Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-03-18 · PROPOSED RULES · Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Changes in Handling Requirements for Fresh Nectarines and Peaches Grown in California, 14372-14376 E8-5357 Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines and Tangelo · Unknown

Unknown. Confirmation of regulations

28,508 words·~130 min read·/register/2008/03/18/08-1042

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-03-18.xml --- 73 53 Tuesday, March 18, 2008 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Changes in Handling Requirements for Fresh Nectarines and Peaches Grown in California, 14372-14376 E8-5357 Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines and Tangelos Grown in Florida, 14371-14372 E8-5359 PROPOSED RULES Increased Assessment Rate; Vidalia Onions Grown in Georgia, 14400-14403 E8-5358 Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington;
Tomatoes Grown in Florida; and Walnuts Grown in California, 14400 E8-5360 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14429-14431 E8-5393 E8-5397 E8-5404 Air Force Air Force Department NOTICES Meetings: Scientific Advisory Board, 14459 E8-5386 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Animal Welfare;
Climatic and Environmental Conditions for Transportation of Warmblooded Animals Other Than Marine Mammals, 14403 E8-5394 Antitrust Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement: Cookson Group plc, et al., 14489-14499 E8-5129 Army Army Department NOTICES Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statement: Transformation-Related Increased Training at Fort Benning, Georgia, 14459-14460 E8-5219 Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Census Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14431-14432 E8-5324 E8-5325 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel
(SEP)et al., 14470-14471 E8-5376 Commerce Commerce Department See Census Bureau See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 14458 08-1046 08-1050 08-1051 Defense Defense Department See Air Force Department See Army Department NOTICES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14458-14459 E8-5396 Education Education Department NOTICES Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; List of Correspondence, 14460-14462 E8-5462 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Indiana, 14389-14391 E8-5287 New Hampshire; Determination of Attainment of the Ozone Standard, 14387-14388 E8-5406 Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification: Beaumont/Port Arthur 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Texas, 14391-14396 E8-5403 PROPOSED RULES Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Indiana, 14426-14427 E8-5288 NOTICES Adequate Status of Massachusetts 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes, 14466-14467 E8-5399 Proposed Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; Chemcentral Midwest Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri, 14467 08-1040 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Honeywell International Inc. ATF3 6 and ATF3 6A Series Turbofan Engines, 14377-14378 E8-5274 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, et al. Airplanes, 14378-14381 E8-5295 IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments, 14381-14384 E8-5372 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 767 200, 300, and 400ER Series Airplanes, 14405-14408 E8-5373 Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX and 900EX Airplanes, 14403-14405 E8-5371 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Philippi, WV, 14408-14409 E8-5170 NOTICES Intent to Rule on Application to Impose Passenger Facility Charge: Panama City/Bay County International Airport, Panama City, FL, 14551-14552 E8-5163 Operating Limitations at Newark Liberty International Airport, 14552-14565 08-1037 FCC Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14467-14468 E8-5407 Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, 14468 E8-5405 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Notice of Filings, 14462-14466 E8-5365 E8-5374 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 14565 08-1054 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System, 14565-14566 E8-5369 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications; Request for Comments, 14480-14482 E8-5377 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor's Name; Iron Injection; Technical Amendment, 14384-14385 E8-5452 New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feed; Zilpaterol, 14385-14386 E8-5450 PROPOSED RULES Defining Small Number of Animals for Minor Use Designation, 14411-14417 E8-5385 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, E8-5361 14471-14472 E8-5384 Kemira Oyj; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use); Partially Ammoniated Formic Acid; Correction, 14472 E8-5453 MISSING FOR: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Application for Flooring and Home Furnishing Products Distribution; Texas, 14432-14433 E8-5459 Approval for Expansion of Authority for Subzone 103A; Imation Enterprise Corp., 14433 E8-5432 Approval for Expansion of Manufacturing Authority: Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co., Anacortes, Washington, 14433-14434 E8-5421 Approval of Manufacturing Authority Within Foreign-Trade Zone 26, Perkins Shibaura Engines LLC, Atlanta, GA, 14434 E8-5441 Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 185: Culpeper County, Virginia, 14434 E8-5422 Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Eastern Shipbuilding Group, Panama City and Allanton, Florida, 14435 E8-5424 Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, Candies Shipbuilders, L.L.C., Houma, Louisiana, 14434-14435 E8-5437 Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, Lilly del Caribe, Inc., Carolina, et al., Puerto Rico, 14435 E8-5439 GSA General Services Administration NOTICES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14458-14459 E8-5396 Federal Management Regulation; Redesignations of Federal Buildings, 14468 E8-5395 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration See Health Resources and Services Administration See National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: American Health Information Community, 14469 E8-5154 American Health Information Community Chronic Care Workgroup, 14470 E8-5160 American Health Information Community Consumer Empowerment Workgroup, 14469 E8-5159 American Health Information Community Electronic Health Records Workgroup, 14469 E8-5158 American Health Information Community Personalized Healthcare Workgroup, 14470 E8-5161 American Health Information Community Population Health and Clinical Care Connections Workgroup, 14470 E8-5162 American Health Information Community Quality Workgroup, 14469 E8-5157 Health Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Organ Transplantation, 14472-14473 E8-5460 Advisory Council on Blood Stem Cell Transplantation, 14473 E8-5461 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14477 E8-5366 Alternative Housing Pilot Program Evaluation Baseline Survey, 14477-14478 E8-5362 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Website Complaint Questionnaire, 14478-14479 E8-5435 Request for Prepayment of Direct Loans on Section 202 and 202/8 Projects, 14479-14480 E8-5364 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau IRS Internal Revenue Service RULES Application of Section 338 to Insurance Companies; Correction, 14386 E8-5333 Stock Transfer Rules; Carryover of Earnings and Taxes; Correction, 14386 E8-5334 PROPOSED RULES Dependent Child of Divorced or Separated Parents or Parents Who live Apart; Hearing, 14417 E8-5451 Guidance Regarding the Effect of Unrelated Business Taxable Income on Charitable Remainder Trusts; Correction, 14417 E8-5336 Multiemployer Plan Funding Guidance, 14417-14426 08-1044 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Sweden, 14436-14437 E8-5420 Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands, 14436 E8-5417 Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts From the People's Republic of China, 14437-14439 E8-5415 Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, From Korea, 14439-14440 E8-5416 Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Sodium Metal from France, 14440-14441 E8-5414 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Ferrovanadium From China and South Africa, 14484-14485 E8-5391 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 14485 E8-5347 Sodium Hexametaphosphate From China, 14485 E8-5392 Justice Justice Department See Antitrust Division NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14485-14488 E8-5382 E8-5411 E8-5412 Lodging of Consent Decree: City of Jacksonville, Florida, 14488-14489 E8-5380 Lodging of Settlement Agreement: ASARCO LLC, et al., 14489 E8-5350 Labor Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14499-14500 E8-5379 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Competitive Coal Lease Sale: Wyoming, 14482-14483 E8-4891 Intent to Prepare an Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, etc., 14483-14484 E8-5368 Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement: Newmont Mining Corporation's Amendment to the Genesis-Bluestar Plan of Operations, Nevada, 14484 E8-3578 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 14500 08-1056 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14458-14459 E8-5396 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Humanities Panels, 14500-14501 E8-5363 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Center for Research Resources, 14474 E8-5317 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 14474-14475 E8-5210 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 14474 E8-5209 National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, 14475 E8-5218 National Institute on Aging, 14474 E8-5205 Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council, 14475 E8-5318 Scientific Review Center, 14475-14476 E8-5206 E8-5212 Nominations for the National Cancer Institute Director's Consumer Liaison Group, 14476-14477 E8-5213 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Taking of Marine Mammal Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations: Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, 14396-14399 08-1042 PROPOSED RULES Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Experimental Permitting Process, Exempted Fishing Permits, and Scientific Research Activity, 14428 E8-5425 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14441 E8-5323 Application for Exempted Fishing Permits; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries, 14441-14442 E8-5348 Meetings: Unified Synthesis Product Development Committee, 14442 E8-5440 Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Port of Anchorage Marine Terminal Redevelopment Project, Anchorage, Alaska, 14443-14453 E8-5431 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Rocket Launches From Kodiak, AK, 14453-14457 E8-5430 E8-5433 U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product Draft Report: Experiments and Evaluations Using Seasonal to Interannual Forecasts and Observational Data, 14457 E8-5423 Trends in Emissions of Ozone Depleting Substances, Layer Recovery, and Implications for Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure, 14457-14458 E8-5443 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Notification of Impending Waiver Termination: Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material, 14376-14377 E8-5390 NOTICES Draft Regulatory Guide; Availability, 14501-14502 E8-5400 Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3; Exemption, 14502-14503 E8-5381 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact: Duke Power Company, LLC; Mcgure Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 14504-14505 E8-5383 Meetings: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes, 14505-14506 E8-5398 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 14506 08-1045 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Exchange-Traded Funds, 14618-14658 E8-5239 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14506-14507 E8-5356 Order Approving and Declaring Effective an Amendment to the Plan for Allocating Regulatory Responsibility: American Stock Exchange LLC et al., 14507-14512 E8-5321 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 14512-14513 E8-5427 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 14514-14516 E8-5353 E8-5354 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 14516-14517 E8-5426 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 14517-14520 E8-5355 E8-5418 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 14520-14521 E8-5351 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 14521-14543 E8-5320 NYSE Arca, Inc., 14543-14544 E8-5352 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 14544-14546 E8-5419 Suspension of Trading Order: Andros Isle Development Corp. et al, 14547-14549 08-1039 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declaration: Florida, 14550 E8-5388 Massachusetts, 14549 E8-5387 Social Social Security Administration RULES Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Immune System Disorders, 14568-14614 E8-5023 PROPOSED RULES Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating HIV Infection, 14409-14411 E8-5022 State State Department NOTICES Designation of Al-Shabaab etc. as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, 14550 E8-5444 Designation of Al-Shabaab, etc. as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, 14550 E8-5438 Renewal of the Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion, 14551 E8-5434 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Abandonment Exemption, East Whiteland Township, Chester County, PA, 14566 E8-4642 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Federal Railroad Administration See Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Transportation for Individuals with Disabilities: Passenger Vessels; comment period reopening and meeting, 14427 08-1036 NOTICES Aviation Proceedings; Agreements filed the week ending November 23, 2007, 14551 E8-5344 Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience, 14551 E8-5346 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special Disabilities Programs, 14567 E8-5319 Special Medical Advisory Group, 14566 E8-5199 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Social Security Administration, 14568-14614 E8-5023 Part III Securities and Exchange Commission, 14618-14658 E8-5239 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 73 53 Tuesday, March 18, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 905 [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0017; FV07-905-610 Review] Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines and Tangelos Grown in Florida; Section 610 Review AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Confirmation of regulations. SUMMARY: This action summarizes the results under the criteria contained in section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), of an Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)review of Marketing Order No. 905, regulating the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos grown in Florida (order). AMS has determined that the order should be continued. ADDRESSES: Interested persons may obtain a copy of the review. Requests for copies should be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax:
(202)720-8938; or E-mail: *moab.docketclerk@usda.gov.* A copy of the review may also be obtained via the Internet at: *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Jamieson or Christian D. Nissen, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Winter Haven, Florida 33884; Telephone:
(863)324-3375; Fax:
(863)325-8793; or E-mail: *Doris.Jamieson@usda.gov* or *Christian.Nissen@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Marketing Order No. 905, as amended (7 CFR part 905), regulates the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos grown in Florida, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The order establishes the Citrus Administrative Committee (Committee) as the administrative body charged with overseeing program operations. Staff is hired to conduct the daily administration of the program. The Committee consists of 18 members. There are nine grower members representing four districts, and eight shipper members representing both independent shippers and cooperative marketing organizations, and one nonindustry member who represents the public. Each member has an alternate. Grower members and alternate members are elected through nomination meetings held in each district. Shipper members and alternate members are elected at a nomination meeting of shippers. The public member and alternate are nominated by the Committee. Currently, there are approximately 8,000 producers and approximately 75 handlers of Florida citrus. The majority of growers and handlers may be classified as small entities. The regulations implemented under the order are applied uniformly and are designed to benefit all entities, regardless of size. AMS published in the **Federal Register** on February 18, 1999 (64 FR 8014), a plan to review certain regulations, including Marketing Order No. 905, under criteria contained in section 610 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Updated plans were published in the **Federal Register** on January 4, 2002 (67 FR 525), August 14, 2003 (68 FR 48574), and again on March 24, 2006 (71 FR 14827). Accordingly, AMS published a notice of review and request for written comments on the Florida citrus marketing order in the June 20, 2007, issue of the **Federal Register** (72 FR 33918). The deadline for comments ended August 20, 2007. Two comments were received in response to the notice, and are discussed later in this document. The review was undertaken to determine whether the Florida citrus marketing order should be continued without being changed, amended, or rescinded to minimize the impacts on small entities. In conducting this review, AMS considered the following factors:
(1)The continued need for the order;
(2)the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the order;
(3)the complexity of the order;
(4)the extent to which the order overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and
(5)the length of time since the order has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the order. The order authorizes grade, size, maturity, and quality regulations, as well as reporting and inspection requirements. The order also authorizes volume regulation by limiting the shipments of any grade or size of any variety. The grade, size, maturity, and inspection regulations are also applied to imported grapefruit and oranges under section 608e of the Act. The grade, size, and maturity requirements have helped maintain demand for Florida citrus over the years by ensuring only quality product reaches the consumer. The volume control provisions of the order have helped stabilize supplies and prices of red seedless grapefruit by preventing the market from being flooded with small sizes during the early part of the season. The compilation and dissemination of aggregate statistical information collection from handlers is used by the industry to make informed production and marketing decisions. Funds to administer the order are obtained from handler assessments. Regarding complaints or comments received from the public concerning the order, AMS received two comments. One comment raised issues concerning country of origin labeling, which is outside the scope of this 610 review. One comment was in favor of the continuation of the order and addressed three of the five factors under consideration by AMS. The commenter noted that the marketing order helps to ensure high quality Florida citrus reaches the fresh market. The commenter also favored the Department's policy of recognizing small businesses and reviewing customer complaints. Marketing order issues and programs are discussed at public meetings, and all interested persons are allowed to express their views. All comments are considered in the decision making process by the Committee and the AMS before any program changes are implemented. In considering the order's complexity, AMS has determined that the order is not unduly complex. During the review, the order was also checked for duplication and overlap with other regulations. AMS did not identify any relevant Federal rules, or State and local regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the marketing order for Florida citrus. The Florida Department of Citrus, a state organization, is authorized to conduct marketing promotion programs and research for the Florida citrus industry. The marketing order currently does not have authority for marketing promotion and research. The order was established in 1939 and was last amended in September, 1989. During the 68 years the order has been effective, AMS and the Florida citrus industry have continuously monitored marketing operations. Changes in regulations have been implemented to reflect current industry operating practices, and to solve marketing problems as they occur. The goal of periodic evaluations is to ensure that the order and the regulations implemented under it fit the needs of the industry and are consistent with the Act. The Committee meets several times a year to discuss the order and the various regulations issued thereunder, and to determine if, or what, changes may be necessary to reflect current industry practices. As a result, regulatory changes have been made numerous times over the years to address industry operation changes and to improve program administration. In addition, in May 2007, the Committee voted to amend the order, recommending several changes including adding the authority for research and promotion under the order. Currently, there is an on-going formal rulemaking proceeding to amend the order (see 73 FR 5130). Based on the potential benefits of the order to producers, handlers, and consumers, AMS has determined that the Florida citrus marketing order should be continued. The order was established to help the Florida citrus industry work with USDA to solve marketing problems. The order's regulations on grade, size, quality, and maturity continue to be beneficial to producers, handlers, and consumers. AMS will continue to work with the Florida citrus industry in maintaining an effective marketing order program. Dated: March 12, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-5359 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Parts 916 and 917 [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0160; FV08-916/917-1 IFR] Nectarines and Peaches Grown in California; Changes in Handling Requirements for Fresh Nectarines and Peaches AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: This rule changes the handling requirements applicable to well matured fruit covered under the nectarine and peach marketing orders (orders). The orders regulate the handling of nectarines and peaches grown in California and are administered locally by the Nectarine Administrative and Peach Commodity Committees (committees). This rule updates the variety-specific size requirements to reflect changes in commercially significant varieties. This will enable handlers to continue to ship fresh nectarines and peaches in a manner that meets consumer needs, increases returns to producers and handlers, and reflects current industry practices. DATES: Effective March 19, 2008; comments received by May 19, 2008 will be considered prior to issuance of any final rule. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax:
(202)720-8938, or Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection at the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Garcia, Marketing Specialist, or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone:
(559)487-5901, Fax:
(559)487-5906; or E-mail: *Jen.Garcia@usda.gov* or *Kurt.Kimmel@usda.gov.* Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:
(202)720-2491, Fax:
(202)720-8938, or E-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Order Nos. 916 and 917, both as amended (7 CFR parts 916 and 917), regulating the handling of nectarines and peaches grown in California, respectively, hereinafter referred to as the “orders.” The orders are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. This rule changes the handling requirements applicable to well matured fruit covered under the nectarine and peach orders. This rule updates the variety-specific size requirements to reflect changes in commercially significant varieties. These changes will enable handlers to continue to ship fresh nectarines and peaches in a manner that meets consumer needs, increases returns to producers and handlers, and reflects current industry practices. Sections 916.52 and 917.41 of the orders provide authority for handling regulations for fresh California nectarines and peaches. The regulations may include grade, size, maturity, quality, pack, and container requirements. The orders also provide that whenever such requirements are in effect, the fruit subject to such regulation must be inspected by the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service (Inspection Service) and certified as meeting the applicable requirements. The nectarine order has been in effect since 1939, and the peach program has been in effect since 1958. The orders have been used over the years to establish a quality control program that includes minimum grades, sizes, and maturity standards. That program has helped improve the quality of product moving from the farm to market, and has helped growers and handlers more effectively market their crops. Additionally, the orders have been used to ensure that only satisfactory quality nectarines and peaches reach the consumer. This has helped increase and maintain market demand over the years. Sections 916.53 and 917.42 authorize the modification, suspension, or termination of regulations issued under §§ 916.52 and 917.41, respectively. Changes in regulations have been implemented to reflect changes in industry operating practices and to solve marketing problems as they arise. The committees meet whenever needed, but at least annually, to discuss the orders and the various regulations in effect and to determine if, or what, changes may be necessary to reflect industry needs. As a result, regulatory changes have been made numerous times over the years to address industry changes and to improve program operations. Currently, handling requirements are in effect for nectarines and peaches packed in containers marked “CA WELL MAT” or “California Well Matured.” The term “well matured” is defined in the orders' rules and regulations, and has been used for many years by the industry to describe a level of maturity higher than the definition of “mature” in the United States Standards for Grades of Nectarines (7 CFR 51.3145 through 51.3160) and United States Standards for Grades of Peaches (7 CFR 51.1210 through 51.1223). Other handling requirements were suspended in 2007 to reduce handler inspection costs. The committees met on December 18, 2007, and unanimously recommended that the handling requirements be revised for the 2008 season, which is expected to begin in April. No official crop estimate was available at the time of the committees' meetings because the nectarine and peach trees were dormant. The committees will recommend a crop estimate at their meetings in early spring. Both orders provide authority (in §§ 916.52 and 917.41) to establish size requirements. Size regulations encourage producers to leave fruit on the tree longer, which improves both the size and maturity of the fruit. Acceptable fruit size provides greater consumer satisfaction and promotes repeat purchases, thereby increasing returns to producers and handlers. In addition, increased fruit size results in increased numbers of packed containers of nectarines and peaches per acre, which is also a benefit to producers and handlers. Varieties recommended for specific size regulations have been reviewed and such recommendations are based on the specific characteristics of each variety. The committees conduct studies each season on the range of sizes attained by the regulated varieties and those varieties with the potential to become regulated, and determine whether revisions to the size requirements are appropriate. *Nectarines:* Section 916.356 of the order's rules and regulations specifies minimum size requirements for fresh nectarines in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(9). This rule revises paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(6) of § 916.356 to establish variety-specific minimum size requirements for 11 varieties of nectarines that were produced in commercially significant quantities of more than 10,000 containers for the first time during the 2007 season. This rule also removes the variety-specific minimum size requirements for four varieties of nectarines whose shipments fell below 5,000 containers during the 2007 season. For example, one of the varieties recommended for addition to the variety-specific minimum size requirements is the Burnecteleven (Summer Flare® 30) variety of nectarines, recommended for regulation at a minimum size 84. A minimum size of 84 means that a packed standard lug box will contain not more than 84 nectarines. Studies of the size ranges attained by the Burnecteleven (Summer Flare® 30) variety revealed that 100 percent of the containers met the minimum size of 84 during the 2006 and 2007 seasons. Sizes ranged from size 30 to size 70, with 9.6 percent of the fruit in the 30 sizes, 50 percent of the packages in the 40 sizes, 32.9 percent in the 50 sizes, 6.2 percent in the 60 sizes, and 1.3 percent in the 70 sizes. A review of other varieties with the same harvesting period indicated that the Burnecteleven (Summer Flare® 30) variety was also comparable to those varieties in its size ranges for that time period. Discussions with handlers known to handle the variety confirm this information regarding minimum size and harvesting period, as well. Thus, the recommendation to place the Burnecteleven (Summer Flare® 30) variety in the variety-specific minimum size regulation at a minimum size 84 is appropriate. This recommendation results from size studies conducted over a two-year period. Historical data such as this provides the committee with the information necessary to recommend the appropriate sizes at which to regulate various nectarine varieties. In addition, producers and handlers of the varieties affected are personally invited to comment when such size recommendations are deliberated. Producer and handler comments are also considered at both committee and subcommittee meetings when the staff receives such comments, either in writing or verbally. For reasons similar to those discussed in the preceding paragraph, paragraph(a)(3) of § 916.356 is revised to include the Polar Ice and Polar Light nectarine varieties; paragraph (a)(4) of § 916.356 is revised to include the Burnectthirteen (Snow Flare® 22), Burnectfourteen (Snow Flare® 21), and White Sun nectarine varieties; and paragraph (a)(6) of § 916.356 is revised to include the Burnecteleven (Summer Flare® 30), Burnectfifteen (Summer Flare® 27), Grand Bright, La Reina, Saucer, and Sugar Pearl TM nectarine varieties.xxx This rule also revises paragraph (a)(6) of § 916.356 to remove the August Snow, Prima Diamond XVIII, Sparkling Red, and Summer Grand nectarine varieties from the variety-specific minimum size requirements because fewer than 5,000 containers of each of these varieties were produced during the 2007 season. Nectarine varieties removed from the nectarine variety-specific minimum size requirements become subject to the non-listed variety size requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(7), (a)(8), and (a)(9) of § 916.356. *Peaches:* Section 917.459 of the order's rules and regulations specifies minimum size requirements for fresh peaches in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(6), and paragraphs
(b)and (c). This rule revises paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of § 917.459 to establish variety-specific minimum size requirements for 15 peach varieties that were produced in commercially significant quantities of more than 10,000 containers for the first time during the 2007 season. This rule also removes the variety-specific minimum size requirements for eight varieties of peaches whose shipments fell below 5,000 containers during the 2007 season. For example, one of the varieties recommended for addition to the variety-specific minimum size requirements is the Super Lady variety of peaches, which was recommended for regulation at a minimum size 96. A minimum size of 96 means that a packed standard lug box contains not more than 96 peaches. Studies of the size ranges attained by the Super Lady variety revealed that 98.9 percent of the containers met the minimum size of 96 during the 2006 and 2007 seasons. The sizes ranged from size 40 to size 96, with 6.9 percent of the containers meeting the size 40, 4 percent meeting the size 50, 20.5 percent meeting the size 60, 29.8 percent meeting the size 70, 15.6 percent meeting the size 80, 4.5 percent meeting the size 84, 4.9 percent meeting the size 88, and 12.7 percent meeting the size 96 in the 2007 season. A review of other varieties with the same harvesting period indicated that the Super Lady variety was also comparable to those varieties in its size ranges for that time period. Discussions with handlers known to pack the variety confirm this information regarding minimum size and the harvesting period, as well. Thus, the recommendation to place the Super Lady variety in the variety-specific minimum size regulation at a minimum size 96 is appropriate. Historical data such as this provides the committee with the information necessary to recommend the appropriate sizes at which to regulate various peach varieties. In addition, producers and handlers of the varieties affected are personally invited to comment when such size recommendations are deliberated. Producer and handler comments are also considered at committee meetings when the staff receives such comments, either in writing or verbally. For reasons similar to those discussed in the preceding paragraph, paragraph (a)(2) of § 917.459 is revised to include the Supechfifteen and Super Lady peach varieties; paragraph (a)(5) of § 917.459 is revised to include the Crimson Queen, Sauzee Queen, and Supechnine peach varieties; and paragraph (a)(6) of § 917.459 is revised to include the Burpeachtwentyone (Summer Flame® 26), Candy Princess, Jasper Flame, Natures #10, Peach-N-Cream, Queen Jewel, September Blaze, Strawberry, Summer Fling, and Sweet Henry peach varieties. This rule also revises paragraph (a)(2) of § 917.459 to remove the Sugar Snow peach variety; paragraph (a)(3) of § 917.459 to remove the May Snow peach variety; paragraph (a)(5) of § 917.459 to remove the Raspberry, Sugar Jewel, and Sunlit Snow peach varieties; and paragraph (a)(6) of § 917.459 to remove the Late Ito Red, Magenta Gold, and Scarlet Snow peach varieties from the variety-specific minimum size requirements because less than 5,000 containers of each of these varieties was produced during the 2007 season. Peach varieties removed from the peach variety-specific minimum size requirements become subject to the non-listed variety size requirements specified in paragraphs
(b)and
(c)of § 917.459. The committees recommended these changes in the minimum size requirements based on a continuing review of the sizing and maturity relationships for these nectarine and peach varieties, and the consumer acceptance levels for various fruit sizes. This rule is designed to establish minimum size requirements for fresh nectarines and peaches consistent with expected crop and market conditions. This should help establish and maintain orderly marketing conditions for these fruits in the interests of producers, handlers, and consumers. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility. Industry Information There are approximately 145 California nectarine and peach handlers subject to regulation under the orders covering nectarines and peaches grown in California, and about 550 producers of these fruits in California. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers, are defined by the Small Business Administration
(SBA)(13 CFR 121.201) as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000. Small agricultural producers are defined by the SBA as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000. A majority of these handlers and producers may be classified as small entities. The committees' staff has estimated that there are fewer than 30 handlers in the industry who would not be considered small entities. For the 2007 season, the committees' staff estimated that the average handler price received was $9.00 per container or container equivalent of nectarines or peaches. A handler would have to ship at least 722,223 containers to have annual receipts of $6,500,000. Given data on shipments maintained by the committees' staff and the average handler price received during the 2007 season, the committees' staff estimates that small handlers represent approximately 80 percent of all the handlers within the industry. The committees' staff has also estimated that fewer than 65 producers in the industry would not be considered small entities. For the 2007 season, the committees estimated the average producer price received was $4.50 per container or container equivalent for nectarines and peaches. A producer would have to produce at least 166,667 containers of nectarines and peaches to have annual receipts of $750,000. Given data maintained by the committees' staff and the average producer price received during the 2007 season, the committees' staff estimates that small producers represent more than 88 percent of the producers within the industry. With an average producer price of $4.50 per container or container equivalent, and a combined packout of nectarines and peaches of 42,382,098 containers, the value of the 2007 packout is estimated to be $190,719,441. Dividing this total estimated grower revenue figure by the estimated number of producers
(550)yields an estimate of average revenue per producer of about $346,763 from the sales of peaches and nectarines. Under authority provided in §§ 916.52 and 917.41 of the orders, grade, size, maturity, pack, and container marking requirements are established for fresh shipments of California nectarines and peaches, respectively. Such requirements are in effect on a continuing basis. Sections 916.356 and 917.459 of the orders' rules and regulations establish minimum sizes for various varieties of nectarines and peaches. This rule makes adjustments to the minimum sizes authorized for certain varieties of each commodity for the 2008 season. Minimum size regulations are put in place to encourage producers to leave fruit on the trees for a longer period of time, increasing both maturity and fruit size. Increased fruit size increases the number of packed containers per acre, and coupled with heightened maturity levels, also provides greater consumer satisfaction, which in turn fosters repeat purchases that benefit producers and handlers alike. Annual adjustments to minimum sizes of nectarines and peaches, such as these, are recommended by the committees based upon historical data, producer and handler information regarding sizes attained by different varieties, and trends in consumer purchases. An alternative to such action would include not establishing minimum size regulations for these new varieties. Such an action, however, would be a significant departure from the committees' past practices and represent a significant change in the regulations as they currently exist. For these reasons, this alternative was not recommended. The committees make recommendations regarding the revisions in handling requirements after considering all available information, including comments received by committee staff. At the meetings, the impact of and alternatives to these recommendations are deliberated. The committees consist of individual producers and handlers with many years of experience in the industry who are familiar with industry practices and trends. All committee meetings are open to the public and comments are widely solicited. In addition, minutes of all meetings are distributed to committee members and others who have requested them, and are also available on the committees' Web site, thereby increasing the availability of this critical information within the industry. Regarding the impact of this action on the affected entities, both large and small entities are expected to benefit from the changes, and the costs of compliance are not expected to be significantly different between large and small entities. This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large nectarine and peach handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. AMS 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. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. Further, the committees' meetings were widely publicized throughout the nectarine and peach industry and all interested parties were invited to attend the meetings and participate in committee deliberations. Like all committee meetings, the December 18, 2007, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Also, the committees have a number of appointed subcommittees to review certain issues and make recommendations to the committees. The committees' Tree Fruit Quality Subcommittee met on December 11, 2007, and discussed this issue in detail. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on this interim final rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at the following Web site: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. This rule invites comments on changes to the handling requirements currently prescribed under the marketing orders for California fresh nectarines and peaches. Any comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule. After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the committees' recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim final rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined, upon good cause, that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** because:
(1)This rule should be implemented as soon as possible, since shipments of California nectarines and peaches are expected to begin in early April;
(2)the committees met and unanimously recommended these changes at public meetings, and interested persons had opportunities to provide input at all those meetings; and
(3)the rule provides a 60-day comment period, and any written comments timely received will be considered prior to any finalization of this interim final rule. List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 916 Marketing agreements, Nectarines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 7 CFR Part 917 Marketing agreements, Peaches, Pears, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 916 and 917 are amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR parts 916 and 917 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. PART 916—NECTARINES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 2. Section 916.356 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(6) to read as follows: § 916.356 California nectarine grade and size regulation.
(3)Any package or container of Mayglo variety of nectarines on or after May 6 of each year, or Burnectfive (Spring Flare® 21), Burnectten (Spring Flare® 19), Crimson Baby, Earliglo, Polar Ice, Polar Light, Red Jewel or Zee Fire variety nectarines unless:
(4)Any package or container of Arctic Star, Burnectone (Spring Ray®), Burnecttwelve (Sweet Flair® 21), Burnectthirteen (Snow Flare® 22), Burnectfourteen (Snow Flare® 21), Diamond Bright, Diamond Pearl, Early Pearl, Gee Sweet, June Pearl, Kay Fire, Kay Glo, Kay Sweet, Prima Diamond IV, Prima Diamond VI, Prima Diamond XIII, Prince Jim, Prince Jim 1, Red Roy, Rose Bright, Rose Diamond, Royal Glo, White Sun, or Zee Grand variety nectarines unless:
(6)Any package or container of Alta Red, Arctic Belle, Arctic Blaze, Arctic Gold, Arctic Ice, Arctic Jay, Arctic Mist, Arctic Pride, Arctic Queen, Arctic Snow (White Jewel), Arctic Sweet, August Bright, August Fire, August Glo, August Lion, August Pearl, August Red, August Sweet, Autumn Blaze, Big Jim, Bright Pearl, Burnectfour (Summer Flare® 35), Burnectseven (Summer Flare® 28), Burnecteleven (Summer Flare® 30), Burnectfifteen (Summer Flare® 27), Burnectseventeen (Summer Flare® 32), Candy Gold, Candy Pearl, Diamond Ray, Early Red Jim, Fire Pearl, Fire Sweet, Flaming Red, Giant Pearl, Grand Bright, Grand Candy, Grand Pearl, Grand Sweet, Honey Blaze, Honey Dew, Honey Diva, Honey Fire, Honey Kist, Honey Royale, July Pearl, July Red, Kay Pearl, La Pinta, La Reina, Larry's Red, Late Red Jim, Mike's Red, P-R Red, Prima Diamond VII, Prima Diamond IX, Prima Diamond X, Prima Diamond XIX, Prima Diamond XXIV, Prima Diamond XXVIII, Prince Jim 3, Red Diamond, Red Glen, Red Jim, Red Pearl, Regal Pearl, Regal Red, Royal Giant, Ruby Diamond, Ruby Pearl, Ruby Sweet, Saucer, September Bright (26P-490), September Free, September Red, Sparkling June, Spring Bright, Spring Pearl TM , Spring Sweet, Sugar Pearl TM , Sugarine, Summer Blush, Summer Bright, Summer Diamond, Summer Fire, Summer Jewel, Summer Lion, Summer Red, Sunburst, Sun Valley Sweet, Terra White, Zee Glo or Zephyr variety nectarines unless: PART 917—FRESH PEARS AND PEACHES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 3. Section 917.459 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5) and (a)(6) to read as follows: § 917.459 California peach grade and size regulation.
(2)Any package or container of April Snow, Earlitreat, Snow Angel, Supeachsix (91002), Supechfifteen, or Super Lady variety peaches unless:
(3)Any package or container of Island Prince, Snow Kist, Snow Peak or Super Rich variety peaches unless:
(5)Any package or container of Babcock, Bev's Red, Bright Princess, Brittney Lane, Burpeachone (Spring Flame® 21), Burpeachfourteen (Spring Flame® 20), Burpeachnineteen (Spring Flame® 22), Candy Red, Crimson Lady, Crimson Queen, Crown Princess, David Sun, Early May Crest, Flavorcrest, Honey Sweet, Ivory Queen, June Lady, Magenta Queen, May Crest, May Sweet, Prima Peach IV, Queencrest, Rich May, Sauzee Queen, Scarlet Queen, Sierra Snow, Snow Brite, Springcrest, Spring Lady, Spring Snow, Springtreat (60EF32), Sugar Time (214LC68), Supecheight (012-094), Supechnine, Sweet Scarlet, Sweet Crest or Zee Diamond variety peaches unless:
(6)Any package or container of August Lady, Autumn Flame, Autumn Red, Autumn Rich, Autumn Rose, Autumn Snow, Burpeachtwo (Henry II®), Burpeachthree (September Flame®), Burpeachfour (August Flame®), Burpeachfive (July Flame®), Burpeachsix (June Flame®), Burpeachseven (Summer Flame® 29), Burpeachfifteen (Summer Flame® 34), Burpeachsixteen, Burpeachtwenty (Summer Flame®), Burpeachtwentyone (Summer Flame® 26), Candy Princess, Coral Princess, Country Sweet, Diamond Princess, Earlirich, Early Elegant Lady, Elegant Lady, Fancy Lady, Fay Elberta, Full Moon, Galaxy, Glacier White, Henry III, Henry IV, Ice Princess, Ivory Princess, Jasper Flame, Jasper Treasure, Jillie White, Joanna Sweet, John Henry, Kaweah, Klondike, Last Tango, Natures #10, O'Henry, Peach-N-Cream, Pink Giant, Pink Moon, Prima Gattie 8, Prima Peach 13, Prima Peach XV, Prima Peach 20, Prima Peach 23, Prima Peach XXVII, Princess Gayle, Queen Jewel, Rich Lady, Royal Lady, Ruby Queen, Ryan Sun, Saturn (Donut), September Blaze, September Snow, September Sun, Sierra Gem, Sierra Rich, Snow Beauty, Snow Blaze, Snow Fall, Snow Gem, Snow Giant, Snow Jewel, Snow King, Snow Magic, Snow Princess, Sprague Last Chance, Spring Candy, Strawberry, Sugar Crisp, Sugar Giant, Sugar Lady, Summer Dragon, Summer Fling, Summer Lady, Summer Sweet, Summer Zee, Sweet Blaze, Sweet Dream, Sweet Henry, Sweet Kay, Sweet September, Tra Zee, Valley Sweet, Vista, White Lady, or Zee Lady variety peaches unless: Dated: March 12, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-5357 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Chapter I RIN 3150-AH84 Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material; Notification of Impending Waiver Termination AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of impending waiver termination. SUMMARY: Section 651(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) authorized the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission or NRC) to issue a time-limited waiver (70 FR 51581; August 31, 2005) to allow continued use and possession of naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials
(NARM)while the Commission developed a regulatory framework for regulation of the new byproduct material. The Commission has begun terminating the time-limited waiver in phases in accordance to the provisions of the “Plan for the Transition of Regulatory Authority Resulting from the Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material” (transition plan) issued by the Commission on October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59157). The first phase of waiver terminations occurred on November 30, 2007. This document provides advance notification that on September 30, 2008, the Commission will terminate the time-limited waivers for the following non-Agreement States and remaining U.S. Territories that have been included in Phase 2. Guam, Idaho, Missouri, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and all territories and possessions of the U.S. that were not identified as part of the first phase of waiver terminations. As provided in the transition plan, users of NARM in non-Agreement States and U.S. Territories will be required to
(1)apply for license amendments for the new byproduct material within 6 months from the date the waiver is terminated, if they hold an NRC specific byproduct materials license; or
(2)submit a license application for the new byproduct material within 12 months from the date the waiver is terminated for their State or territory. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim K. Lukes, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6701 or e-mail *KXK2@NRC.GOV.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of March, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-5390 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29092; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-30-AD; Amendment 39-15431; AD 2008-06-19] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. ATF3-6 and ATF3-6A Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for Honeywell International Inc. ATF3-6 and ATF3-6A series turbofan engines equipped with a certain part number (P/N) low pressure compressor
(LPC)aft shaft. This AD requires removing from service those LPC aft shafts and installing a serviceable LPC aft shaft. This AD results from reports of eight LPC aft shafts found cracked during fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI). We are issuing this AD to prevent uncoupling and overspeed of the low pressure turbine, which could result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD from Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th St., Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; Web site: *http://portal.honeywell.com/wps/portal/aero;* telephone
(800)601-3099. The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; e-mail: *joseph.costa@faa.gov;* telephone:
(562)627-5246; fax:
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. ATF3-6 and ATF3-6A series turbofan engines equipped with a certain part numbered LPC aft shaft. We published the proposed AD in the **Federal Register** on October 5, 2007 (72 FR 56945). That action proposed to require removing LPC aft shafts, P/N 3002070-1, from service and installing serviceable LPC aft shafts. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 32 ATF3-6 and ATF3-6A series turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 40 work-hours per engine to perform the actions if unscheduled, 20 work-hours per engine if during scheduled major periodic inspection (MPI), and 1 work-hour per engine during scheduled core zone inspection (CZI). We estimate that four engines would be unscheduled, 14 engines would be scheduled at MPI, and 14 engines would be scheduled at CZI. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $15,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $516,320. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **2008-06-19 Honeywell International Inc. (formerly AlliedSignal Inc. and Garrett Turbine Engine Co.):** Amendment 39-15431. Docket No. FAA-2007-29092; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-30-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective April 22, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. ATF3-6-4C, ATF3-6A-3C, and ATF3-6A-4C turbofan engines equipped with part number (P/N) 3002070-1 low pressure compressor
(LPC)Aft shaft. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Dassault Aviation Fan Jet Falcon Series G (Falcon 20G/HU25), and Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 200 airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of eight LPC aft shafts found cracked during fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI). We are issuing this AD to prevent uncoupling and overspeed of the low pressure turbine, which could result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified in Table 1 and Table 2 of this AD, unless the actions have already been done. Table 1.—ATF3-6A-4C Turbofan Engines, LPC Aft Shaft Replacement Compliance Schedule For ATF3-6A-4C turbofan engines, if the cycles-since-new
(CSN)on the effective date of this AD are: Then replace the LPC Aft shaft:
(1)6,500 or more CSN Within an additional 100 cycles-in-service (CIS).
(2)5,000 to 6,499 CSN Within an additional 800 CIS, but not more than 6,600 CSN, whichever occurs first.
(3)4,000 to 4,999 CSN Within an additional 1,500 CIS, but not more than 5,800 CSN, whichever occurs first.
(4)Fewer than 4,000 CSN Within an additional 2,000 CIS, but not more than 5,500 CSN, whichever occurs first. Table 2.—ATF3-6-4C and ATF3-6A-3C Turbofan Engines, LPC Aft Shaft Replacement Compliance Schedule For ATF3-6-4C and ATF3-6A-3C turbofan engines, if the CSN on the effective date of this AD are: Then replace the LPC Aft shaft:
(1)4,400 or more CSN Within an additional 100 CIS.
(2)3,600 to 4,399 CSN Within an additional 500 CIS, but not more than 4,500 CSN, whichever occurs first.
(3)3,300 to 3,599 CSN Within an additional 700 CIS, but not more than 4,100 CSN, whichever occurs first.
(4)Fewer than 3,300 CSN Within an additional 1,000 CIS, but not more than 4,000 CSN, whichever occurs first. LPC Aft Shaft Replacement
(f)Using the compliance schedule in Table 1 or Table 2 of this AD as applicable, remove the LPC aft shaft, P/N 3002070-1, from service, and install a serviceable LPC aft shaft. Definition
(g)For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable LPC aft shaft is an aft shaft with a P/N not referenced in this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(h)The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(i)Honeywell International Inc. Service Bulletin No. ATF3-72-6240, Revision 1, dated May 14, 2007, pertains to the subject of this AD.
(j)Contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood CA 90712-4137; e-mail: *joseph.costa@faa.gov;* telephone:
(562)627-5246; fax:
(562)627-5210, for more information about this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(k)None. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 10, 2008. Robert J. Ganley, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5274 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0216; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-122-AD; Amendment 39-15435; AD 2008-06-23] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-70, DC-8-60F, and DC-8-70F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-70, DC-8-60F, and DC-8-70F series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires a one-time inspection for previous repairs of the aft fuselage skin panel at the longeron 28 skin splice, repetitive inspections for cracks of the same area, and related investigative and corrective actions. The existing AD also provides optional actions for extending the repetitive inspection intervals. This new AD re-defines and more clearly describes the optional actions for extending the repetitive inspection intervals. This AD results from our determination that the inspections and actions described in the existing AD do not adequately address the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the aft fuselage skin at the longeron 28 skin splice, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the aft fuselage, resulting in rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 22, 2008. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 28, 2007 (72 FR 3044, January 24, 2007). ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Mowery, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5322; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2007-02-02, amendment 39-14889 (72 FR 3044, January 24, 2007). The existing AD applies to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-70, DC-8-60F, and DC-8-70F series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 21, 2007 (72 FR 65471). That NPRM proposed to continue to require a one-time inspection for previous repairs of the aft fuselage skin panel at the longeron 28 skin splice, repetitive inspections for cracking of the same area, and related investigative and corrective actions. That NPRM also proposed to re-define and more clearly describe the optional actions for extending the repetitive inspection intervals. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment that was received on the NPRM. Request To Give Credit for Prior Submission of Inspection Findings UPS agrees with the intent of the NPRM. UPS requests, however, that we revise paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of the NPRM to specify submitting positive findings “unless previously submitted to Boeing for compliance with AD 2007-02-02.” UPS asserts that this would allow all alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that apply to AD 2007-02-02 to be applicable to this new AD “as per paragraph (k)(4) [ *sic* ].” UPS states that this will prevent operators from having to submit data already submitted previously for AD 2007-02-02, and again requesting AMOC approval. We do not agree with this request. Operators are always given credit for work previously performed according to the existing AD by means of the phrase in the compliance paragraph of this AD that states, “Required * * * unless the actions have already been done.” In addition, paragraph (l)(4) of this AD (rather than paragraph (k)(4) as specified by the commenter) states that AMOCs approved for compliance with AD 2007-02-02 are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding provisions of this AD. For these reasons, no change is needed to the AD in this regard. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment that has been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are approximately 508 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 244 airplanes of U.S. registry are affected by this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. This AD adds no additional costs; however, we are repeating the costs from AD 2007-02-02 for the convenience of affected operators. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Cost per airplane Fleet cost Initial inspection for doubler installation 2 to 4 $160 to $320 $39,040 to $78,080. Repetitive inspections (per inspection cycle) 2 to 8 $160 to $640 $39,040 to $156,160. Repair 164 to 184 $13,120 to $14,720 $3,201,280 to $3,591,680. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14889 (72 FR 3044, January 24, 2007) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2008-06-23 McDonnell Douglas:** Amendment 39-15435. Docket No. FAA-2007-0216; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-122-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective April 22, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2007-02-02. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, DC-8F-55, DC-8-61, DC-8-62, DC-8-63, DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, DC-8-63F, DC-8-71, DC-8-72, DC-8-73, DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-73F airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from our determination that the inspections and actions described in the existing AD do not adequately address the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the aft fuselage skin at the longeron 28 skin splice, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the aft fuselage, resulting in rapid decompression of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Requirements of AD 2007-02-02 One-Time Inspection for Previous Repairs
(f)For all airplanes: At the applicable time in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, do a general visual inspection to determine if there are previous repairs of the aft fuselage skin panel at the longeron 28 skin splice; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. Then do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD.
(1)For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 24,000 total flight cycles as of February 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-02-02): Within 24 months after February 28, 2007, or prior to accumulating 24,000 total flight cycles, whichever occurs later.
(2)For airplanes that have accumulated 24,000 total flight cycles or more as of February 28, 2007: Within 12 months after February 28, 2007. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Repetitive Inspections for Areas That Do Not Have a Previous Repair
(g)For areas that do not have a previous repair: Before further flight after the initial inspection in paragraph
(f)of this AD, do general visual and high-frequency eddy current
(HFEC)inspections for discrepancies at longeron 28 between the bolted connection of the tail section to forward of the flat aft pressure bulkhead, on both the left and right sides, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. Repeat the general visual and HFEC inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles until an optional action in paragraph
(i)of this AD is accomplished. Repetitive Inspections and Repair for Areas That Have a Previous Repair
(h)For areas that have a previous repair: Within 24 months after accomplishing the initial inspection in paragraph
(f)of this AD, remove the previous repair(s), and install a local repair, in accordance with Boeing DC-8 Service Rework Drawing SR08530032, dated January 13, 2004, including Boeing Parts List PL SR08530032, dated January 7, 2004, Boeing Advance Engineering Order, Advanced Drawing Change A, dated April 1, 2004, and Boeing Engineering Order, dated January 13, 2004. Do the inspections in paragraph
(j)of this AD thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. New Requirements of This AD Optional Modification/Repair
(i)Installing a full-length preventive modification, doing a full-length repair, or doing a local repair, in accordance with Boeing DC-8 Service Rework Drawing SR08530032, dated January 13, 2004, including Boeing Parts List PL SR08530032, dated January 7, 2004; Boeing Advance Engineering Order, Advanced Drawing Change A, dated April 1, 2004; and Boeing Engineering Order, dated January 13, 2004; ends the repetitive inspection intervals specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD. Extended Repetitive Inspection Intervals
(j)After removing the previous repair(s) and doing the actions specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD or doing any optional repair or modification described in paragraph
(i)of this AD: Do the actions described in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. If any discrepancy is discovered during any inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair the discrepancy using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(l)of this AD.
(1)For areas that have been repaired on airplanes that do have internal finger doublers installed: Within 30,000 flight cycles after doing the optional repair or modification, do a general visual inspection for discrepancies along all four external edges of the doublers. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles.
(2)For areas that have been repaired on airplanes that do not have internal finger doublers installed: Do the actions specified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i)For any repair that is 12 inches or less along the longeron: Within 15,000 flight cycles after removing the previous repair(s) and doing the actions specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD or doing any optional repair or modification specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD, do a general visual inspection for discrepancies along all four external edges of the doublers. Repeat the general visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles.
(ii)For any repair that is greater than 12 inches in length along the longeron: Within 15,000 flight cycles after removing the previous repair(s) and doing the actions specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD or doing any optional repair or modification specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD, do a low-frequency eddy current
(LFEC)inspection for discrepancies along all four external edges of the doublers. Repeat the LFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10,000 flight cycles. Reporting of Results
(k)Submit a report of positive findings of the inspections required by paragraphs
(g)and
(j)of this AD to Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Manager, Structure/Payloads, Technical and Fleet Support, Service Engineering/Commercial Aviation Services, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD. The report must include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane fuselage number, and the total number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Information collection requirements contained in this AD have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(1)For any inspection accomplished after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after performing the inspection.
(2)For any inspection accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2007-02-02, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(m)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004; and Boeing DC-8 Service Rework Drawing SR08530032, dated January 13, 2004, including Boeing Parts List PL SR08530032, dated January 7, 2004, Boeing Advance Engineering Order, Advanced Drawing Change A, dated April 1, 2004, and Boeing Engineering Order, dated January 13, 2004; as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)On February 28, 2007 (72 FR 3044, January 24, 2007), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents.
(2)Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 9, 2008. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5295 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 95 [Docket No. 30599; Amdt. No. 473] IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas. DATES: *Effective Date:* 0901 UTC, April 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone:
(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points
(COPs)for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95. The Rule The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95 Airspace, Navigation (air). Issued in Washington, DC on March 11, 2008. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, April 10, 2008. 1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721. 2. Part 95 is amended as follows: Revisions to IFR Altitudes & Changeover Points [Amendment 473 effective date April 10, 2008 ] From To MEA § 95.6001 Victor Routes—U.S. § 95.6001 VOR Federal Airway V1 Is Amended To Read in Part Salisbury, MD VORTAC Waterloo, DE VOR/DME *2000 *1500—MOCA § 95.6006 VOR Federal Airway V6 Is Amended To Read in Part Selinsgrove, PA VORTAC Snowy, PA FIX *5000 *3500—MOCA *4000—GNSS MEA Snowy, PA FIX Allentown, PA VORTAC *4000 *3300—MOCA § 95.6008 VOR Federal Airway V8 Is Amended To Read in Part Matzo, UT FIX Bryce Canyon, UT VORTAC 12300 § 95.6016 VOR Federal Airway V16 Is Amended To Read in Part Tappa, VA FIX Colin, VA FIX *5000 *1500—MOCA *2000—GNSS MEA Colin, VA FIX Patuxent, MD VORTAC *5000 *1400—MOCA *2000—GNSS MEA § 95.6020 VOR Federal Airway V20 Is Amended To Read in Part Tappa, VA FIX Colin, VA FIX *5000 *1500—MOCA *2000—GNSS MEA Colin, VA FIX Nottingham, MD VORTAC *10000 *1800—MOCA *2000—GNSS MEA § 95.6025 VOR Federal Airway V25 Is Amended To Read in Part Los Angeles, CA VORTAC *Merma, CA FIX 2000 *3000—MRA *Merma, CA FIX Exert, CA FIX 2000 *3000—MRA § 95.6031 VOR Federal Airway V31 Is Amended To Read in Part Vinny, PA FIX *Suede, PA FIX **12000 *4500—MRA **5000—GNSS MEA Suede, PA FIX Gramo, PA FIX **12000 **5000—GNSS MEA Gramo, PA FIX Harrisburg, PA VORTAC *7000 *5000—GNSS MEA § 95.6033 VOR Federal Airway V33 Is Amended To Read in Part Colin, VA FIX Nottingham, MD VORTAC *10000 *1800—MOCA *2000—GNSS MEA Vinny, PA FIX *Suede, PA FIX **12000 *4500—MRA **5000—GNSS MEA Suede, PA FIX Gramo, PA FIX **12000 **5000—GNSS MEA Gramo, PA FIX Harrisburg, PA VORTAC *7000 *5000—GNSS MEA § 95.6058 VOR Federal Airway V58 Is Amended To Read in Part *Eared, PA FIX Philipsburg, PA VORTAC **6000 *4000—MRA **4100—MOCA **5000—GNSS MEA § 95.6063 VOR Federal Airway V63 Is Amended To Read in Part Wausau, WI VORTAC Rhinelander, WI VORTAC #*4000 *3500—MOCA #USE AUW 005 RHI 185 UNUSABLE. § 95.6091 VOR Federal Airway V91 Is Amended To Read in Part Albany, NY VORTAC Glens Falls, NY VORTAC *7000 *5000—GNSS MEA Glens Falls, NY VORTAC Enson, VT FIX *10000 *5000—GNSS MEA § 95.6099 VOR Federal Airway V99 Is Amended To Read in Part Outte, CT FIX Sorry, CT FIX *10000 *4000—GNSS MEA § 95.6106 VOR Federal Airway V106 Is Amended To Read in Part Raymy, NH FIX Kennebunk, ME VORTAC *5500 *2200—MOCA *3000—GNSS MEA § 95.6130 VOR Federal Airway V130 Is Amended To Read in Part Albany, NY VORTAC Stela, MA FIX *6000 *3900—MOCA *4000—GNSS MEA Stela, MA FIX Bradley, CT VORTAC 3900 Bradley, CT VORTAC Norwich, CT VOR/DME 2600 § 95.6146 VOR Federal Airway V146 Is Amended To Read in Part Albany, NY VORTAC Chester, MA VOR/DME 4100 § 95.6157 VOR Federal Airway V157 Is Amended To Read in Part Tappa, VA FIX Colin, VA FIX *5000 *1500—MOCA *2000—GNSS MEA Colin, VA FIX Patuxent, MD VORTAC *5000 *1400—MOCA *2000—GNSS MEA § 95.6165 VOR Federal Airway V165 Is Amended To Read in Part Los Angeles, CA VORTAC *Valey, CA FIX 4000 *5600—MCA VALEY, CA FIX, N BND § 95.6210 VOR Federal Airway V210 Is Amended To Read in Part Lancaster, PA VORTAC Spery, PA FIX 2800 Spery, PA FIX Yardley, PA VOR/DME *3000 *2200—MOCA § 95.6213 VOR Federal Airway V213 Is Amended To Read in Part Tappa, VA FIX Colin, VA FIX *5000 *1500—MOCA *2000—GNSS MEA Colin, VA FIX Patuxent, MD VORTAC *5000 *1400—MOCA *2000—GNSS MEA § 95.6489 VOR Federal Airway V489 Is Amended To Read in Part Albany, NY VORTAC Glens Falls, NY VORTAC *7000 *5000—GNSS MEA Glens Falls, NY VORTAC *Fairb, NY FIX 6000 *8000—MRA *Fairb, NY FIX Leafy, NY FIX **8000 *8000—MRA **6000—GNSS MEA From To MEA MAA § 95.7001 Jet Routes § 95.7029 Jet Route J29 Is Amended To Read in Part Humble, TX VORTAC El Dorado, AR VORTAC 18000 45000 § 95.7101 Jet Route J101 Is Amended To Read in Part Lufkin, TX VORTAC Little Rock, AR VORTAC 18300 45000 Airway segment From To Changeover points Distance From § 95.8003 VOR Federal Airway Changeover Points Is Amended To Delete Changeover Point V59: Beckley, WV VORTAC Pulaski, VA VORTAC 46 Beckley Is Amended To Add Changeover Point V59: Beckley, WV VORTAC Parkersburg, WV VORTAC 46 Beckley [FR Doc. E8-5372 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 510 and 522 New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor's Name; Iron Injection; Technical Amendment AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor's name from Animal Health Pharmaceuticals, LLC, to Pharmacosmos, Inc. DATES: This rule is effective March 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Newkirk, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8307, e-mail: *david.newkirk@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Animal Health Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 1805 Oak Ridge Circle, suite 101, St. Joseph, MO 64506, has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, NADA 106-772 for Iron-GARD Injection 100 milligrams per milliliter (mg/mL) and NADA 134-708 for Iron-GARD Injection 200 mg/mL to Pharmacosmos, Inc., 776 Mountain Blvd., Watchung, NJ 07069. Accordingly, the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.1182 to reflect these changes of sponsorship. In addition, Pharmacosmos, Inc., is not currently listed in the animal drug regulations as a sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly, 21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to add entries for Pharmacosmos, Inc. 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 21 CFR Part 510 Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 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 parts 510 and 522 are amended as follows: PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e. 2. In § 510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1) alphabetically add a new entry for “Pharmacosmos, Inc.”; and in the table in paragraph (c)(2) numerically add a new entry for “042552” to read as follows: § 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of approved applications.
(c)* * *
(1)* * * Firm name and address Drug labeler code * * * * * Pharmacosmos, Inc., 776 Mountain Blvd.,Watchung, NJ 07069 042552 * * * * *
(2)* * * Drug labeler code Firm name and address * * * * * 042552 Pharmacosmos, Inc., 776 Mountain Blvd.,Watchung, NJ 07069 * * * * * PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. § 522.1182 [Amended] 4. In § 522.1182, in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(7) remove “059130 and 068718” and add in its place “042552 and 059130”. Dated: March 6, 2008. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E8-5452 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 558 New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feed; Zilpaterol 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 new animal drug application
(NADA)filed by Intervet, Inc. The NADA provides for use of approved, single-ingredient zilpaterol hydrochloride and monensin U.S.P. Type A medicated articles to make two-way combination Type B and Type C medicated feeds for cattle fed in confinement for slaughter. DATES: This rule is effective March 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerald L. Rushin, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-126), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8103, e-mail: *gerald.rushin@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Intervet, Inc., P.O. Box 318, 29160 Intervet Lane, Millsboro, DE 19966, filed NADA 141-278 that provides for use of ZILMAX (zilpaterol hydrochloride) and RUMENSIN (monensin U.S.P.) Type A medicated articles to make dry and liquid, two-way combination Type B and Type C medicated feeds used for increased rate of weight gain, improved feed efficiency, and increased carcass leanness; and for prevention and control of coccidiosis due to *Eimeria bovis* and *E. zuernii* in cattle fed in confinement for slaughter during the last 20 to 40 days on feed. The NADA is approved as of February 15, 2008, and the regulations in 21 CFR 558.665 are amended to reflect the approval. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(2) 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 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 558 Animal drugs, Animal feeds. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under the authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows: PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. 2. In § 558.665, add paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows: § 558.665 Zilpaterol.
(e)* * * Zilpaterol in grams/ton Combination in grams/ton Indications for use Limitations Sponsor * * * * * * *
(3)6.8 to provide 60 to 90 mg/head/day Monensin 10 to 40 Cattle fed in confinement for slaughter: As in paragraph (e)(1) of this section; and for prevention and control of coccidiosis due to *Eimeria bovis* and *E. zuernii* . As in paragraph (e)(1) of this section; see paragraph § 558.355(d) of this chapter. Monensin as provided by No. 000986 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter. 057926 * * * * * * * Dated: March 6, 2008. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E8-5450 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9377] RIN 1545-BF02 Application of Section 338 to Insurance Companies; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD 9377) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 (73 FR 3868), that apply to a section 197 intangible resulting from an assumption reinsurance transaction, and under section 338 that apply to reserve increases after a deemed asset sale. DATES: This correction is effective on March 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William T. Sullivan
(202)622-7052 (not toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final regulations (TD 9377) that is the subject of this correction is under section 197 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, TD 9377 contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. List of Subjects 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Correction of Publication Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * * § 1.1060-1 [Corrected] **Par. 2.** Section 1.1060-1(a)(2)(iii) introductory text, last sentence is amended by removing the language “§§ 1.338-11 and 1.338-11T(d)” and adding the language “§ 1.338-11” in its place. Cynthia Grigsby, Senior Federal Register Liaison Officer, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Office of Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-5333 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9273] RIN 1545-AX65 Stock Transfer Rules: Carryover of Earnings and Taxes AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to final regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD 9273) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 (71 FR 44887) addressing the carryover of certain tax attributes, such as earnings and profits and foreign income tax accounts, when two corporations combine in a corporate reorganization or liquidation that is described in both sections 367(b) and 381 of the Internal Revenue Code. DATES: This correction is effective March 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey L. Parry at
(202)622-3050 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final regulations (TD 9273) that are the subject of this correction are under section 367(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final regulations (TD 9273) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Correction of Publication Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1** . The authority citation for part 1 continues to read, in part, as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * * **Par. 2** . Section 1.367(b)-6 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: § 1.367(b)-6 Effective dates and coordination rules.
(a)*Effective date.*
(1)*In general.* Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (a)(1), §§ 1.367(b)-1 through 1.367(b)-5, and this section, apply to section 367(b) exchanges that occur on or after February 23, 2000. The rules of §§ 1.367(b)-3 and 1.367(b)-4, as they apply to reorganizations described in section 368(a)(1)(A) (including reorganizations described in section 368(a)(2)(D) or (E)) involving a foreign acquiring or foreign acquired corporation, apply only to transfers occurring on or after January 23, 2006. Section 1.367(b)-4(b)(1)(ii) applies to all triangular reorganizations and reorganizations described in section 368(a)(1)(G) and (a)(2)(D) occurring on or after January 23, 2006, although taxpayers may apply § 1.367(b)-4(b)(1)(ii) to triangular B reorganizations occurring on or after February 23, 2000, in a taxable year that is not closed by the period of limitations if done consistently with respect to all such triangular B reorganizations. The second sentence of paragraph
(a)in § 1.367(b)-4 shall apply to section 304(a)(1) transactions occurring on or after February 23, 2006; however, taxpayers may rely on this sentence for all section 304(a)(1) transactions occurring in open taxable years. Section 1.367(b)-1(c)(2)(v), (c)(3)(ii)(A), (c)(4)(iv), (c)(4)(v), 1.367(b)-2(j)(1)(i), (l), and 1.367(b)-3(e) and (f), apply to section 367(b) exchanges that occur on or after November 6, 2006. For guidance with respect to § 1.367(b)-1(c)(3)(ii)(A) and (c)(4)(iv) and
(v)and § 1.367(b)-2(j)(1)(i) for exchanges that occur before November 6, 2006, see 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2006. La Nita VanDyke, Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-5334 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0069; A-1-FRL-8543-4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Determination of Attainment of the Ozone Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is determining that the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This determination is based upon certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS since the 2002-2004 monitoring period, and continues to monitor attainment of the NAAQS based on 2004-2006 data. In addition, quality controlled and quality assured ozone data for 2007 that are available in the EPA Air Quality System database, but not yet certified, show this area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination suspends the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation Plans related to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and these requirements shall remain suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the ozone NAAQS. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on March 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0069. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number
(617)918-1664, fax number
(617)918-0664, e-mail *Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. I. What Action Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Effect of This Action? III. When Is This Action Effective? IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is determining that the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This determination is based upon certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment of the ozone NAAQS since the 2002-2004 monitoring period, and monitoring data that continue to show attainment of the NAAQS based on 2004-2006 data. In addition, quality controlled and quality assured ozone data for 2007 that are available in the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS)database, but not yet certified, show this area continues to attain the ozone NAAQS. Other specific requirements of the determination and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR)published on February 7, 2008 (73 FR 7324) and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. II. What Is the Effect of This Action? Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (see 40 CFR Section 51.918), this determination suspends the requirements for the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire moderate ozone nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress plan, section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, and any other planning State Implementation Plans
(SIPs)related to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for so long as the area continues to attain the ozone NAAQS. This action does not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3), because the area does not have an approved maintenance plan as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor a determination that the area has met the other requirements for redesignation. The classification and designation status of the area remains moderate nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that it meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment. If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the **Federal Register** , that the area has violated the current 8-hour ozone standard, the basis for the suspension of these requirements would no longer exist, and the area would thereafter have to address the pertinent requirements. III. When Is This Action Effective? EPA finds that there is good cause for this approval to become effective on the date of publication of this action in the **Federal Register** , because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of the approval. The expedited effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction” and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” As noted above, this determination of attainment suspends the requirements for New Hampshire to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress plan, section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for so long as the area continues to attain the ozone NAAQS. The suspension of these requirements is sufficient reason to allow an expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). In addition, New Hampshire's suspension from these requirements provides good cause to make this rule effective on the date of publication of this action in the **Federal Register** , pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where, as here, the final rule suspends requirements rather than imposing obligations, affected parties, such as the State of New Hampshire, do not need time to adjust and prepare before the rule takes effect. IV. Final Action EPA is determining that the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and continues to attain the standard based on data through the 2007 ozone season. As provided in 40 CFR 51.918, this determination suspends the requirements for New Hampshire to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress plan, and contingency measures under section 172(c)(9), and any other planning SIP related to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for this area, for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action makes a determination based on air quality data, and results in the suspension of certain Federal requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator 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.). Because this rule makes a determination based on air quality data, and results in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely makes a determination based on air quality data and results in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it determines that air quality in the affected area is meeting Federal standards. The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply because it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when determining the attainment status of an area, to use voluntary consensus standards in place of promulgated air quality standards and monitoring procedures that otherwise satisfy the provisions of the Clean Air Act. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Under Executive Order 12898, EPA finds that this rule involves a determination of attainment based on air quality data and will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any communities in the area, including minority and low-income communities. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 19, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: March 11, 2008. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart EE—New Hampshire 2. Section 52.1534 is amended by adding paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 52.1534 Control strategy: Ozone.
(c)*Determination of Attainment.* Effective March 18, 2008, EPA is determining that the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (see 40 CFR 51.918), this determination suspends the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) and related requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act for as long as the area does not monitor any violations of the 8-hour ozone standard. If a violation of the ozone NAAQS is monitored in the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), New Hampshire 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, this determination shall no longer apply. [FR Doc. E8-5406 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0907; FRL-8541-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM)on July 20, 2007, as supplemented on December 19, 2007, to revise the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). The submission revises the Indiana Administrative Code
(IAC)by amending the definition of “References to the Code of Federal Regulations,” to update the references to the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)to refer to the 2006 edition. The rule revision also makes minor corrections to amend the definition of “nonphotochemically reactive hydrocarbons” or “negligibly photochemically reactive compounds,” and to amend the definition of “volatile organic compound” or “VOC.” DATES: This rule is effective on May 19, 2008, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by April 17, 2008. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0907 by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*
(312)886-5824. • *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0907. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at
(312)886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)886-6031, *hatten.charles@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. Background A. When did the State submit the requested SIP revisions to EPA? B. Did Indiana hold public hearings for each of these SIP revisions? II. What are the revisions that the State requests be incorporated into the SIP? III. What action is EPA taking today? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. When did the State submit the requested SIP revisions to EPA? IDEM submitted the requested SIP revisions, consisting primarily of an updated reference to the 2006 CFR, on July 20, 2007. IDEM supplemented its request on December 19, 2007. B. Did Indiana hold public hearings for each of these SIP revisions? IDEM held public hearings on December 6, 2006, and February 7, 2007. IDEM did not receive any comments concerning the SIP revision. II. What are the revisions that the State requests be incorporated into the SIP? The State has requested SIP revisions to include:
(1)updated references to the CFR at 326 IAC 1-1-3, and
(2)deleted references to outdated **Federal Register** citations at 326 IAC 1-2-48 and 326 IAC 1-2-90. A. *Rule 326 IAC 1-1-3, definition of “References to Code of Federal Regulations.”* IDEM updated the reference to the CFR in 326 IAC 1-1-3 from the 2005 edition to the 2006 edition. This is solely an administrative change that allows Indiana to reference a more current version of the CFR. B. * Rule 326 IAC 1-2-48, “nonphotochemically reactive hydrocarbons” or “negligibly photochemically reactive compounds” defined.* The minor corrections to amend 326 IAC 1-2-48 delete language in sections (a)(1) and (a)(2) that references outdated **Federal Register** citations. C. *Rule 326 IAC 1-2-90, “volatile organic compound” or “VOC” defined.* The minor corrections to amend 326 IAC 1-2-90 delete outdated references to the **Federal Register** . III. What action is EPA taking today? We are approving revisions to the Indiana SIP to:
(1)Update the definitions at 326 IAC 1-1-3, “References to the CFR,” and
(2)delete language that references outdated **Federal Register** citations in both 326 IAC 1-2-48, “nonphotochemically reactive hydrocarbons” or “negligibly photochemically reactive compounds” defined; and 326 IAC 1-2-90, “volatile organic compound” or “VOC” defined. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective May 19, 2008 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by April 17, 2008. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective May 19, 2008. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Regulatory Flexibility Act This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator 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.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 19, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 5 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: March 3, 2008. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart P—Indiana 2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(186) to read as follows: § 52.770 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(186)The Indiana Department of Environmental Management submitted revisions to Indiana's State Implementation plan on July 20, 2007, as revised on December 19, 2007, to amend 326 IAC 1-1-3, “References to the Code of Federal Regulations”; 326 IAC 1-2-48, “nonphotochemically reactive hydrocarbons” or “negligibly photochemically reactive compounds” defined; and 326 IAC 1-2-90, “volatile organic compound” or “VOC” defined. The revision to 326 IAC 1-1-3 updates the references to CFR from the 2005 edition to the 2006 edition. In 326 IAC 1-2-48, and 326 IAC 1-2-90, the SIP revision deletes references to outdated **Federal Register** citations.
(i)*Incorporation by reference.* The following sections of the Indiana Administrative Code
(IAC)are incorporated by reference.
(A)326 IAC 1-1-3, “References to the Code of Federal Regulations”. Filed with the Secretary of State on April 26, 2007, and effective on May 26, 2007. Published in the Indiana Register, on May 23, 2007 (DIN: 20070523-IR-326060412FRA).
(B)326 IAC 1-2-48, “nonphotochemically reactive hydrocarbons” or “negligibly photochemically reactive compounds” defined; and 326 IAC 1-2-90, “volatile organic compound” or “VOC” defined. Filed with the Secretary of State on April 26, 2007, and effective on May 26, 2007. Published in the Indiana Register, on May 23, 2007 (DIN: 20070523-IR-326060412FRA).
(ii)*Additional Materials.* A December 19, 2007, letter from Daniel Murray, Assistant Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, which limits the July 20, 2007, SIP revision request to the following definitions: 326 IAC 1-1-3, “References to the CFR”; 326 IAC 1-2-48, “nonphotochemically reactive hydrocarbons” or “negligibly photochemically reactive compounds” defined; and 326 IAC 1-2-90, “volatile organic compound” or “VOC” defined. [FR Doc. E8-5287 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0969; FRL-8543-5] Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the Beaumont/Port Arthur 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; State of Texas; Final Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule finalizes EPA's finding of nonattainment and reclassification of the Beaumont/Port Arthur 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (BPA area). EPA finds that the BPA area has failed to attain the 8 hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (“NAAQS” or “standard”) by June 15, 2007, the attainment deadline set forth in the Clean Air Act
(CAA)and Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)for marginal nonattainment areas. As a result, on the effective date of this rule, the BPA area is reclassified by operation of law as a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The new moderate area attainment date for the reclassified BPA area is “as expeditiously as practicable,” but no later than June 15, 2010. The State of Texas must submit a SIP revision that meets the requirements of the CAA on or before January 1, 2009. DATES: This final rule is effective on April 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0969. All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, Air Planning Section, (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone
(214)665-7247; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *young.carl@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means EPA. Table of Contents I. What Is the Background for This Action? II. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the October 30, 2007 Proposal and How Has EPA Responded to Them? III. What Is the Effect of This Action? A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of the BPA Area To Moderate and the New Attainment Date for the BPA Area B. What Is the Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the BPA Area? IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Is the Background for This Action? The BPA area was classified as a marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area and, therefore, was required to attain the 8-hour ozone standard by June 15, 2007 (69 FR 23858). On October 30, 2007, we proposed to find that the BPA ozone nonattainment area did not attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007, the applicable attainment date, (72 FR 61310). The proposed finding was based upon ambient air quality data from the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 that showed the area's air quality violated the standard. In addition, as explained in the proposed rule, the area did not qualify for an attainment date extension under the provisions of section 181(a)(5) and 40 CFR 51.907, because the area's 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone value in the attainment year of 2006 was greater than 0.084 parts per million (ppm). In the October 30, 2007, proposal, we also proposed that the appropriate reclassification of the BPA area would be from “marginal” to “moderate” nonattainment, in accordance with CAA Section 181(b)(2). We further proposed that the State of Texas submit the required SIP revision by January 1, 2009. II. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the October 30, 2007 Proposal and How Has EPA Responded to Them? We received 18 comment letters on our proposal to find the BPA ozone nonattainment area failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007 and to reclassify the area from marginal to moderate and on our proposed schedule for the required SIP revision submittal (72 FR 61310). Comments were received from: Beaumont City Council Member; ChevronPhillips Chemical Company's Orange Plant; ChevronPhillips Chemical Company's Port Arthur Plant; Clean Air and Water, Inc.; Entergy Texas; Gerdau Ameristeel Beaumont; Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company; Greater Port Arthur Texas Chamber of Commerce; Hardin County Commissioner's Court; Huntsman Petrochemical Corporation; Jefferson County Commissioner for Precinct 1; Jefferson County Commissioner for Precinct 4; Jefferson County Judge; LANXESS Corporation; Port Arthur City Manager; Southeast Texas Chapter of Texas Association of Business; South East Texas Regional Planning Commission; and the Texas Commissions on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Comments can be found on the Internet in the electronic docket for this action. To access the comments, please go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and search for Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0969, or contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph above. A summary of the relevant comments and EPA's response to the comments received is presented below. *Comment:* Sixteen of the commenters requested that EPA postpone finalizing the reclassification because current monitoring data are showing attainment and requested that EPA instead allow the area the opportunity to file for redesignation to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. To support their request for EPA to not finalize the reclassification, many discussed the status of the air quality in the BPA area, noting that it is much cleaner today than it was in 1990 at the time the CAA amendments were finalized:
(1)Monitored levels of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are at least 40-50% lower than 10 years ago,
(2)major reductions in monitored air toxic levels continue and after 17 years of monitoring, there is no evidence of air toxic hot spots,
(3)ozone has been improving in the area in both design value and number of exceedances and
(4)this improvement is due to the tremendous amount of work done by local industry, businesses, and community. *Response:* We recognize the efforts taken by TCEQ, the Southeast Texas Planning Commission, local industry, businesses, and the community to improve air quality. EPA acknowledges that the area's air quality data has improved, but the area did not meet the 8-hour ozone standard by the applicable June 15, 2007 attainment date. TCEQ, itself, agreed the BPA area's air quality was not below the 8-hour ozone standard for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006. These three years of air quality data provide the area's design value “as of the attainment date.” This value shows that the area did not attain the standard by the applicable attainment date. The Act requires EPA to make an attainment determination within six months following the attainment date. Reclassification upon a determination of failure is not a discretionary power and EPA cannot waive reclassification after it has determined that the area has failed to attain by its attainment date. In our October 30, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 61310), we cited section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA, which provides that, for reclassification upon failure to attain, “within 6 months following the applicable attainment date (including any extension thereof) for an ozone nonattainment area, the Administrator shall determine, based on the area's design value (as of the attainment date), whether the area attained the standard by that date. Except for any Severe or Extreme area, any area that the Administrator finds has not attained the standard by that date shall be reclassified by operation of law in accordance with table 1 of subsection
(a)(of Section 181) to the higher of—(i) the next higher classification for the area, or
(ii)the classification applicable to the area's design value as determined at the time of the notice required under subparagraph (B).” Pursuant to section 181(b)(2), we have determined that the BPA area failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007, the attainment deadline set forth in the CAA and CFR for marginal nonattainment areas. Because the area is not classified as Severe or Extreme, the area shall be reclassified by operation of law to the next higher classification. The next higher classification for the area (moderate) is higher than the classification applicable to the area's design value (marginal). Therefore, in accordance with the CAA, the BPA area must be reclassified by operation of law to a moderate nonattainment area. 72 FR 61312. As EPA noted above, under section 181(b)(2)(A), the attainment determination is made solely based on air quality, and any reclassification is by operation of law. Thus, the resulting requirements apply regardless of how the nonattainment came about, and the CAA requires EPA to consider only the air quality data occurring as of the attainment date (including any extension thereof), in making the mandatory attainment determination. Today's action, however, does not preclude TCEQ from developing and submitting the appropriate documentation for redesignation of the area from nonattainment to attainment. The appropriate documentation would be the submittal after public notice, public comment period, and public hearing of a complete redesignation request that meets the requirements of the Act and the Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule, and an approvable plan for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard. 1 The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum and the 1993 Shapiro memorandum describe EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements. Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States requesting redesignation to attainment must meet the relevant Clean Air Act requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. Applicable requirements of the Act that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the Act. *Sierra Club* v. *EPA* , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). *See also* , 68 FR at 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). 1 For more information on redesignation to attainment, please see, among other things, the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, published on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070); “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (available at: *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/redesignmem090492.pdf* ); “State Implementation Plan
(SIP)Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO)National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (available at: *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/redesig.pdf* ); the redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor published ion March 7, 1995 (60 FR 12459, 12465-12466, and EPA's Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS-Phase 1 and the Notice of Reconsideration at 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005). *Comment:* One commenter stated that
(1)the area did miss the June 15, 2007 attainment date;
(2)action on this matter should be based on real data, not speculation of attainment in the near future; and
(3)the area's petrochemical industry is currently undergoing expansions which will result in more air emissions. Consequently, the recommendation was that the area be classified as moderate until attainment is actually achieved. *Response:* EPA agrees with the commenter supporting the proposal. As quality-assured data for the area shows the area did not attain the 8-hour ozone standard by the June 15, 2007 attainment date, the area is being reclassified by operation of law as moderate nonattainment. Regarding the commenter's concern about industry expansions and more air emissions, the State's Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR)permitting requirements apply to new major sources or major modifications at existing air pollution sources, such as the petrochemical industry expansions. The NNSR permit issued by the State must require that the emissions increase from the new source or modification be offset. The NNSR permit also requires the source to reduce emissions consistent with the application of lowest achievable emission rate as defined in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xiii). The State's permitting rules provide that the TCEQ will assure that emissions from a new minor source or minor modification will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard. *Comment:* The State's concern was that the schedule for submittal of the SIP revision would require use of existing and somewhat outdated technical data due to the short timeframe. TCEQ commented that for any SIP revision, the most current and robust technical work is optimal, but due to the short timeframe for submittal, if they are required to submit an attainment demonstration SIP revision for the area by January 1, 2009, use of existing and somewhat outdated technical work will be necessary. *Response:* With respect to any potential burden imposed by the new planning requirements, EPA notes that the moderate area requirements are imposed by section 182(b) of the CAA and the impact of a reclassification is not a consideration in making the attainment determination under section 181(b)(2). When an area is reclassified, the EPA has the authority under section 182(i) of the Act to adjust the Act's submittal deadlines for any new SIP revisions that are required as a result of reclassification. Although some may argue that January 1, 2009 provides a short timeframe for submittal of a revised SIP, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.908(d), the State must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later than January 1, 2009, the beginning of the attainment year ozone season for the BPA area. See 40 CFR 51.900(g) and 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.1, Table D-3 (71 FR 61236). Establishing the date for submittal as January 1, 2009 will help the State to optimize, to the extent possible, its public consultation and rulemaking process to choose control strategies, adopt, and implement them swiftly in order to avoid the possibility of the area failing to attain again and being reclassified to serious. Given the submittal deadline, the State should use the best and most up-to-date information available in the allotted timeframe. For more discussion of the SIP submittal date, please see the section titled “Proposed Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the BPA Area” in our proposed action (72 FR 61310, October 30, 2007). *Comment:* TCEQ also asked for clarification regarding the following sentences in the proposal notice at page 61321: “The BPA area may attain the 8-hour ozone standard at the end of 2007, based on data from 2005, 2006 and 2007. If EPA determines, after notice and comment rulemaking, that the area has attained the standard at the end of 2007, the requirement to submit SIPs related to attainment of the standard shall be suspended until such time as
(1)the area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or
(2)EPA determines that the area has violated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 51.918).” The State asked in particular whether EPA would set a new SIP submittal deadline after notice and comment rulemaking. *Response:* The staffs of both agencies have been in contact to discuss various potential legal avenues available to the State of Texas. The State staff is considering the pros and cons of the potential legal avenues. One of the potential legal avenues is the use of our clean data regulation for the 8-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 51.918). This is the legal avenue alluded to in the proposal. Under this regulation, if after EPA makes a clean data determination that results in the suspension of the requirement to submit certain SIPs, and EPA later determines that the area violates the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA would establish a new SIP submittal deadline for these SIP requirements after notice and comment rulemaking. As EPA stated in its May 10, 1995 Memorandum “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the 1-hour NAAQS”, “[i]f EPA subsequently determines that an area has violated the standard * * *. EPA would notify the State of that determination and would also provide notice to the public in the **Federal Register** . Such a determination would mean that the area would thereafter have to address the pertinent SIP requirements within a reasonable amount of time, which EPA would establish taking into account the individual circumstances surrounding the particular SIP submissions at issue.” (pp. 6-7). A potential consequence of relying upon this avenue is that depending on the timing of a violation and of an EPA rulemaking determining that a violation had occurred, it is possible that the BPA area would not be able to attain by its new moderate area attainment date, and therefore may be subject to another determination of nonattainment and reclassification to a higher classification than moderate. III. What is the Effect of This Action? A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of the BPA Area to Moderate and the New Attainment Date for the BPA Area Pursuant to section 181(b)(2), we find that the BPA area failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2007, attainment deadline prescribed under the CAA and 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004) for marginal ozone nonattainment areas. When this finding is effective, the BPA area is reclassified by operation of law from marginal nonattainment to moderate nonattainment. The reclassification to the next higher classification is mandated by Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA. Moderate areas are required to attain the standard “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than 6 years after designation or June 15, 2010. The “as expeditiously as practicable” attainment date will be determined as part of the action on the required SIP submittal demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. Also in this action, we are establishing a schedule by which Texas will submit the SIP revision necessary for the reclassification to moderate nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. B. What Is the Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the BPA Area? We must address the schedule by which Texas is required to submit the SIP revision addressing the requirements for the BPA area. When an area is reclassified, we have the authority under section 182(i) of the CAA to adjust the CAA's submittal deadlines for any new SIP revisions that are required as a result of the reclassification. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.908(d), for each nonattainment area, a state must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. The attainment year ozone season is the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date, in this case 2009 (40 CFR 51.900(g)). The ozone season is the ozone monitoring season as defined in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.1, Table D-3 (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61236). For the purposes of this reclassification for the BPA area, January 1, 2009 is the beginning of the ozone monitoring season. As a result, we are requiring that the required SIP revision be submitted by Texas as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1, 2009. A revised SIP must include, among other things, all the moderate area requirements in section 182(b) of the Act:
(1)An attainment demonstration (40 CFR 51.908),
(2)provisions for reasonably available control technology and reasonably available control measures (40 CFR 51.912),
(3)reasonable further progress reductions in volatile organic compound
(VOC)and nitrogen oxide (NO <sup>X</sup> ) emissions (40 CFR 51.910), and
(4)contingency measures to be implemented in the event of failure to meet a milestone or attain the standard (CAA 172(c)(9)). 2 See also the requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas set forth in CAA section 182(b). Since the BPA area also is a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, the anti-backsliding requirements of 40 CFR 51.900 and 51.905 apply also. See also *South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.* v. *EPA* , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006), mod. (June 8, 2007). 2 A vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program would normally be listed as a requirement for an ozone moderate or above nonattainment area. However, the Federal I/M Flexibility Amendments of 1995 determined that urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000 for 1990 (such as BPA) are not mandated to participate in the I/M program (60 FR 48027, September 18, 1995). IV. Final Action Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), we are making a final determination that the Beaumont/Port Arthur “marginal” 8-hour ozone nonattainment area failed to attain the 8 hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007. Upon the effective date of this rule, the area is reclassified by operation of law as a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Pursuant to section 182(i) of the CAA, we are establishing the schedule for submittal of the SIP revision required for moderate areas once the area is reclassified. The required SIP revision for the BPA area shall be submitted by the State of Texas as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1, 2009. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order
(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. The Agency has determined that the finding of nonattainment would result in none of the effects identified in the Executive Order. Under section 181(b)
(2)of the CAA, determinations of nonattainment are based upon air quality considerations and the resulting reclassifications must occur by operation of law. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* This action to reclassify the BPA area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines does not establish any new information collection burden. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)size standards. (See 13 CFR part 121.);
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Determinations of nonattainment and the resulting reclassification of nonattainment areas by operation of law under section 181(b)
(2)of the CAA do not in and of themselves create any new requirements. Instead, this rulemaking only makes a factual determination, and does not directly regulate any entities. After considering the economic impacts of today's action on small entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation as to why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This action does not include a Federal mandate within the meaning of UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by either State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector, and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Also, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of section 203. EPA believes, as discussed previously in this document, that the finding of nonattainment is a factual determination based upon air quality considerations and that the resulting reclassification of the area must occur by operation of law. Thus, EPA believes that the finding does not constitute a Federal mandate, as defined in section 101 of the UMRA, because it does not impose an enforceable duty on any entity. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely determines that the BPA area had not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the BPA area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This action does not have “Tribal implications” as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action merely determines that the BPA area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the BPA area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. The Clean Air Act and the Tribal Authority Rule establish the relationship of the Federal government and Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that
(1)is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to children. This action merely determines that the BPA area has not attained the standard by the applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the BPA area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards
(VCS)in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This action merely determines that the BPA nonattainment area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the BPA “marginal” nonattainment area as a “moderate” ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. It does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action merely determines that the BPA nonattainment area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the BPA nonattainment area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). L. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 19, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action to reclassify the BPA area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b) (2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: March 6, 2008. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 81—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 2. In § 81.344 the table entitled “Texas—Ozone (8-hour Standard)” is amended by revising the entries for Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX to read as follows: § 81.344 Texas. Texas—Ozone [8-hour standard] Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Classification Date 1 Type Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX: Hardin County Nonattainment ( 3 ) Subpart 2/Moderate. Jefferson County Nonattainment ( 3 ) Subpart 2/Moderate. Orange County Nonattainment ( 3 ) Subpart 2/Moderate. * * * * * * * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. * * * * * * * 3 April 17, 2008. [FR Doc. E8-5403 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 229 [Docket No. 080311419-8426-01] RIN 0648-XG33 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule. SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), NOAA, announces temporary restrictions consistent with the requirements of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan's (ALWTRP) implementing regulations. These regulations apply to lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishermen in an area totaling approximately 1,370 nm 2 (4,699 km 2 ), northeast of Boston, Massachusetts for 15 days. The purpose of this action is to provide protection to an aggregation of northern right whales (right whales). DATES: Effective beginning at 0001 hours March 20, 2008, through 2400 hours April 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed and final Dynamic Area Management
(DAM)rules, Environmental Assessments (EAs), Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) meeting summaries, and progress reports on implementation of the ALWTRP may also be obtained by writing Diane Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast Region, 978-281-9300 x6503; or Kristy Long, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access Several of the background documents for the ALWTRP and the take reduction planning process can be downloaded from the ALWTRP web site at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/* . Background The ALWTRP was developed pursuant to section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of three endangered species of whales (right, fin, and humpback) due to incidental interaction with commercial fishing activities. In addition, the measures identified in the ALWTRP would provide conservation benefits to a fourth species (minke), which are neither listed as endangered nor threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ALWTRP, implemented through regulations codified at 50 CFR 229.32, relies on a combination of fishing gear modifications and time/area closures to reduce the risk of whales becoming entangled in commercial fishing gear (and potentially suffering serious injury or mortality as a result). On January 9, 2002, NMFS published the final rule to implement the ALWTRP's DAM program (67 FR 1133). On August 26, 2003, NMFS amended the regulations by publishing a final rule, which specifically identified gear modifications that may be allowed in a DAM zone (68 FR 51195). The DAM program provides specific authority for NMFS to restrict temporarily on an expedited basis the use of lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear in areas north of 40° N. lat. to protect right whales. Under the DAM program, NMFS may:
(1)require the removal of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear for a 15-day period;
(2)allow lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing within a DAM zone with gear modifications determined by NMFS to sufficiently reduce the risk of entanglement; and/or
(3)issue an alert to fishermen requesting the voluntary removal of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear for a 15-day period and asking fishermen not to set any additional gear in the DAM zone during the 15-day period. A DAM zone is triggered when NMFS receives a reliable report from a qualified individual of three or more right whales sighted within an area (75 nm 2 (257 km 2 )) such that right whale density is equal to or greater than 0.04 right whales per nm 2 (3.43 km 2 ). A qualified individual is an individual ascertained by NMFS to be reasonably able, through training or experience, to identify a right whale. Such individuals include, but are not limited to, NMFS staff, U.S. Coast Guard and Navy personnel trained in whale identification, scientific research survey personnel, whale watch operators and naturalists, and mariners trained in whale species identification through disentanglement training or some other training program deemed adequate by NMFS. A reliable report would be a credible right whale sighting. On March 7, 2008, an aerial survey reported an aggregation of four right whales in the proximity of 42° 38′ N. latitude and 69° 32′ W. long. The position lies approximately 70nm northeast of Boston, Massachusetts. After conducting an investigation, NMFS ascertained that the report came from a qualified individual and determined that the report was reliable. Thus, NMFS has received a reliable report from a qualified individual of the requisite right whale density to trigger the DAM provisions of the ALWTRP. Once a DAM zone is triggered, NMFS determines whether to impose restrictions on fishing and/or fishing gear in the zone. This determination is based on the following factors, including but not limited to: the location of the DAM zone with respect to other fishery closure areas, weather conditions as they relate to the safety of human life at sea, the type and amount of gear already present in the area, and a review of recent right whale entanglement and mortality data. NMFS has reviewed the factors and management options noted above relative to the DAM under consideration. As a result of this review, NMFS prohibits lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear in this area during the 15-day restricted period unless it is modified in the manner described in this temporary rule. The DAM Zone is bound by the following coordinates: 42° 59′ N., 70° 00′ W. (NW Corner) 42° 59′ N., 69° 04′ W. 42° 18′ N., 69° 04′ W. 42° 18′ N., 69° 24′ W. 42° 30′ N., 69° 24′ W. 42° 30′ N., 70° 00′ W. 42° 59′ N., 70° 00′ W. (NW Corner) In addition to those gear modifications currently implemented under the ALWTRP at 50 CFR 229.32, the following gear modifications are required in the DAM zone. If the requirements and exceptions for gear modification in the DAM zone, as described below, differ from other ALWTRP requirements for any overlapping areas and times, then the more restrictive requirements will apply in the DAM zone. Special note for gillnet fishermen: portions of the DAM zone overlap the Northeast Multispecies year-round Cashes Ledge Closure Area found at 50 CFR 648.81(d), the Northeast Multispecies year-round Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area found at 50 CFR 648.81(e), the (March) Northeast Multispecies seasonal Gulf of Maine Rolling Closure Area I found at 50 CFR 648.81(f)(1)(i),and the (April) Northeast Multispecies seasonal Gulf of Maine Rolling Closure Area II found at 50CFR 648.81 (f)(1)(ii). Due to these closures, sink gillnet gear is prohibited from these portions of the DAM zone. Lobster Trap/Pot Gear Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within portions of Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect: 1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited; 2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line; 3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and 4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 600 lb (272.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys. Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within the portion of the Offshore Lobster Waters Area that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect: 1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited; 2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line; 3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and 4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys. Anchored Gillnet Gear Fishermen utilizing anchored gillnet gear within the portions of the Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect: 1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited; 2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line; 3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per string; 4. The breaking strength of each net panel weak link must not exceed 1,100 lb (498.8 kg). The weak link requirements apply to all variations in net panel size. One weak link must be placed in the center of the floatline and one weak link must be placed in the center of each of the up and down lines at both ends of the net panel. Additionally, one weak link must be placed as close as possible to each end of the net panels on the floatline; or, one weak link must be placed between floatline tie-loops between net panels and one weak link must be placed where the floatline tie-loops attach to the bridle, buoy line, or groundline at each end of a net string; 5. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 1,100 lb (498.8 kg) must be placed at all buoys; and 6. All anchored gillnets, regardless of the number of net panels, must be securely anchored with the holding power of at least a 22 lb (10.0 kg) Danforth-style anchor at each end of the net string. The restrictions will be in effect beginning at 0001 hours March 20, 2008, through 2400 hours April 3, 2008, unless terminated sooner or extended by NMFS through another notification in the **Federal Register** . The restrictions will be announced to state officials, fishermen, ALWTRT members, and other interested parties through e-mail, phone contact, NOAA website, and other appropriate media immediately upon issuance of the rule by the AA. Classification In accordance with section 118(f)(9) of the MMPA, the Assistant Administrator
(AA)for Fisheries has determined that this action is necessary to implement a take reduction plan to protect North Atlantic right whales. Environmental Assessments for the DAM program were prepared on December 28, 2001, and August 6, 2003. This action falls within the scope of the analyses of these EAs, which are available from the agency upon request. NMFS provided prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on the regulations establishing the criteria and procedures for implementing a DAM zone. Providing prior notice and opportunity for comment on this action, pursuant to those regulations, would be impracticable because it would prevent NMFS from executing its functions to protect and reduce serious injury and mortality of endangered right whales. The regulations establishing the DAM program are designed to enable the agency to help protect unexpected concentrations of right whales. In order to meet the goals of the DAM program, the agency needs to be able to create a DAM zone and implement restrictions on fishing gear as soon as possible once the criteria are triggered and NMFS determines that a DAM restricted zone is appropriate. If NMFS were to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment upon the creation of a DAM restricted zone, the aggregated right whales would be vulnerable to entanglement which could result in serious injury and mortality. Additionally, the right whales would most likely move on to another location before NMFS could implement the restrictions designed to protect them, thereby rendering the action obsolete. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the AA finds that good cause exists to waive prior notice and an opportunity to comment on this action to implement a DAM restricted zone to reduce the risk of entanglement of endangered right whales in commercial lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear as such procedures would be impracticable. For the same reasons, the AA finds that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in effective date. If NMFS were to delay for 30 days the effective date of this action, the aggregated right whales would be vulnerable to entanglement, which could cause serious injury and mortality. Additionally, right whales would likely move to another location between the time NMFS approved the action creating the DAM restricted zone and the time it went into effect, thereby rendering the action obsolete and ineffective. Nevertheless, NMFS recognizes the need for fishermen to have time to either modify or remove (if not in compliance with the required restrictions) their gear from a DAM zone once one is approved. Thus, NMFS makes this action effective 2 days after the date of publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . NMFS will also endeavor to provide notice of this action to fishermen through other means upon issuance of the rule by the AA, thereby providing approximately 3 additional days of notice while the Office of the Federal Register processes the document for publication. NMFS determined that the regulations establishing the DAM program and actions such as this one taken pursuant to those regulations are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of the U.S. Atlantic coastal states. This determination was submitted for review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Following state review of the regulations creating the DAM program, no state disagreed with NMFS' conclusion that the DAM program is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program for that state. The DAM program under which NMFS is taking this action contains policies with federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, in October 2001 and March 2003, the Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, Department of Commerce, provided notice of the DAM program and its amendments to the appropriate elected officials in states to be affected by actions taken pursuant to the DAM program. Federalism issues raised by state officials were addressed in the final rules implementing the DAM program. A copy of the federalism Summary Impact Statement for the final rules is available upon request ( ADDRESSES ). The rule implementing the DAM program has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* and 50 CFR 229.32(g)(3) Dated: March 12, 2008. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 08-1042 Filed 3-13-08; 1:39 pm]
Connectionstraces to 33
Traces to 33 documents
CFR
34 references not yet in our index
  • 7 CFR 905
  • 7 USC 601-674
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 7 CFR 51.3145
  • 7 CFR 51.1210
  • 7 CFR 916
  • 7 CFR 917
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 14 CFR 95
  • 5 USC 801-808
  • 21 CFR 510
  • 21 CFR 522
  • 21 CFR 558
  • 21 CFR 20
  • 26 CFR 1
  • T.D. 9377
  • T.D. 9273
  • 40 CFR 52
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 40 CFR 5
  • 40 CFR 81
  • 375 F.3d 537
  • 40 CFR 58
  • 472 F.3d 882
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 13 CFR 121
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 50 CFR 229
  • 50 CFR 229.32
  • 50 CFR 648.81(d)
  • 50 CFR 648.81(e)
  • 50 CFR 648.81(f)(1)(i)
  • 50 CFR 648.81
  • 50 CFR 229.32(g)(3)
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Confirmation of regulations
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
C.F.R.§ 121.201
U.S.C.§ 553
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
U.S.C.§ 3501
C.F.R.§ 25.571
F. App'x375 F.3d 537
F. App'x472 F.3d 882
Cite7 CFR 905
Cites 67 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.