(FPA)sections 205(a) and (e); 2
(2)to address fuel costs and fuel purchase practices affecting public utility rates under FPA sections 205 and 206; 3 and
(3)to detect abnormally high fuel costs in public utility fuel purchases indicative of affiliate preference under FPA sections 205 and 206. 4 2 16 U.S.C. 824d(a), (e). 3 16 U.S.C. 824d, 824e. 4 *Id* . 4. Form 423 is submitted electronically on a monthly basis by approximately 190 utilities for their 569 steam electric generating plants. 5. On November 2, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NOPR)amending its regulations to eliminate the collection of the Form 423. 5 In the NOPR, the Commission stated that the Commission's infrequent use of the information collected in the Form 423 no longer justified the burden and cost of collecting it. 5 *Elimination of FERC Form No. 423* , 72 FR 65246 (Nov. 20, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,624 (2007). 6. In response to the NOPR, comments were filed by: American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP); the American Public Power Association and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (jointly APPA and NRECA); Arch Coal, Inc. (Arch Coal); City of Santa Clara, California, City of Redding, California and M-S-R Public Power Agency (jointly Cities/M-S-R); the Edison Electric Institute (EEI); FPL Group, Inc. (FPL Group); the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC); the National Mining Association (NMA); the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC); the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS); and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). The commenters responded to the Commission's invitation for comments both on its proposal to eliminate the Form 423, and on the proposed date to eliminate Form 423. II. Discussion 7. The issuance of Order No. 888 6 and the electric industry's increasing reliance on market-based rates have created a diminished need for the Form 423 information. Greater use of market-based rates has resulted in less reliance on cost-based rates and less need to evaluate rates by reference to a utility's costs; market-based rates are not tied to the cost of providing service but instead reflect market conditions. In short, there are fewer public utilities with cost-based rates 7 and particularly with fuel adjustment clauses as part of their rates. This, in turn, has resulted in fewer rate cases and fewer complaints filed with the Commission, and less need for Form 423's fuel cost and quality data. Accordingly, the Commission will no longer collect the Form 423; the reduced need for Form 423's data no longer justifies continued collection of Form 423. Moreover, should the Commission have a need for information concerning fuel costs and purchases in the future, it can obtain such information on a case-by-case basis through special reports, investigations, data requests or formal proceedings. 8 6 *Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities* , Order No. 888, 61 FR 21540 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996), *order on reh'g* , Order No. 888-A, 62 FR 12274 (Mar. 14, 1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048 (1997), *order on reh'g* , Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), *order on reh'g* , Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), aff'd in *relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group* v. *FERC* , 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), *aff'd sub nom* . *New York* v. *FERC* , 535 U.S. 1 (2002). 7 A review of data from the Electric Quarterly Reports for calendar year 2006 indicates that market-based power sales constituted 90 percent of jurisdictional power sales (reported as energy sales and booked out transactions). 8 *See* , *e.g.* , 16 U.S.C. 825e, 825f. 8. In contrast to the Commission's lack of need for the information, EIA, in its collection statement to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), stated that “EIA has multiple uses for the data and requests approval to collect it.” Presently, EIA collects similar information from non-utility generators and, as explained in EIA's collection statement to OMB, adding to it information from Commission-jurisdictional public utilities would, for the first time, capture all such data on one form for the entire industry. EIA further proposed to merge the combined Form 423 data collection with information from three other existing EIA data collections (EIA-906, EIA-920, and EIA-767), in an effort to improve data quality, consistency and reporting efficiency. The result, EIA stated, would be a new survey, the EIA-923. 9 EIA received OMB approval to collect the EIA-923 on December 21, 2007. 10 9 Energy Information Administration Electric Power Survey, OMB Control No. 1905-0129, Supporting Statement A (submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review on October 4, 2007), available from: *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=200709-1905-003* . 10 EIA received final approval from OMB to collect the information through EIA-923 in a Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action dated December 21, 2007. 9. The Commission's decision to stop collecting the Form 423 data is not tied to EIA's decision to collect this data. However, to ensure continuity of the data collection, the Commission will coordinate with EIA. EIA anticipates beginning the collection of its EIA-923 starting with the January 2008 report, and so the Commission will end its collection of the Form 423 information with the December 2007 report, which was due February 15, 2008. However, if EIA is not prepared to collect the information, to prevent a gap in data collection, the Commission will continue to collect the data until EIA begins its collection, but not beyond the December 2008 report, due in February 2009. 10. Should EIA begin its collection of EIA-923 data effective January 2008, the Commission will issue a separate notice announcing that it has ceased collection of the Form 423 effective after the December 2007 report. Should EIA not begin its collection at that time, the Commission will issue a separate notice announcing that it will continue collection of the Form 423. A. Elimination of the Form 423 Comments 11. Three commenters, EEI, FPL Group, and the OCC, support the Commission's proposal to discontinue collecting the Form 423. All three claim that the Form 423 imposes a substantial burden on the regulated community. 12. Eight commenters opposed the Commission's proposal to eliminate the Form 423. State commissions and regulatory offices 11 argue that they need the Form 423 information in a timely manner to do their work. NARUC argues that the Form 423 information helps to facilitate state commission efforts to assure efficient use and pricing of fuels. PUCO states that it has an essential need for timely receipt of Form 423 data and that the timeliness of the Commission's data collection and posting allows it to efficiently conduct electric fuel cost reviews, address electric utility fuel costs and fuel purchase practices, detect abnormally high fuel costs, calculate electric rates based on fuel costs, and properly respond to any energy emergency. PUCO believes the Commission's discontinuation of collecting Form 423 information would hinder PUCO's ability to effectively perform its duties. PUCO asserts that getting the Form 423 data only from EIA, as proposed, will result in a six-month delay between the time the data is collected and when the data is published. Such a delay, PUCO believes, compromises its ability to conduct fuel cost reviews. The ORS states that the timeliness of the Form 423 information is important to the annual review of fuel costs and purchasing practices in South Carolina. 11 NARUC, PUCO, and ORS. 13. Arch Coal is concerned that the elimination of the Form 423 will result in a significant loss of market data used by coal producers, transportation companies and other entities that service the electric industry. Arch Coal believes only power generators currently required to file EIA-906 and EIA-920 will be required to file the new EIA-923, resulting in a reduction of the sample size by 24 percent, and significantly degrading both the quality and value of the data. Arch Coal argues that data collected on EIA-923 will not be available at the plant level for 18 months for non-jurisdictional generators, and only for those plants that currently file EIA-906 and EIA-920. It believes this means there will be an additional time lag of more than one year, making it extremely difficult to use this data for business decisions. Arch Coal urges greater transparency in the electric power generation sector, which it believes promotes market competitiveness. Reducing data reliability and timeliness hinders market efficiency. 14. NMA feels the Commission may be dropping collection of vital information at a time when the need for this data is escalating. NMA further contends that, should EIA subsequently discontinue its EIA-923 due to budget constraints, the Commission will need to reestablish collection of the Form 423 data. NMA adds that the data EIA will collect in EIA-923 will be sample data, rather than the more inclusive plant data the Commission currently collects. NMA believes this methodology will result in a material reduction in the number of reporting plants. Further, there are no guarantees that EIA will make plant-level information available to the public as in the past. NMA argues that without public access to this information, complaints against generators cannot be filed. 15. AEP suggests that, should responsibility for the data collection be transferred, EIA should use the same or similar filing procedures for its EIA-923 as those employed by the Commission for its Form 423 data. AEP is concerned that the technological advances made by the Commission with respect to the collection of the data may not be maintained by EIA. 16. APPA and NRECA state that the Commission has an obligation to ensure that cost-based rates are just and reasonable, and that the Commission's reliance on other means to gather data under specific circumstances or on a case-by-case basis is not sufficient to protect customers. APPA and NRECA also assert the Commission itself needs the information for its ongoing market oversight. Customers also need access to the data on an ongoing basis in order to have sufficient information to protect their own interests through filing a complaint with the Commission. Furthermore, APPA and NRECA are concerned that the Commission has not gone far enough in its commitment to maintain the availability of the data. They note that EIA has made changes to its data collection programs in the past after EIA has cited budget constraints and that these changes were detrimental to the quality and availability of industry data. Further, APPA and NRECA claim the Commission must take an active role in ensuring that EIA receives sufficient funding to continue its collection of the data that is currently in Form 423. If EIA decides to stop collecting the Form 423 data in its EIA-923, APPA and NRECA assert the Commission must step in and resume its collection of the information. Cities/M-S-R state that the Commission should continue to collect Form 423 data. Commission Response 17. As explained above, the Commission's infrequent use of the Form 423 data no longer justifies the burden and cost of the Commission collecting the data. While others may have their own particular proprietary reasons for this data, 12 the Commission's collection of information is driven by the Commission's needs and the Commission no longer needs Form 423's fuel cost and quality data. 13 The arguments put forth by the eight commenters opposing the Commission's proposal thus do not provide sufficient reasons for the Commission to continue collecting the data; the Commission does not need this data on an ongoing basis. 12 *E.g.* , state commission review of retail rates, state commission review of fuel purchasing practices, and coal industry analysis of coal markets. 13 We are not aware of any reason why a state commission that needs such data from utilities it regulates, or associated companies, cannot obtain such data from them. 16 U.S.C. 824(g); 42 U.S.C. 16453. 18. Despite our elimination of the Form 423, the public will still have access to this data. EIA has taken the initiative to continue collection and has received OMB authorization to do so. The generator data to be collected by EIA on Schedules 1 and 2 of its new EIA-923 is the same as the generator data collected in the Form 423 (with the exception of one item—the coal district number—which was eliminated). Furthermore, EIA will be making EIA-923 data available on its Web site for both Commission-jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional companies under a planned EIA data-collection-and-release cycle that will be shorter than the Form 423 data collection-and-release cycle utilized by the Commission. 14 The Commission thus finds no basis for commenter concerns that only sample data will be collected, or about the loss of data or a smaller number of respondents who must file. 14 Currently, the Form 423 is due 45 days after the end of the month. The data is then posted to the Commission's Web site 45 days after the due date. The EIA-923 will be due the last day of the month following the reporting month and the data will be posted to EIA's Web site approximately 45 days after the due date, when EIA publishes its Electric Power Monthly for that month. 19. The Commission's ability to carry out its market and rate oversight functions will not be hindered by the elimination of the Form 423. Current users of the Form 423 data will be readily able to download the same data by accessing the new EIA-923 data from EIA's Web site. In addition, there are other sources of data which can be utilized, such as Form Nos. 1 and 3-Q, which will give them access to information they may need to protect their interests should they wish to file a complaint with the Commission. As a result, elimination of Form 423 should not hinder the Commission's ability to carry out its market and rate oversight functions. AEP's suggestion that EIA consider Commission methodologies in its EIA-923 software should be addressed to EIA. 20. Commenter concerns about future EIA funding levels and their impact on EIA data collections are speculative and, in any event, are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. B. Date of Elimination of the Form 423 Comments 21. EEI, NARUC, OCC, and Cities/M-S-R argue that the Commission should continue to collect the information contained in Form 423 until EIA is prepared to take over these duties, so there is no gap in information collection. NARUC and Cities/M-S-R both add that, if necessary, this data collection should continue beyond the Commission deadline of December 2008. Commission Response 22. As noted above, the Commission intends to coordinate its elimination of Form 423 with EIA's collection of EIA-923. The Commission will continue collection of Form 423 should EIA not be able to begin its collection program as proposed, but not beyond December 2008; the Commission is currently authorized by OMB to collect Form 423 data only through December 2008. Moreover, EIA has received OMB authorization to begin collecting EIA-923. 15 Therefore, the Commission disagrees with EEI, NARUC, OCC, and Cities/M-S-R that there is a need to extend its collection of, and to obtain additional OMB authorization to collect, Form 423 beyond December 2008. 15 *Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action* (December 21, 2007) (OMB Control No. 1905-0129). C. Other Issues Comment 23. Commenters raise various issues largely related to the type and timing of information to be collected by EIA. 24. PUCO claims Form 423 data should be updated to include renewable and intermittent resources. 16 The OCC, while it supports the Commission in its suggestion not to require additional reporting, proposes that “state commissions [be] notified of additional reviews or requests about individual public utilities' information that are in the respective state commission's jurisdiction.” 16 If the Commission determines that it has additional data needs related to renewable and intermittent resources, those data needs will be addressed in a separate proceeding. 25. FPL Group does not support EIA's proposal to institute a mandatory collection of this information in its EIA-923. FPL Group argues that, absent a greater showing of need for this information by the EIA, providing such information should be voluntary. 26. EEI encourages the Commission to recognize that the fuel cost, quantity, and other information reported in the Form 423 is commercially sensitive, and asks that EIA treat this same information as confidential and not release it in a disaggregated form that discloses company and plant level information or even state or regional information because that can compromise negotiations and prices in particular markets. 27. NARUC urges the Commission to join it in requesting that EIA preserve the existing reporting schedule to ensure the usefulness of the information collected. NARUC is concerned that EIA proposes to collect the same data using a six month rather than a two month lag period. NARUC contends a six month delay would significantly reduce the usefulness of the information and would undermine the ability of state commissions to effectively use this information in conducting fuel cost reviews. 28. AEP states the proposed submission deadline for EIA-923 should be lengthened. AEP is concerned about the shorter submission time that is proposed by the EIA, noting that the Commission allowed forty-five days after the close of the previous month to submit the data requested in Form 423 whereas under EIA-923 the time is shortened to thirty days after the last day of the prior month. AEP argues it is a large, multi-state utility operating in eleven states, and shortening the time for submission of data by fifteen days will not allow AEP enough time to gather all of the information from various resources and submit the data in a timely fashion. AEP claims this situation will be exacerbated if the efficiencies in the filing methods employed by the Commission are not adopted by the EIA. AEP also states a testing period should be established in order to ensure both utility and EIA preparedness. Commission Response 29. The Commission is eliminating the collection of the Form 423 data. The concerns raised by PUCO, OCC, FPL Group, EEI, NARUC, and AEP are concerns that instead should be brought to the attention of EIA. Thus, issues about EIA's mandatory collection of fuel cost and quality data, whether to include renewable and intermittent resource data, the confidentiality of data, the timing of the submission of data, and the need for a testing period are issues that should be brought to the attention of EIA. The OCC's request that state commissions be notified of “additional reviews or requests” is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. III. Information Collection Statement 30. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting and record keeping (information collections) imposed by an agency. Here, the Commission is proposing to cease collecting certain information. Nevertheless, OMB has been notified of the Commission's proposed actions in this case. The Commission will submit a copy of the Final Rule to inform OMB of its actions to discontinue the collection of this information and the resulting alleviation of burden imposed on the public. IV. Environmental Analysis 31. Commission regulations require that an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement be prepared for any Commission action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 17 No environmental consideration is necessary for the promulgation of a rule that involves information gathering, analysis, and dissemination. 18 This Final Rule eliminates a data collection. Consequently, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment is required. 17 *Regulations Implementing National Environmental Policy Act* , 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987). 18 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5). V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 32. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA)19 generally requires either a description and analysis of a rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or a certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Most utilities to which this Final Rule applies would not fall within the RFA's definition of small entity. 20 Moreover, elimination of the Form 423 will reduce the burden on all entities, including small entities. Consequently, the Commission certifies that this Final Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 19 5 U.S.C. 601-12. 20 5 U.S.C. 601(3), *citing* to section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines a “small business concern” as a business that is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. The Small Business Size Standards component of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) defines a small electric utility as one that, including its affiliates, is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and whose total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed four million MWh. 13 CFR 121.201. VI. Document Availability 33. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the **Federal Register** , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to obtain this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) and from its Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 34. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, the full text of this document is available in the Commission's document management system, eLibrary, in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number (excluding the last three digits of the docket number), in the Docket Number field. 35. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
(202)502-6652 (toll-free at 1-866-208-3676), e-mail *fercon-linesupport@ferc.gov* , or contact the Public Reference Room at
(202)502-8371, TTY
(202)502-8659, e-mail: *public.referenceroom@ferc.gov* . VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification 36. These changes in the regulations are effective April 16, 2008. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 21 21 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects 18 CFR Part 141 Electric power, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 18 CFR Part 385 Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. By the Commission. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 141 and 385, Chapter I, Title 18, *Code of Federal Regulations* , as follows: PART 141—STATEMENTS AND REPORTS (SCHEDULES) 1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79; 16 U.S.C. 791a-828c, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. § 141.61 [Removed and Reserved] 2. Section 141.61 is removed and reserved: PART 385—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 3. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 791a-825v, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16441, 16451-16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85 (1988). § 385.2011 [Amended] 4. Section 385.2011, paragraph (a)(8) is removed and reserved. [FR Doc. E8-5251 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 522 Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Penicillin G Procaine Aqueous Suspension AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application
(NADA)filed by IVX Animal Health, Inc. The supplemental NADA provides for changing scientific nomenclature for a swine pathogen on labeling for penicillin G procaine aqueous suspension. DATES: This rule is effective March 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy L. Burnsteel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-130), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8341, e-mail: cindy.burnsteel@fda.hhs.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IVX Animal Health, Inc., 3915 South 48th Street Ter., St. Joseph, MO 64503, filed a supplement to NADA 65-110 for PEN-G MAX (penicillin G procaine) Aqueous Suspension used for the treatment of animal diseases associated with several bacterial pathogens. The supplemental NADA provides for changing a pathogen name from *Erysipelothrix insidiosa* to *Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae* on product labeling. The supplemental NADA is approved as of February 12, 2008, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.1696b to reflect the approval. Approval of this supplemental NADA did not require review of additional safety or effectiveness data or information. Therefore, a freedom of information summary is not required. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 522 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is amended as follows: PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. § 522.1696b [Amended] 2. In § 522.1696b, in paragraph (d)(2)(ii), remove “ *Erysipelothrix insidiosa* ” and add in its place “ *Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae* ”. Dated: March 6, 2008. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E8-5217 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-289F] RIN 1117-AB04 Schedules of Controlled Substances: Exempt Anabolic Steroid Products AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)is finalizing an Interim Rule designating six pharmaceutical preparations as exempt anabolic steroid products under the Controlled Substances Act. This action is part of the ongoing implementation of the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective April 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Sannerud, PhD, Chief, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Telephone:
(202)307-7183. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Anabolic Steroids Control Act
(ASCA)of 1990 (Title XIX of Pub. L. 101-647) placed anabolic steroids into schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Section 1903 of the ASCA provides that the Attorney General may exempt products which contain anabolic steroids from all or any part of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* ) if the products have no significant potential for abuse. The authority to exempt these products was delegated from the Attorney General to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)(28 CFR 0.100(b)), who in turn, redelegated this authority to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (28 CFR Part 0, Appendix to Subpart R, Section 7(g)). The procedure for implementing this section of the ASCA is found in 21 CFR 1308.33. Three applications which were in conformance with 21 CFR 1308.33 were received and forwarded to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for evaluation. The purpose of this rule is to finalize an interim rule regarding six products which the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, finds meet the exempt anabolic steroid product criteria. Anabolic Steroid Products Being Added to the List of Products Exempted From Application of the CSA DEA received three letters dated June 8, 2005, July 1, 2005 and August 22, 2005, written to the DEA on behalf of Interpharm Inc., Lannett Company Inc., and ANDAPharm, LLC., respectively. Each of these three letters contained an application to exempt from control under the CSA two products, each containing esterified estrogens and methyltestosterone. In two letters dated November 14, 2005, DEA provided a copy of the Lannett and ANDAPharm applications to the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)along with a request for evaluation and a recommendation. In a letter dated November 15, 2005, DEA provided a copy of the Interpharm application to HHS along with a request for evaluation and recommendation. In three separate letters dated March 30, 2006, the Assistant Secretary of Health for HHS recommended that all six products, two products of esterified estrogen and methyltestosterone from each of three applications, be exempted from control under the CSA based on their similarity to the products, Estratest®, Estratest® H.S., Essian TM and Essian TM H.S., which have been exempted from control under the CSA (71 FR 10835, March 3, 2006 and 71 FR 61876, October 20, 2006). DEA agreed with HHS regarding the similarity of these products to products which have already been exempted from the regulatory controls of the CSA. Further, after reviewing several law enforcement databases, DEA did not find evidence of significant abuse or trafficking of these types of products. Therefore, DEA published an Interim rule with request for comments (71 FR 51996, September 1, 2006) exempting these products from regulatory control under the CSA. Comments Received DEA received one comment in opposition to the Interim Rule. As a basis for this objection, the commenter cited generally to Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” DEA has considered the comment and determined that the objection is without legal basis. Thus, the rule is being finalized without change. Accordingly, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby affirms his order that the following anabolic steroid products be added to the list of products excluded from application of certain controls of the Controlled Substances Act and referenced in 21 CFR 1308.34. Exempt Anabolic Steroid Products: Trade name Company Form Ingredients Quantity Esterified Estrogens and Methyltestosterone, USP (1.25 mg/2.5 mg) Interpharm, Inc Tablets Esterified Estrogens Methyltestosterone 1.25 mg/Tablet. 2.5 mg/Tablet. Esterified Estrogens and Methyltestosterone, USP (0.625 mg/1.25 mg) Interpharm, Inc Tablets Esterified Estrogens Methyltestosterone 0.625 mg/Tablet. 1.25 mg/Tablet. Methyltestosterone and Esterified Estrogens (2.5 mg/1.25 mg) Lannett Company, Inc Tablets Esterified Estrogens Methyltestosterone 1.25 mg/Tablet. 2.5 mg/Tablet. Methyltestosterone and Esterified Estrogens (Half Strength) (1.25 mg/0.625 mg) Lannett Company, Inc Tablets Esterified Estrogens Methyltestosterone 0.625 mg/Tablet. 1.25 mg/Tablet. Esterified Estrogens/Methyltestosterone, (1.25 mg/2.5 mg) Tablet ANDAPharm, LLC Tablets Esterified Estrogens Methyltestosterone 1.25 mg/Tablet. 2.5 mg/Tablet. Esterified Estrogens/Methyltestosterone, (0.625 mg/1.25 mg) Tablet ANDAPharm, LLC Tablets Esterified Estrogens Methyltestosterone 0.625 mg/Tablet. 1.25 mg/Tablet. Regulatory Certifications Regulatory Flexibility Act The granting of exemption status relieves persons who handle the exempted products in the course of legitimate business from the registration, recordkeeping, security, and other requirements imposed by the CSA. Accordingly, the Deputy Assistant Administrator certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities whose interests must be considered under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Executive Order 12866 The Deputy Assistant Administrator further certifies that this rulemaking has been drafted in accordance with the principles in Executive Order 12866. It has been determined that this is not a significant regulatory action. Therefore, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule exempts the identified steroid products from the regulatory controls that apply to controlled substances. Executive Order 12988 This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform. Executive Order 13132 This rule does not preempt or modify any provision of state law; nor does it impose enforcement responsibilities on any state; nor does it diminish the power of any state to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Congressional Review Act This rule is not a major rule as defined by § 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. 21 CFR Part 1308—Schedules of Controlled Substances The Interim Rule with Request for Comment amending the list of exempt anabolic steroid products described in 21 CFR 1308.34 published at 71 FR 51996, September 1, 2006 is hereby adopted as a final rule without change. Dated: March 8, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control. [FR Doc. E8-5173 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 943 [SATS No. TX-058-FOR; Docket No. OSM-2007-0018] Texas Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment. SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are approving an amendment to the Texas regulatory program (Texas program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Texas proposed revisions to its regulations regarding annual permit fees. Texas intends to revise its program to improve operational efficiency. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alfred L. Clayborne, Director, Tulsa Field Office. Telephone:
(918)581-6430. E-mail: *aclayborne@osmre.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Texas Program II. Submission of the Amendment III. OSM's Findings IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments V. OSM's Decision VI. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Texas Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Texas program effective February 16, 1980. You can find background information on the Texas program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval, in the February 27, 1980, **Federal Register** (45 FR 12998). You can find later actions on the Texas program at 30 CFR 943.10, 943.15, and 943.16. II. Submission of the Amendment By letter dated October 2, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-664), Texas sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ). Texas sent the amendment at its own initiative. We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the December 17, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 71293). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment period ended on January 16, 2008. We did not receive any public comments. III. OSM's Findings Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are approving the amendment as described below. Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concern nonsubstantive wording or editorial changes. 16 Texas Administrative Code
(TAC)Section 12.108 Permit Fees Texas proposed to revise its regulations at 16 TAC section 12.108(b)(1) through (b)(3) regarding annual permit fees by:
(1)Decreasing, from $160.00 per acre to $150.00 per acre, the amount of the fee in paragraph (b)(1) for each acre of land within the permit area on which coal or lignite was actually removed during the calendar year,
(2)Increasing, from $3.00 to $3.75, the amount of the fee in paragraph (b)(2) for each acre of land within a permit area covered by a reclamation bond on December 31st of the year, and
(3)Increasing, from $3,550.00 to $4,200.00, the amount of the fee in paragraph (b)(3) for each permit in effect on December 31st of the year. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 777.17, concerning permit fees, provide that applications for surface coal mining permits must be accompanied by a fee determined by the regulatory authority. The Federal regulations also provide that the fees may be less than, but not more than the actual or anticipated cost of reviewing, administering, and enforcing the permit. In its letter dated October 2, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-664), Texas advised us that the monies collected from the revised annual permit fees, when coupled with the permit application fees are not expected to exceed 50 percent of the anticipated costs to administer the coal mining regulatory program for State fiscal years 2007 and 2008. We find that Texas' proposed permit fees including the annual permit fees are reasonable and are consistent with the discretionary authority provided by the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 777.17. IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments Public Comments We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive any. Federal Agency Comments On November 9, 2007, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Texas program (Administrative Record No. TX-664.01). We did not receive any comments. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)Concurrence and Comments Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 *et seq.* ) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* ). None of the revisions that Texas proposed to make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment. However, on November 9, 2007, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the amendment from the EPA (Administrative Record No. TX-664.01). The EPA did not respond to our request. State Historical Preservation Officer
(SHPO)and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP)Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On November 9, 2007, we requested comments on Texas' amendment (Administrative Record No. TX-664.01), but neither responded to our request. V. OSM's Decision Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Texas sent us on October 2, 2007. To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 943, which codify decisions concerning the Texas program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards. VI. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a)and
(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. This determination is based on the fact that the Texas program does not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Texas program has no effect on federally-recognized Indian tribes. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is
(1)considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(c)Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: February 22, 2008. Ervin J. Barchenger, Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 943 is amended as set forth below: PART 943—TEXAS 1. The authority citation for part 943 continues to read as follows: Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* 2. Section 943.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in chronological order by “Date of final publication” to read as follows: § 943.15 Approval of Texas regulatory program amendments. Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description * * * * * * * October 2, 2007 March 17, 2008 16 TAC 12.108(b)(1) through (b)(3). [FR Doc. E8-5315 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [USCG-2008-0045] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area: Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, Oregon Inlet, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary regulated navigation area
(RNA)on the waters of Oregon Inlet, NC. The regulated navigation area
(RNA)is needed to minimize the risk of potential structural damage to the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge during fender repair work. This rule will enhance the safety of vessels transiting the area and vehicles crossing over the bridge during periods of reduced horizontal clearance in the main navigation channel. DATES: This rule is effective from 5 a.m. on April 16, 2008 through 8 p.m. May 31, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0045 and are available online at *www.regulations.gov* . They are also available for inspection or copying at 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 at the United States Coast Guard District Five Legal Office, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning this temporary final rule, phone CWO4 Stephen Lyons, Waterways Management Division Chief, Sector North Carolina, at
(252)247-4525. 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 this maintenance project. The necessary information to determine whether the construction poses a threat to persons and vessels was not provided with sufficient time to publish an NPRM. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have this regulation in place during the construction. 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 The State of North Carolina Department of Transportation has awarded two contracts to Marine Technologies Inc. of Baltimore, MD to perform repair work on the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge located in Oregon Inlet, NC. The first contract provides for the placing of six supplemental concrete sub-caps and the installation of nine pile jackets. The second contract is for the repair of the existing fender system that protects the main channel span from vessel allision. The fender repair is scheduled to begin on April 16, 2008 and will require 45 working days to complete. The contractor will be utilizing a spud barge with a 30′ beam during the fender system repair work. During periods of work, the spud barge will reduce the available horizontal clearance of the main navigational channel to 105′. Vessel use of the alternate channels will not be sanctioned by the Coast Guard because the alternate spans are not clearly marked by navigational aids. In addition, due to concerns about the stability of the bridge, potential vessel strikes, and the absence of a fender system in the alternate channels, the only safe passage for vessels is through the main navigational channel. Discussion of Rule The proposed regulated navigation area would encompass the area of the main navigational channel directly under the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge. All vessels of 100 gross tons and greater are not permitted to transit the waterway during the periods of time when the available horizontal clearance is reduced by the contractor's spud barge unless the vessel asks the District Commander for permission to transit. The District Commander can be contacted via Sector North Carolina at telephone number
(252)247-4570. The contractor's spud barge will be relocated out of the main navigational channel each day during non-working hours. All vessels, including vessels of 100 gross tons and greater, will be permitted to transit the main navigational channel during non-working hours when the spud barge is removed. Vessels less than 100 gross tons are permitted to use the main navigational channel at all times, including the periods of time when the spud barge is restricting the available horizontal clearance, but must transit the area at no-wake speed. However, nothing in this proposed rule negates the requirement to operate at a safe speed as provided in the Navigation Rules and Regulations. 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. Although this regulation will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because:
(i)The regulated navigation area will be in effect for a limited duration of time and
(ii)the Coast Guard will make notification via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. 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. Although the regulated area will apply to the waters of the Oregon Inlet, the zone will not have significant impact on small entities because the zone will only be in place for a limited duration of time and maritime advisories will be issued in advance to allow the public to 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. 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 and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. Regulation For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T05-005 to read as follows: § 165.T05-005 Regulated Navigation Area; Bonner Bridge Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, Oregon Inlet, NC.
(a)*Definitions.* For the purposes of this section, *District Commander* means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard District Five and any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard District Five to act as a designated representative on his behalf.
(b)*Location.* The following area is a regulated navigation area: All waters of Oregon Inlet, from the surface to the bottom, encompassing the area of the main navigational channel directly under the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)The general regulations governing regulated navigation areas found in § 165.13 of this part apply to the regulated navigation area described in paragraph (b).
(2)Any vessel of 100 gross tons or greater may not transit the waterway when the available horizontal clearance is reduced by the contractor's spud barge without first obtaining permission in accordance with paragraph (5).
(3)All vessels, including vessels of 100 gross tons or greater, will be permitted to transit the main navigational channel during non-working hours when the spud barge is removed.
(4)Vessels less than 100 gross tons are permitted to use the main navigational channel at all times, including the periods of time when the spud barge is restricting the available horizontal clearance, but must transit the area at no-wake speed.
(5)Vessels of 100 gross tons or greater desiring to transit the area of the regulated navigation area when the available horizontal clearance is reduced by the contractor's spud barge must first obtain authorization from the District Commander. To seek permission to transit the area, the District Commander can be contacted via Sector North Carolina at telephone number
(252)247-4570.
(6)Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(7)If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the District Commander and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone.
(d)*Enforcement.* The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
(e)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 5 a.m. on April 16, 2008 through 8 p.m. May 31, 2008. Dated: February 22, 2008. F.M. Rosa, Jr., Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-5327 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 258 [Docket No. RM 2008-3] Section 119 and the Changes in the Consumer Price Index AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Copyright Office makes royalty rate adjustments for satellite carriers based upon changes in the Consumer Price Index. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 2008. These rates are applicable for the rate period of January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Golant, Assistant General Counsel, and Tanya M. Sandros, General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
(202)707-8380. Telefax:
(202)707-8366. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 119(c) and our implementing rules, we are hereby giving notice to the public of the Office's adoption of royalty rate adjustments for the accounting period commencing January 1, 2008, based on changes in the Consumer Price Index. This action is consistent with voluntary agreements reached between satellite carriers and copyright owners under the Copyright Act. *Section 119 and royalty payments for analog television signals.* In 2004, Congress enacted the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (“SHVERA”). SHVERA extended for an additional five years the statutory license for satellite carriers retransmitting over-the-air television broadcast stations to their subscribers and made a number of amendments to the Section 119 license. One of the amendments sets forth a process for adjusting the royalty fees paid by satellite carriers for retransmitting analog television networks and superstations. 17 U.S.C. 119(c)(1). The law directed the Librarian of Congress to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing the initiation of a voluntary negotiation period, the result of which may be a rate settlement between the parties. The Library published such a notice on December 30, 2004, and, pursuant to the statute, requested that any agreements be submitted no later than January 10, 2005. 69 FR 78482 (December 30, 2004). The Office received one agreement, submitted jointly by the satellite carriers DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C. the copyright owners of motion pictures and syndicated television series represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, and the copyright owners of sports programming represented by the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball. Section 119(c)(1)(D)(ii)(II) requires the Library to “provide public notice of the royalty fees from the voluntary agreement and afford parties an opportunity to state that they object to those fees.” 17 U.S.C. 119(c)(1)(D)(ii)(II). The Library published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on January 26, 2005, to fulfill this requirement. 70 FR 3656 (January 26, 2005). The Library subsequently adopted the rates in the voluntary agreement as final. 70 FR 17320 (Apr. 6, 2005). The terms and conditions of the agreement were codified at Section 258.3 of the Copyright Office’s rules. Subpart
(g)of this rule specifically states, with regard to private home viewing, that the 2007 rate per subscriber per month for distant superstations and network stations shall be adjusted for the amount of inflation as measured by the change in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers from January 2007 to January 2008. Similarly, for viewing in commercial establishments, the 2007 rate per subscriber per month for viewing distant superstations in commercial establishments shall also be adjusted for the amount of inflation as measured by the change in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers from January 2007 to January 2008. *Section 119 and royalty payments for digital television signals.* Another SHVERA amendment to Section 119 set forth a process, for the first time, for adjusting the royalty fees paid by satellite carriers for the retransmission of digital broadcast signals. 17 U.S.C. 119(c)(2). The initial rates were the rates set by the Librarian in 1997 for the retransmission of analog broadcast signals, 37 CFR 258.3(b)(1) and (2), reduced by 22.5 percent. 17 U.S.C. 119(c)(2)(A). These rates are to be adjusted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 119(c)(1) as directed by Section 119(c)(2) of the Copyright Act. On March 8, 2005, the Copyright Office received a letter from EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C. DirecTV, Inc., Program Suppliers, and the Joint Sports Claimants requesting that the Office begin the process of setting the rates for the retransmission of digital broadcast signals by initiating a voluntary negotiation period so that rates for both digital and analog signals would be in place before the July 31, 2005, deadline for satellite carriers to pay royalties for the first accounting period of 2005. The Office granted the request and, pursuant to Section 119(c)(1), published a notice in the **Federal Register** initiating a voluntary negotiation period and requesting that any agreements reached during this period be submitted no later than April 25, 2005. * See* 70 FR 15368 (March 25, 2005). In accordance with the March 25 Notice, the Office received one agreement, submitted jointly by EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C. and DirecTV, Inc., the copyright owners of motion pictures and syndicated television series represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, and the copyright owners of sports programming represented by the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball. The agreement proposed rates for the private home viewing of distant superstations and distant network stations for the 2005-2009 period, as well as the viewing of those signals for commercial establishments. As required by statute, the Library provided public notice of the royalty fees from the voluntary agreement and afforded parties an opportunity to state that they object to those fees. 17 U.S.C. 119(c)(1)(D)(ii)(II). The Library published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on May 17, 2005, to fulfill this requirement. 70 FR 28231 (May 17, 2005). Consequently, the Library adopted the rates as set forth in the voluntary agreement as final. 70 FR 39178 (July. 7, 2005). The terms and conditions of the agreement were codified at Section 258.4 of the Copyright Office’s rules. Subpart
(d)of the rule states the royalty rate for secondary transmission of digital signals of broadcast stations by satellite carriers for the first three years of the licensing period and the process for readjusting the rates for the last two years of the five year licensing period (2008 and 2009). The Copyright Office’s regulations prescribe that the 2008 rates should be adjusted according to the following schedule. For private home viewing, the 2007 rate per subscriber per month for distant superstations and network stations is to be adjusted for the amount of inflation as measured by the change in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers from January 2007 to January 2008. For viewing in commercial establishments, the 2007 rate per subscriber per month for viewing distant superstations in commercial establishments is to be adjusted for the amount of inflation as measured by the change in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers from January 2007 to January 2008. *2008 rates.* In December 2007, the Copyright Office published a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing that it will be adjusting the royalty rates for the secondary transmission of the analog and digital transmissions of network and superstations to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers from January 2007 to January 2008. 72 FR 68198 (Dec. 4, 2007). Through this final rule, we hereby announce those changes. The change in the cost of living as determined by the Consumer Price Index (all consumers, all items) for the relevant period is 4.3% (January 2007 figure was 202.4; the figure for January 2008 is 211.080, based on 1982−1984 = 100 as a reference base). Rounding off to the nearest cent, the new rates are as follows. For private home viewing of analog stations: 24 cents per subscriber per month for distant superstations and 24 cents per subscriber per month for distant network stations. For viewing in commercial establishments: 48 cents per subscriber per month for distant superstations. For private home viewing of digital stations: 24 cents per subscriber per month for distant superstations and 24 cents per subscriber per month for distant network stations. For viewing in commercial establishments: 48 cents per subscriber per month for distant superstations. List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 258 Copyright, Satellite, Television. Final Regulations For the reasons set forth above, the Copyright Office amends 37 CFR chapter II as follows: PART 258—ADJUSTMENT OF ROYALTY FEE FOR SECONDARY TRANSMISSIONS BY SATELLITE CARRIERS 1. The authority citation for part 258 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 119, 702, 802. 2. Section 258.3(g) is revised to read as follows: § 258.3 Royalty fee for secondary transmission of analog signals of broadcast stations by satellite carriers.
(g)Commencing January 1, 2008, the royalty rate for secondary transmission of analog signals of broadcast stations by satellite carriers shall be as follows:
(1)For private home viewing—
(i)24 cents per subscriber per month for distant superstations.
(ii)24 cents per subscriber per month for distant network stations.
(2)For viewing in commercial establishments, 48 cents per subscriber per month for distant superstations. 3. Section 258.4(d) is revised to read as follows: § 258.4 Royalty fee for secondary transmission of digital signals of broadcast stations by satellite carriers.
(d)Commencing January 1, 2008, the royalty rate for secondary transmission of digital signals of broadcast stations by satellite carriers shall be as follows:
(1)For private home viewing—
(i)24 cents per subscriber per month for distant superstations.
(ii)24 cents per subscriber per month for distant network stations.
(2)For viewing in commercial establishments, 48 cents per subscriber per month for distant superstations. Dated: March 11, 2008 Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyright. [FR Doc. E8-5301 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket No. FEMA-8015] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the **Federal Register** on a subsequent date. DATES: *Effective Dates:* The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables. ADDRESSES: If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2953. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the **Federal Register** . In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified. Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. *Paperwork Reduction Act.* This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 Flood insurance, Floodplains. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows: PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376. § 64.6 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain federal assistance no longer available in SFHAs Region VII Iowa: Frederika, City of, Bremer County 190027 December 7, 1990, Emerg; December 7, 1990, Reg; March 04, 2008, Susp 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 Region IV Alabama: Arab, City of, Marshall County 010345 March 21, 1977, Emerg; August 1, 1987, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp 03/18/2008 03/18/2008 Boaz, City of, Marshall County 010276 July 15, 1975, Emerg; August 4, 1985, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......*do Do. Kentucky: Sparta, City of, Letcher County 210079 February 3, 1976, Emerg; August 19, 1986, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Trimble County, Unincorporated Areas 210300 October 25, 1996, Emerg; September 1, 2001, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Tennessee: Bruceton, Town of, Carroll County 470244 October 17, 1986, Emerg; February 1, 1990, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Carroll County, Unincorporated Areas 470222 May 15, 1989, Emerg; September 1, 1990, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Clarksville, City of, Montgomery County 470137 July 31, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1984, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. McKenzie, Town of, Carroll County 470023 January 3, 1975, Emerg; September 4, 1985, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Montgomery County, Unincorporated Areas 470136 September 2, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1984, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Region VI New Mexico: Bernalillo, Town of, Sandoval County 350056 January 17, 1975, Emerg; January 6, 1983, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Corrales, Village of, Sandoval County 350094 October 14, 1975, Emerg; January 6, 1983, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Jemez Springs, Village of, Sandoval County 350096 April 21, 1976, Emerg; January 3, 1986, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Rio Rancho, City of, Sandoval County 350146 November 14, 1990, Emerg; April 15, 1992, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Sandoval County, Unincorporated Areas 350055 -, Emerg; June 30, 1998, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Region VII Nebraska: Hoskins, Village of, Wayne County 310289 May 15, 1975, Emerg; March 1, 1987, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Palisade, Village of, Hitchcock County 310108 August 1, 1978, Emerg; June 3, 1986, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Stratton, Village of, Hitchcock County 310112 July 31, 1975, Emerg; September 24, 1984, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Trenton, Village of, Hitchcock County 310113 March 11, 1975, Emerg; September 1, 1986, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Region VIII South Dakota: Aberdeen, City of, Brown County 460007 April 9, 1973, Emerg; June 1, 1978, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Brown County, Unincorporated Areas 460006 April 9, 1973, Emerg; September 30, 1988 , Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Columbia, City of, Brown County 460008 -, Emerg; April 7, 1994, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Frederick, Town of, Brown County 460009 March 24, 1976, Emerg; March 1, 1978, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Groton, City of, Brown County 460179 August 8, 1975, Emerg; March 1, 1978, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Warner, City of, Brown County 460298 February 26, 1997, Emerg; June 8, 1998, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Westport, Town of, Brown County 460011 March 21, 1978, Emerg; August 5, 1986, Reg; March 18, 2008, Susp ......do Do. * do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. Dated: March 5, 2008. David Maurstad, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-5243 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 060314069-6138-002] RIN 0648-XG29 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Closure of the Elephant Trunk Scallop Access Area to General Category Scallop Vessels AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Elephant Trunk Scallop Access Area
(ETAA)will close to general category scallop vessels until it re-opens on March 1, 2009 under current regulations. This action is based on the determination that 865 general category scallop trips into the ETAA are projected to be taken as of 0001 hr local time, March 13, 2008. This action is being taken to prevent the allocation of general category trips in the ETAA from being exceeded during the 2008 fishing year, in accordance with the regulations implementing Framework 18 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. DATES: The closure of the ETAA to all general category scallop vessels is effective 0001 hr local time, March 13, 2008, through February 28, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Frei, Fishery Management Specialist,
(978)281-9221, fax
(978)281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations governing fishing activity in the Sea Scallop Access Areas are found at §§ 648.59 and 648.60. Regulations specifically governing general category scallop vessel operations in the ETAA are specified at § 648.59(e)(4)(ii). These regulations authorize vessels issued a valid general category scallop permit to fish in the ETAA under specific conditions, including a total of 865 trips that may be taken by general category vessels during the 2008 fishing year. The regulations at § 648.59(e)(4)(ii) require the ETAA to be closed to general category scallop vessels once the Northeast Regional Administrator has determined that the allowed number of trips are projected to be taken. Based on Vessel Monitoring System
(VMS)trip declarations by general category scallop vessels fishing in the ETAA, and analysis of fishing effort, a projection concluded that, given current activity levels by general category scallop vessels in the area, the trip-cap will be attained on March 12, 2008. Therefore, in accordance with the regulations at § 648.59(e)(4)(ii), the ETAA is closed to all general category scallop vessels as of 0001 hr local time, March 13, 2008. This closure is in effect for the remainder of the 2008 scallop fishing year under current regulations. The ETAA is scheduled to re-open to scallop fishing, including trips for general category scallop vessels, on March 1, 2009, unless the schedule for scallop access areas is modified by the New England Fishery Management Council. Classification This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This action closes the ETAA to all general category scallop vessels until March 1, 2009 under current regulations. The regulations at § 648.59(e)(4)(ii) allow such action to ensure that general category scallop vessels do not take more than their allocated number of trips in the ETAA. The ETAA opened for the 2008 fishing year at 0001 hours on March 1, 2008. Data indicating the general category scallop fleet has taken all of the ETAA trips have only recently become available. To allow general category scallop vessels to continue to take trips in the ETAA during the period necessary to publish and receive comments on a proposed rule would result in vessels taking much more than the allowed number of trips in the ETAA. Excessive trips and harvest from the ETAA would result in excessive fishing effort in the ETAA, where effort controls are critical, thereby undermining conservation objectives of the FMP. Should excessive effort occur in the ETAA, future management measures would need to be more restrictive. Based on the above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), proposed rulemaking is waived because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to allow a period for public comment. Furthermore, for the same reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for this action. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 12, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 08-1034 Filed 3-12-08; 1:42 pm]
Connectionstraces to 53
Traces to 53 documents
register
U.S. Code
- Congressional declaration of purpose§ 4321
- Departmental regulations§ 301
- Rules and regulations§ 1989
- Rates and charges; schedules; suspension of new rates; automatic adjustment clauses§ 824d
- Complaints§ 825e
- Declaration of policy; application of subchapter§ 824
- State access to books and records§ 16453
- Definitions§ 601
- Definitions§ 632
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- SHORT TITLE.§ 9701
- Mode of recovery§ 2461
- Definitions and application§ 3701
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission§ 60502
- New animal drugs§ 360b
- Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances§ 801
- State programs§ 1253
- Congressional findings§ 1201
- Congressional declaration of goals and policy§ 1251
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Rule making§ 553
- Other Federal laws§ 1292
- Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of information; recommendations; international and national coordination of efforts§ 4332
- Public information collection activities; submission to Director; approval and delegation§ 3507
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Transferred§ 1226
- Transferred§ 191
- Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of distant television programming by satellite§ 119
- State and local land use controls§ 4022
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 4001
- Nonparticipation in flood insurance program§ 4106
- Purposes§ 3501
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
CFR
- Projects or actions categorically excluded.§ 380.4
- What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes?§ 121.201
- Animal drugs.§ 25.33
- General functions.§ 0.100
- Exemption of certain anabolic steroid products; application.§ 1308.33
- Exempt anabolic steroid products.§ 1308.34
- State regulatory program approval.§ 943.10
- Criteria for approval or disapproval of State programs.§ 732.15
- Permit fees.§ 777.17
- State program amendments.§ 732.17
- Inconsistent and more stringent State laws and regulations.§ 730.11
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
34 references not yet in our index
- 7 CFR 3570
- 7 CFR 1940
- 18 CFR 141.61
- 225 F.3d 667
- 535 U.S. 1
- 5 USC 601-12
- 18 CFR 141
- 18 CFR 385
- 15 USC 79
- 16 USC 791a-828c
- 42 USC 7101-7352
- 5 USC 551-557
- 15 USC 717-717z
- 16 USC 791a-825v
- 21 CFR 522
- 21 CFR 522.1696
- 5 USC 801-808
- 21 CFR 1308
- Pub. L. 101-647
- 28 CFR 0
- 5 USC 601-612
- 30 CFR 943
- 33 CFR 165
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- Pub. L. 107-295
- 37 CFR 258
- 37 CFR 258.3(b)(1)
- 44 CFR 64
- 44 CFR 59
- 44 CFR 10
- 50 CFR 648
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Interim final rule with request for comments
F. App'x225 F.3d 667
SCOTUS535 U.S. 1
Cite7 CFR 3570
Cites 87 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources