Rules and Regulations. Direct final rule, request for comments

39,334 words·~179 min read·/register/2008/03/21/08-1063

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

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0246; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-26] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Danville, KY AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule, request for comments. SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E Airspace at Danville, KY. Additional airspace is required to support new Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) that have been developed for Stuart Powell Field Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule

(IFR)operations in the area by providing the required controlled airspace to support these approaches around Danville, KY. This action also imparts a technical amendment to change the airport's name from Goodall Field Airport to Stuart Powell Field Airport. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2007-0246; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-26, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, System Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; Telephone

(404)305-5581, Fax 404-305-5572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Direct Final Rule Procedure The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the **Federal Register** indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the **Federal Register** , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period. Comments Invited Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. The direct final rule is used in this case to facilitate the timing of the charting schedule and enhance the operation at the airport, while still allowing and requesting public comment on this rulemaking action. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov.* Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES above or through the Web site. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the **Federal Register's** Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-0246; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-26.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. The Rule This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace at Danville, KY, providing the controlled airspace required to support new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) that were developed for the Stuart Powell Field Airport (KDVK). Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level

(AGL)is required to encompass all SIAPs to the extent practical. The current E5 airspace at the airport is insufficient for these approaches, so additional controlled airspace must be developed. The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify Class E5 airspace at Danville, KY, by adding an extension to the current 7-mile radius area. This new area extends southeastward from the 7-mile radius to 11.8 miles from the airport via the 122° bearing supporting the descent gradient for the new approaches. During 1993, the airport name was changed from “Goodall Field” to “Stuart Powell Field Airport” by the Airport Authority. Research indicates an official name change did not reach all entities, therefore, for clarification, this docket imparts that name change. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. Agency Findings The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. 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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies controlled airspace at the Stuart Powell Field Airport. Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: *Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.* ASO KY E5 Danville, KY [REVISED] Stuart Powell Field Airport, Danville, KY (Lat. 37°34′41″ N., long. 84°46′11″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the Earth within a 7-mile radius of Stuart Powell Field Airport and within 2 miles each side of the 122° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 11.8 miles southeast of the airport. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 26, 2008. Mark D. Ward, Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-5575 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0072; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-03] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lady Lake, FL AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration WAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule, request for comments. SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E Airspace at Lady Lake, FL to support a new Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)Special Instrument Approach Procedure

(IAP)that has been developed for medical flight operations into the Village of Homewood Lady Lake Hospital. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule

(IFR)operations by providing that required controlled airspace for this approach around Lady Lake, FL. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 05, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2008-0072; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-03, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone

(404)305-5610; fax

(404)305-5572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Direct Final Rule Procedure The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the **Federal Register** indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the **Federal Register** , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period. Comments Invited Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Recently published rule making documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the **Federal Register's** Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES above or through the Web site. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0072; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASQ-03.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. The Rule This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Lady Lake, FL providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)195 Point in Space

(PinS)instrument approach developed for the Village of Homewood Lady Lake Hospital. In today's environment where speed of treatment for medical injuries is imperative, various landing sites have been developed for helicopter medical Lifeguard flights or Lifeflights; the Village of Homewood Lady Lake Hospital has been chosen as one of these sites. Controlled airspace, known as Class E5 airspace, extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level

(AGL)is required for Instrument Flight Rule

(IFR)operations and to encompass all Instrument Approach Procedures

(IAPs)to the extent practical, therefore, the FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish a 6-mile radius Class E5 airspace area at Lady Lake, FL. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. Agency Findings The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. 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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rule making is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace near the Village of Homewood Lady Lake Hospital in Lady Lake, FL. Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). Adoption of the Amendment: In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.G. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation. Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO FL E5 Lady Lake, FL [NEW] Village of Homewood Lady Lake Hospital (Lat. 28°56′59″ N., long. 81°57′36″ W.) Point in Space Coordinates . (Lat. 28°57′36″ N., long. 81°57′50″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the Earth within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space Coordinates (Lat. 28°57′36″ N., long. 81°57′50″ W.) serving the Village of Homewood Lady Lake Hospital. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 26, 2008. Mark D. Ward, Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-5603 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0245; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANE-95] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lewiston, ME AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date. SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule that establishes a Class E airspace area to support Area Navigation (RNA V) Global Positioning System

(GPS)Special Instrument Approach Procedures

(IAPs)that serve the Central Maine Medical Center, Lewiston, ME. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 21, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, System Support, AJ02-E28.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone

(404)305-5581; fax

(404)305-5572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Confirmation of Effective Date The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the **Federal Register** on December 19, 2007 (72 FR 71758). The FAA uses the direct final rule making procedure for a non controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on February 14, 2008. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date. Issued in College Park, GA on February 27, 2008. Mark D. Ward, Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-5564 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0160; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-13] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Milford, PA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule, request for comments. SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E Airspace at Milford, PA to support a new Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)Special Instrument Approach Procedure

(IAP)that has been developed for medical flight operations into the Myer Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule

(IFR)operations by providing that required controlled airspace to protect for this approach around Milford, PA. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2008-0160; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-13, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P. O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone

(404)305-5610. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Direct Final Rule Procedure The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the **Federal Register** indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the **Federal Register** , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period. Comments Invited Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the **Federal Register's** Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES above or through the Web site. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0160; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-13.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. The Rule This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Milford, PA providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)008 Point in Space

(PinS)approach developed for Myer Airport. In today's environment where speed of treatment for medical injuries is imperative, landing sites have been developed for helicopter medical Lifeguard flights or Lifeflights; this is one of those sites. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level

(AGL)is required for Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)operations and to encompass all Instrument Approach Procedures

(IAPs)to the extent practical, therefore, the FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish a 6-mile radius Class E5 airspace area around the PinS Missed Approach Point (MAP), ZUMAN Waypoint, that serves the Myer Airport. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. Agency Findings The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. 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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace near the Myer Airport in Milford, PA. Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows: PART 71 —DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA PA E5 Milford, PA [NEW] Myer Airport (Lat. 41°21′0.331″ N., long. 74°55′59″ W.) ZUMAN Waypoint (Lat. 41°20′10″ N., long. 74°55′01″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the Earth within a 6-mile radius of the ZUMAN Waypoint serving the Myer Airport. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 25, 2008. Mark D. Ward, Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-5574 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9368] RIN 1545-BG55 Reduction of Foreign Tax Credit Limitation Categories Under Section 904(d); Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correcting amendments SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final and temporary regulations (TD 9368) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Friday, December 21, 2007 (72 FR 72582) regarding the reduction of the number of separate foreign tax credit limitation categories under section 904(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. These regulations affect taxpayers claiming foreign tax credits and provide guidance needed to comply with the statutory changes made by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA). DATES: The correction is effective March 21, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey L. Parry,

(2)that are attributable to earnings in the pre-2007 pools.” is added in its place. 4. In paragraph (g)(4), in the last sentence, the language “Similar rules shall apply to characterize any deficits or previously-taxed earnings and profits described in section 959(c)(1)(A) that are attributable to pre-1987 accumulated profits.” is removed and the language “Similar rules shall apply to characterize any deficits or previously-taxed earnings and profits described in section 959(c)(1) and

(2)that are attributable to pre-1987 accumulated profits.” is added in its place. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-5685 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9368] RIN 1545-BG55 Reduction of Foreign Tax Credit Limitation Categories Under Section 904(d); Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final and temporary regulations; correction. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final and temporary regulations (TD 9368) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Friday, December 21, 2007 (72 FR 72582) regarding the reduction of the number of separate foreign tax credit limitation categories under section 904(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. These regulations affect taxpayers claiming foreign tax credits and provide guidance needed to comply with the statutory changes made by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA). DATES: The correction is effective March 21, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey L. Parry,

(202)622-3850 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final and temporary regulations (TD 9368) that are the subject of the correction are under section 904 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final and temporary regulations (TD 9368) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the final and temporary regulations (TD 9368), which were the subject of FR Doc. E7-24782, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 72585, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “V. Post-1986 Undistributed Earnings and Post-1986 Foreign Income Taxes of a Foreign Corporation as of the End of the Corporation's Last Pre-2007 Taxable Year”, second line of the first paragraph of the column, the language “described in section 959(c)(1)(A),” is corrected to read “described in section 959(c)(1) and (2),”. 2. On page 72586, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “VI. Separate Limitation Losses and Overall Foreign Losses”, first line of the second paragraph of the column, the language “Section 1.904-12T(h)(4) provides that” is corrected to read “Section 1.904(f)-12T(h)(4) provides that”. 3. On page 72586, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “VI. Separate Limitation Losses and Overall Foreign Losses”, first line of the third paragraph of the column, the language “Section 1.904-12T(h)(5) provides that” is corrected to read “Section 1.904(f)-12T(h)(5) provides that”. 4. On page 72586, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “VI. Separate Limitation Losses and Overall Foreign Losses”, sixth line of the third paragraph of the column, the language “rules of § 1.904-12T(g)(1) and (2)” is corrected to read “rules of § 1.904(f)-12T(g)(1) and (2)”. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-5683 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [TD 9388] RIN 1545-BH24 Classification of Certain Foreign Entities AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final and temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains temporary and final regulations relating to certain business entities included on the list of foreign business entities that are always classified as corporations for Federal tax purposes. The regulations are needed to make the Federal tax classification of Bulgarian public limited liability companies consistent with the Federal tax classification of public limited liability companies organized in other countries of the European Economic Area. The regulations will affect persons owning an interest in a Bulgarian aktsionerno druzhestvo on or after January 1, 2007. The text of the temporary regulations serves as the text of the proposed regulations (REG-143468-07) set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in this issue of the **Federal Register** . DATES: *Effective Date:* These regulations are effective on March 21, 2008. *Applicability Date:* For the dates of applicability of these regulations, see § 301.7701-2T(e)(7). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S. James Hawes,

(202)622-3860 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The IRS and the Treasury Department issued final regulations concerning the Federal tax classification of entities under section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code on December 18, 1996. See TD 8697 (1997-1 CB 215; 61 FR 66584) and §§ 301.7701-1 through 301.7701-3. Under those regulations, a business entity that is not specifically classified as a corporation can elect its classification for Federal tax purposes under certain circumstances. Section 301.7701-2(b)(8) provides a list of certain foreign business entities that are nevertheless always classified as corporations for Federal tax purposes. This list is known as the per se corporation list. The foreign business entities on this list are referred to as per se corporations. Recent changes in European law require the IRS and the Treasury Department to amend the per se list. See § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( *b* ). On October 8, 2001, the Council of the European Union adopted Council Regulation 2157/2001 (2001 Official Journal of the European Communities, L 294/1) (the EU Regulation) to provide for a new business entity called the European public limited liability company, which is also known as a Societas Europaea or SE. The EU Regulation entered into force October 8, 2004. The EU Regulation provides general rules that govern the formation and operation of an SE. With respect to many issues, however, the EU Regulation defers to the laws of the country in which the SE has its registered office. An SE must have a registered office in one of the Member States of the European Economic Area, which includes Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and every country in the European Union. For further background, see TD 9197 (2005-1 CB 985; 70 FR 19697) and Notice 2004-68 (2004-43 IRB 706). See § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( *b* ). The IRS and the Treasury Department stated in Notice 2004-68 that the SE is properly classified as a per se corporation for Federal tax purposes. Consequently, the IRS and the Treasury Department issued regulations modifying § 301.7701-2(b)(8) to include the SE on the per se corporation list. Those regulations included certain public limited liability companies organized in Member States that did not already appear on the per se list. See TD 9197 and TD 9235 (2006-1 CB 338; 70 FR 74658). With the entry of Bulgaria into the European Union on January 1, 2007, an SE can now have its registered office in Bulgaria. Explanation of Provisions Bulgaria's SE is called an aktsionerno druzhestvo. The IRS and the Treasury Department stated in Notice 2007-10 (2007-4 IRB 354) that § 301.7701-2(b)(8) would be modified to include the aktsionerno druzhestvo on the per se corporation list. The temporary regulations in this document make that modification. In accordance with Notice 2007-10, these regulations will be effective for any Bulgarian aktsionerno druzhestvo formed on or after January 1, 2007. Notice 2007-10 also stated that the regulations would be effective for any Bulgarian aktsionerno druzhestvo formed before January 1, 2007, upon a 50 percent or greater change of ownership in such entity subsequent to that date. See section 7805(b)(1)(C) and § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( *b* ). The temporary regulations therefore provide that a Bulgarian aktsionerno druzhestvo formed before January 1, 2007, will become a per se corporation on the date that, in the aggregate, a 50 percent or more interest in the entity is owned by a person or persons who were not owners of the entity as of January 1, 2007. In the case of a partnership, an interest means a capital or profits interest. In the case of a corporation, an interest means an equity interest in the entity measured by vote or value. The standard provided by these temporary regulations for determining the application of the regulations to a Bulgarian aktsionerno druzhestvo formed before January 1, 2007, clarifies the standard described in Notice 2007-10 and the standard to be applied with respect to entities listed in § 301.7701-2(b)(8), including those entities listed in TD 8697, TD 9197, and TD 9235. Comments are requested with respect to this clarification. Special Analyses It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 5) does not apply to this regulation. For the applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), refer to the Special Analyses section of the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking published in this issue of the **Federal Register** . Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is S. James Hawes of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International); however, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is amended as follows: PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 301.7701-2(b)(8)(vi) and (e)(7) are added and the paragraph heading for paragraph

(e)is revised to read as follows: § 301.7701-2 Business entities; definitions.

(b)* * *

(8)* * *

(vi)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 301.7701-2T(b)(8)(vi).

(e)Effective/applicability date.* * *

(7)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 301.7701-2T(e)(7). **Par. 3.** Section 301.7701-2T is added to read as follows: § 301.7701-2T Business entities; definitions (temporary).

(a)through (b)(8)(v) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 301.7701-2(a) through (b)(8)(v). (b)(8)(vi) *Certain European entities.* The following business entity formed in the following jurisdiction: Bulgaria, Aktsionerno Druzhestvo.

(c)through (e)(6) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 301.7701-2(c) through (e)(6).

(7)The reference to the Bulgarian entity in paragraph (b)(8)(vi) of this section applies to such entities formed on or after January 1, 2007, and to any such entity formed before such date from the date that, in the aggregate, a 50 percent or more interest in such entity is owned by any person or persons who were not owners of the entity as of January 1, 2007. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term *interest* means—

(i)In the case of a partnership, a capital or profits interest; and

(ii)In the case of a corporation, an equity interest measured by vote or value.

(8)*Expiration date.* The applicability of this section expires on or before March 18, 2011. Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: March 12, 2008. Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E8-5686 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Parts 4006 and 4007 RIN 1212-AB11 Premium Rates; Payment of Premiums; Variable-Rate Premium; Pension Protection Act of 2006 AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This is a final rule to amend PBGC's regulations on Premium Rates and Payment of Premiums. The amendments implement provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-280) that change the variable-rate premium for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2008, and make other changes to the regulations. (Other provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 that deal with PBGC premiums are the subject of separate rulemaking proceedings.) DATES: Effective April 21, 2008. (For information about applicability of the amendments made by this rule, see Applicability in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION .) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John H. Hanley, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Department; or Catherine B. Klion, Manager, or Deborah C. Murphy, Attorney, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

(PBGC)administers the pension plan termination insurance program under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Pension plans covered by Title IV must pay premiums to PBGC. The flat-rate premium applies to all covered plans; the variable-rate premium applies only to single-employer plans. Section 4006 of ERISA deals with premium rates, including the computation of premiums. Section 4007 of ERISA deals with the payment of premiums, including premium due dates and interest and penalties on premiums not timely paid, and with recordkeeping and audits. On August 17, 2006, the President signed into law the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280 (PPA 2006). PPA 2006 makes changes to the funding rules in Title I of ERISA and in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

(Code)on which the variable-rate premium is based. Section 401(a) of PPA 2006 amends the variable-rate premium provisions of section 4006 of ERISA to conform to those changes in the funding rules and to eliminate the full-funding limit exemption from the variable-rate premium. On May 31, 2007 (at 72 FR 30308), PBGC published in the **Federal Register** a proposed rule to amend PBGC's regulations on Premium Rates (29 CFR part 4006) and Payment of Premiums (29 CFR part 4007) to implement the amendment to ERISA section 4006 made by PPA 2006. (PPA 2006 also includes other provisions affecting PBGC premiums that were not addressed in the proposed rule, including provisions that cap the variable-rate premium for certain plans of small employers, make permanent the new “termination premium” (created by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005) that is payable in connection with certain distress and involuntary plan terminations, and authorize PBGC's payment of interest on refunds of overpaid premiums. Those provisions are or will be the subject of other rulemaking actions. See, for example, PBGC's final rule published December 17, 2007 (at 72 FR 71222).) PBGC received comments on the proposed rule from two commenters—an actuary and an organization representing plan sponsors and service providers. The comments are discussed below with the topics they relate to. The final rule is nearly the same as the proposed rule. In addition to changes prompted by public comments, PBGC has added two definitional cross-references, clarified the definition of “new plan,” eliminated unnecessary verbiage from one of the due date rules, clarified the relationship between the funding interest rate transition rule and the premium funding target, extended the small-plan deadline for making certain elections, clarified how participants are counted for purposes of determining plan size, provided illustrations of the provision on vesting, and clarified the provision dealing with plans to which special funding rules apply. These changes are discussed below. There are also a few merely editorial refinements in the proposed rule's regulatory language. Overview of Regulatory Amendments For purposes of determining a plan's variable-rate premium

(VRP)for a premium payment year beginning after 2007, the rule requires unfunded vested benefits

(UVBs)to be measured as of the funding valuation date for the premium payment year. The asset measure underlying the UVB calculation is to be determined for premium purposes the same way it is determined for funding purposes, except that any averaging method adopted for funding purposes is disregarded. The liability measure underlying the UVB calculation is to be determined for premium purposes the same way it is determined for funding purposes, except that only vested benefits are included and a special premium discount rate structure is used. Filers may make an election (irrevocable for five years) to use funding discount rates for premium purposes instead of the special premium discount rates. The rule revises the premium due date and penalty structure of the existing regulation to give some plans more time to file and others the ability to make VRP filings based on estimated liabilities and then follow up with amended filings to adjust the VRP without penalty. Three special relief rules for VRP filers are eliminated as no longer appropriate or necessary, and two new relief rules are added. The rule also explains when certain benefits are considered “vested” and makes some other changes unrelated to PPA 2006. For example, the rule provides explicitly that (in the absence of an exemption) a premium filing made on paper or in any other manner other than the prescribed electronic filing method (applicable to all plans for plan years beginning after 2006) does not satisfy the requirement to file. It also clarifies and strengthens recordkeeping and audit provisions. A more detailed discussion follows. Variable-Rate Premium Determination Dates Under ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(i) and (ii), a plan's per-participant VRP for a plan year is generally— $9.00 for each $1,000 (or fraction thereof) of unfunded vested benefits [”UVBs”] under the plan as of the close of the preceding plan year. divided by the plan's participant count as of the close of the preceding plan year. (Under ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(H), added by section 405 of PPA 2006, the per-participant VRP is capped at $5 times the participant count as of the close of the prior plan year for certain plans of small employers. The cap provision is the subject of another rulemaking.) Under ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(A)(i), the per-participant VRP is multiplied by the number of participants “in [the] plan during the plan year” to yield the total VRP. The existing premium rates regulation treats all of these provisions as referring to a single determination date. In most cases, this is the last day of the prior plan year; it is the first day of the premium payment year (the plan year for which the premium is being paid) for two categories of plans: new and newly covered plans (which are not in existence as covered plans on the last day of the prior plan year) and certain plans involved in plan spinoffs and mergers as of the beginning of the premium payment year (which otherwise would double-count or not count certain participants and UVBs for premium purposes). The term “unfunded vested benefits” (“UVBs”) is defined in ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii). In section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii) before amendment by PPA 2006, “UVBs” is defined as unfunded current liability (a term found in the funding provisions of the Code and Title I of ERISA) determined by counting only vested benefits and using a special interest rate and (under certain circumstances) a special measure of plan assets. PPA 2006 changes the funding rules for single-employer plans, eliminating the concept of current liability for plan years beginning after 2007. (As discussed below, certain plans will not use the new funding rules until a later date.) To conform to this change, PPA 2006 changes the definition of UVBs in ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii). As amended by PPA 2006, for plan years beginning after 2007, section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii) provides that “UVBs”— means, for a plan year, the excess (if any) of * * * the funding target of the plan as determined under [ERISA] section 303(d) [corresponding to Code section 430(d)] for the plan year by only taking into account vested benefits and by using the interest rate described in [ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iv)], over * * * the fair market value of plan assets for the plan year which are held by the plan on the valuation date. New ERISA section 303(g) says that with certain exceptions not relevant here, “all determinations under this section [which includes the definition of “funding target” in section 303(d)(1)] for a plan year shall be made as of the valuation date of the plan for such plan year.” Thus PBGC concludes that the “valuation date” for plan assets referred to in new section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii) is the valuation date determined under section 303(g)(2). In general (under section 303(g)(2)(A)), the valuation date for a plan year is the first day of the plan year, but certain small plans may designate a different valuation date (under section 303(g)(2)(B)), which may be any day in the plan year. The change in the definition of UVBs thus creates ambiguity about the date as of which UVBs are to be measured. Section 4006(a)(3)(E)(ii), which was not changed by PPA 2006, refers to two plan years—the “plan year” for which the VRP is being paid (the premium payment year) and the “preceding plan year,” at the close of which UVBs are to be measured. New section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii) refers only to the “plan year” in defining UVBs. And a plan's funding target and assets—the elements of UVBs—are to be measured as of the valuation date, which need not be the close of the plan year and which for many plans (those not small enough to elect otherwise) must be the beginning of the plan year. To resolve the statutory ambiguity, PBGC is adopting a rule regarding the date as of which UVBs are to be measured. In view of the following considerations, PBGC is requiring that UVBs be measured as of the valuation date in the premium payment year rather than a date in the prior plan year. Historical data indicate that most premium filers use beginning-of-the-plan-year valuation dates for funding purposes; under PPA 2006 many of them will be required to do so. Although funding valuations don't themselves produce UVB numbers that can be used for VRP purposes, they involve the gathering of the same basic data for analysis, and the valuations are done in the same way, simply using different assumptions. It would be burdensome and impractical to require plans that must do funding valuations as of the first day of a plan year to do separate valuations as of the last day for VRP purposes. Requiring a funding valuation done as of the first day of the prior plan year to be “rolled forward” to the last day of the prior plan year is likewise burdensome and impractical. Instructions for “roll-forwards” would necessarily be complex, especially in light of the new “segment rate” interest assumption under ERISA sections 303(h)(2)(C) and 4006(a)(3)(E)(iv) as amended by PPA 2006. And “rolled-forward” valuations would tend to be inaccurate because correcting for the many changes in circumstances that can occur during the course of a year involves a significant element of estimation. Furthermore, basing the VRP on a valuation done in the premium payment year reflects a plan's current funding status much better than basing it on a valuation done in the prior year, especially a valuation done as of the first day of the prior year. And with some changes (discussed below) in PBGC's premium due date and penalty rules, there will be adequate time for plans to compute premiums based on a premium payment year valuation. Accordingly, this rule requires that UVBs be measured as of the valuation date for the premium payment year (referred to as the “UVB valuation date”) and adjusts premium due dates and penalty rules to accommodate the fact that this UVB valuation date is later (by at least a day and in some cases perhaps as much as a year) than “the close of the preceding plan year,” the date used under section 4006(a)(3)(E) before amendment by PPA 2006. (No change is made in the date as of which participants are counted, which the regulations as amended by this final rule refer to as the “participant count date.”) Variable-Rate Premium Computation As noted above, UVBs under PPA 2006 are based on a plan's funding target and the market value of its assets. Under new ERISA section 303(d)(1), as set forth in section 102 of PPA 2006, “the funding target of a plan for a plan year is the present value of all benefits accrued or earned under the plan as of the beginning of the plan year.” But new ERISA section 303(g) makes clear that the funding target is to be determined as of the valuation date, which for small plans may not be the beginning of the plan year. PBGC thus believes that what ERISA section 303(d)(1) requires is that the benefits to be valued as of the valuation date are those accrued as of the beginning of the plan year. If the valuation date is later than the first day of the plan year, accruals after the beginning of the plan year are to be ignored. The situation regarding assets is similar. New ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) refers to “the fair market value of plan assets for the plan year which are held by the plan on the valuation date.” Under new ERISA section 303(g)(4)(B), however, plan assets as of a valuation date later than the first day of the plan year do not include contributions for the plan year made during the plan year but before the valuation date or interest thereon. PBGC interprets section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) as incorporating this rule, as well as the corresponding rule for prior-year contributions in section 303(g)(4)(A). Thus for a valuation date later than the first day of the plan year, UVBs are to reflect neither accruals nor contributions for the plan year. In general, a plan's funding target and the value of its assets are to be determined for premium purposes the same way they are for funding purposes except as new ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii) and

(iv)provides otherwise. In order to distinguish the funding target used for premium purposes from that used for funding purposes, the rule introduces the term “premium funding target.” In general, this means the funding target determined by taking only vested benefits into account and by using the special segment rates described in new ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iv) (the “standard premium funding target”). Those special segment rates are “spot rates” (based on bond yields for a single recent month), as opposed to the 24-month average segment rates used for funding purposes. But in certain circumstances (described below), PBGC is permitting filers to use an “alternative premium funding target” that may be less burdensome to use than the standard premium funding target. A plan's alternative premium funding target is the vested portion of the plan's funding target under ERISA section 303(d)(1) that is used to determine the plan's minimum contribution under ERISA section 303 for the premium payment year—that is, an amount calculated using the same assumptions as are used to calculate the plan's funding target under ERISA section 303(d)(1), but based only on vested benefits, rather than all benefits. Although instructions for annual reports on Form 5500 series for plan years beginning after 2007 are not final, PBGC expects plans to be required to compute the vested portion of the funding target (broken down by participant category) for Form 5500 filings. PBGC also expects that the final instructions will permit or require benefits to be categorized as vested or non-vested in a manner consistent with the provisions of this rule (discussed below) that explain when certain benefits are considered vested for premium purposes. The advantage to a filer of using the alternative premium funding target will be that, if the plan determines the vested portion of its funding target for purposes of the annual report (Form 5500 series) in a manner consistent with PBGC's rules, it can use the same number for premium purposes and thus avoid having to do a second calculation for premium purposes alone. Under the rule, the alternative premium funding target may be used where the plan makes an election to do so that is irrevocable for a period of five years. As financial markets fluctuate, the averaged rates used for the alternative premium funding target will fluctuate above and below the spot rates used for the standard premium funding target. Locking in the election for five years will keep plans from calculating the premium funding target both ways each year and using the smaller number; the reason for permitting use of the alternative premium funding target is to reduce not premiums but the burden of computing premiums. PBGC expects that normal interest rate fluctuations will make premiums computed with the alternative premium funding target—on average, over time—approximately equal to premiums calculated with the standard premium funding target. Requiring a five-year commitment to the use of the alternative premium funding target will give this averaging process time to work. If a plan administrator concludes that the averaging process has not had enough time to work by the end of the minimum five-year election period, the election may be left in place to give the averaging process more time to work. The proposed rule required that an election (or revocation of an election) to use the alternative premium funding target be made by the end of the first plan year to which it would apply. The final rule changes the election/revocation deadline to the VRP due date for the first plan year to which the election or revocation would apply. This will allow an election or revocation to be made at the same time as a plan's VRP filing for the first plan year to which it applies, even if the plan year ends before the due date (such as for a small plan (as discussed below) or a short plan year). And since the VRP depends on whether an available election or revocation is made, there is no need for the election/revocation deadline to be later than the VRP due date if the VRP due date occurs before the end of the plan year. PBGC plans to provide for such elections and revocations in its electronic premium filing application. The proposed rule did not explicitly address the applicability of the transition rule in ERISA section 303(h)(2)(G) to the calculation of the premium funding target. Section 303(h)(2)(G) calls for a two-year transition from the current liability interest rate to the new segment rates for purposes of determining the funding target. However, in describing the interest rate to be used in determining the standard premium funding target, ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iv) (as added by PPA 2006) refers only to subparagraphs

(C)and

(D)of ERISA section 303(h)(2), not to the funding interest assumption as a whole. Thus, the fact that there is a transition rule for funding purposes does not mean that there is a transition rule for premium purposes. Furthermore, since the current liability interest rate is not the interest assumption that has heretofore been used to determine UVBs, a literal application of the section 303(h)(2)(G) transition rule would lead to illogical results. The only reasonable way the transition rule could be applied to the calculation of the standard premium funding target would be by reading into section 303(h)(2)(G) (for premium purposes) a reference to the required interest rate heretofore used to determine UVBs, rather than the current liability interest rate that section 303(h)(2)(G) actually refers to. Accordingly, the proposed rule did not provide for the applicability of the transition rule to the determination of the standard premium funding target, and the premium filing instructions that PBGC submitted for approval by the Office of Management and Budget when the proposed rule was published reflected this. Section 4006.4(b)(2)(ii) of the premium rates regulation, as amended by the final rule, makes this point explicit. The alternative premium funding target, on the other hand, is based directly on the funding target under ERISA section 303(d)(1), which will be calculated using the transition rule (unless elected out of under ERISA section 303(h)(2)(G)(iv)). Thus the alternative premium funding target will clearly reflect the provisions of section 303(h)(2)(G), just as it will reflect the provisions of section 303(h)(2)(D)(ii) (election to use the full yield curve instead of segment rates) or section 303(h)(2)(E) (election of “applicable month” for determining the yield curve). PBGC believes that this point is clearly implicit in the language of the proposed rule, and has not changed that language for the final rule. Since new ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) speaks explicitly of the “fair market value” of assets, PBGC concludes that it would be inconsistent with the statute to permit or require the use of the averaging process described in new ERISA section 303(g)(3)(B) or the reduction of assets by the prefunding and funding standard carryover balances described in new ERISA section 303(f)(4). (The existing premium rates regulation also provides that credit balances do not reduce assets for premium purposes.) As noted above, however, PBGC believes that adjustments must be made for contributions as described in new ERISA section 303(g)(4). Similar adjustments are required under the current premium rates regulation. For simplicity, PBGC is providing that the adjustments are to be made using the effective interest rates determined for funding purposes, rather than effective interest rates computed on the basis of the premium segment rates. This will mean that the adjustments do not have to be calculated twice (once for funding purposes and again for premium purposes), and plans can use for premium purposes a figure for the value of assets that they are expected to be entering in the annual report (Form 5500 series). PBGC anticipates that the differences between funding and premium rates and the periods of time over which these rates are applied for this purpose will be small enough to justify this simplification. And as funding rates fluctuate above and below premium rates, the differences in each direction should cancel out over time. This rule does not include an “alternative calculation method” for rolling forward prior year values to the current year. The alternative calculation method

(ACM)in § 4006.4(c) of the current premium rates regulation was instituted when much actuarial valuation work was done using hand calculators and tables of factors. High-speed, high-memory computers are now the norm for handling both data and mathematical computations. Actuarial valuations are thus much faster now. Furthermore, the segment rate methodology for valuing benefits does not lend itself to the kind of formulaic transformation process exemplified by the existing ACM. PBGC accordingly believes that an alternative calculation method is both unnecessary and impracticable under PPA 2006. Noting that the proposed rule ignored premium payment year accruals in determining the premium funding target for plans with UVB valuation dates after the beginning of the year, one commenter urged that benefit increase amendments adopted after the UVB valuation date but implemented retroactively to the beginning of the premium payment year be ignored for premium purposes. PBGC is not adopting any express provision on this subject. The premium funding target is based on the funding target under ERISA section 303(d); whether a benefit increase (even if retroactive) is taken into account for premium purposes depends on whether it is taken into account for funding purposes, an issue not addressed in this rule. Due Dates and Penalty Rules PBGC expects that most plans that are required (or choose) to do funding valuations as of the beginning of the plan year (and whose UVB valuation date is thus the first day of the premium payment year) will be able to determine their UVBs by the VRP due date currently provided for in PBGC's premium payment regulation (generally, the middle of the tenth full calendar month after the beginning of the plan year). But there are some circumstances that can make timely determination of the VRP difficult or impossible: for example, use of a valuation date after the beginning of the plan year (applicable to small plans only) or difficulty in collecting data (e.g., because of the occurrence of unusual events during the preceding year). To deal with such circumstances, PBGC is revising its premium due date and penalty structure to give smaller plans more time to file and larger plans the ability to make VRP filings based on estimated liabilities and then correct them without penalty. The following detailed discussion of the due date and penalty structure is followed by a summary table. PBGC's current due date structure for flat- and variable-rate premiums is based on two categories of plans: those that owed premiums for 500 or more participants for the plan year preceding the premium payment year (“large” plans) and those that did not. The new structure is based on three categories. The large-plan category remains the same. A new “mid-size” category consists of plans that owed premiums for 100 or more, but fewer than 500, participants for the plan year preceding the premium payment year. A category of “small” plans includes all other plans. The participant count for this purpose will continue to be the prior year's count; the rule provides uniform language for determining both single- and multiemployer plans' participant counts for determining due dates, eliminating a slight language difference in the existing regulation. The final rule makes clear that the number of participants used for determining plan size is the participant count used for purposes of the flat-rate premium (not the number of participants whose benefits are taken into account in computing the VRP). Since both flat-rate and variable-rate premium due dates are based on plan size, plan size must be determinable for plans (such as multiemployer plans) that do not compute the VRP. Furthermore, the VRP does not reflect the number of participants directly except for certain plans of small employers that are subject to a VRP cap based on the number of participants (in which case it is the flat-rate participant count that is used). Tying plan size to the flat-rate premium participant count is consistent with the existing regulation. The 100-participant break-point between the small and mid-size categories approximates the break-point in the PPA 2006 funding rules between plans that are required to use beginning-of-the-year valuation dates under ERISA section 303(g)(2)(A) and those permitted to use another date under ERISA section 303(g)(2)(B). The correspondence with the valuation date provision is only approximate. Under the valuation date provision, PPA 2006 counts participants on each day of a plan year and aggregates plans within controlled groups; under the premium due date rules, participants are counted in one plan on one day. Furthermore, PPA 2006 funding rules look back to the plan year preceding the valuation year; the PBGC participant count for the plan year preceding the premium payment year is typically as of the last day of the plan year before that. Accordingly, there may be plans that are eligible to elect valuation dates other than the first day of the plan year but that do not fall into PBGC's new small-plan category. But most plans that use valuation dates other than the first day of the plan year are expected to be “small” under the new due date structure, and there is enough flexibility in the due date rules for large and mid-size plans to make premium filing manageable in most cases even for plans with valuation dates after the beginning of the plan year. In unusual cases, where a plan with a valuation date late in the year finds itself in the large or mid-size category, PBGC has authority to waive late premium penalties. Small Plans For plans in the “small” category, all premiums will be due on the last day of the sixteenth full calendar month that begins on or after the first day of the premium payment year (for calendar-year plans, April 30 of the year following the premium payment year). This will give any small plan at least four months to determine UVBs. The same due date will apply to both variable- and flat-rate premiums. While there is no reason these small plans cannot determine the flat-rate premium by the current due date (the 15th day of the tenth full calendar month that begins on or after the first day of the premium payment year), PBGC wants to avoid requiring them to make two filings per year. And for simplicity, PBGC is making no distinction for due date purposes between single-employer plans that pay the VRP and single-employer (and multiemployer) plans that do not. Small single-employer plans that qualify for an exemption from the VRP and small multiemployer plans (which are not subject to the VRP) will have the same deferred due date as small single-employer plans that owe a VRP. Mid-Size Plans For mid-size plans, the rule retains the current premium due date—the 15th day of the tenth full calendar month that begins on or after the first day of the premium payment year (October 15th for calendar-year plans)—for both flat- and variable-rate premiums. With rare exceptions, these plans will perform valuations as of the first day of the premium payment year, and in most cases should be able to calculate UVBs by the current due date. However, in recognition of the possibility that circumstances might make a final UVB determination by the due date difficult or impossible, the rule permits VRP filings to be made based on estimated liabilities and provides a penalty-free “true-up” period to correct a VRP based on an erroneous estimate. Under this provision, the VRP penalty is waived for a period of time after the VRP due date if, by the VRP due date, the plan administrator submits an estimate of the VRP that meets certain requirements and pays the estimated amount. The waiver of the penalty covers the period from the VRP due date until the small-plan due date or, if earlier, the filing of the final VRP. Interest is not suspended; if the VRP estimate falls short of the correct amount, interest will accrue on the amount of the underpayment from the date when the payment was due to the date the shortfall was paid, just as with the existing “safe harbor” rule for large plans' flat-rate premium payments. The requirements for the VRP estimate are that it be based on

(1)a final determination of the market value of the plan's assets and

(2)a reasonable estimate of the plan's premium funding target for the premium payment year that takes into account the most current data available to the plan's enrolled actuary and is determined in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and practices. The estimate of the premium funding target must be certified by the enrolled actuary and, like other premium information filed with PBGC, is subject to audit. PBGC needs a good estimate of its VRP income for inclusion in its annual report, which is prepared during October (because its fiscal year ends September 30), when most plans (those with calendar plan years) submit VRP filings. Thus, it is important to have assurance that the estimate of the premium funding target has been prepared in good faith. Since this penalty relief is based on the plan's reporting a final figure for the value of assets by the VRP due date, the relief is lost if there is a mistake in the assets figure so reported, whether the mistaken figure is lower or higher than the true figure. PBGC will consider a request for an appropriate penalty waiver in such a situation and in acting on the request will consider such facts and circumstances as the reason for the mistake, whether assets were over- or understated, and, if assets were overstated, the extent of the overstatement. Since the provision of a period for “truing up” the VRP without penalty, after a filing based on an estimate, is not an extension of the VRP due date, it does not provide additional time to make an alternative premium funding target election. Large Plans The due date and penalty structure for “large” plans is the same as for “mid-size” plans except that the early due date for the flat-rate premium under the existing regulation is retained, along with the related “safe harbor” penalty rules. However, there is a change in the “safe harbor” rules to accommodate the unlikely event that a plan might be in the small-plan category for one year but in the large-plan category for the next year. Under §§ 4007.8(f) and (g)(2)(ii) of the existing premium payment regulation, a plan may be entitled to safe harbor relief if its flat-rate filing is consistent with its reported participant count for the prior plan year, even if the reported count is later determined to be wrong. But under the new rules, a plan that is small for one year and large for the next year will not have to report its participant count for the first year until after the flat-rate due date for the second year. Thus, to get the benefit of these special safe-harbor rules, a plan in such circumstances would have to make its final filing for the first year two months before it was due. To alleviate this problem, the rule provides safe-harbor relief for any plan whose flat-rate due date for the plan year preceding the premium payment year is later than the large-plan flat-rate due date for the premium payment year. Due Date Table The following table shows the relevant premium due dates for small, mid-size, and large calendar year plans (as described above) for the 2008 premium payment year: Small plans (under 100 participants) Mid-size plans (100-499 participants) Large plans (500 or more participants) Flat-rate premium due April 30, 2009 October 15, 2008 February 29, 2008. See flat-rate premium safe harbor rules. Flat-rate premium reconciliation due N/A N/A October 15, 2008. Variable-rate premium due April 30, 2009 October 15, 2008. Estimate may be filed and paid. See rules on correcting VRP without penalty October 15, 2008. Estimate may be filed and paid. See rules on correcting VRP without penalty. Latest VRP penalty starting date. If certain conditions are met, penalty is waived until this date or, if earlier, the date the final VRP is filed N/A April 30, 2009 April 30, 2009. Special Variable-Rate Premium Rules The existing premium rates regulation includes a number of special “exemption” or “relief” rules for VRP filers. One of these—the full-funding limit exemption, which was created by statute—has been eliminated by PPA 2006. Three others—created by PBGC regulation in 1988—have lost their justification, as explained below, and PBGC is eliminating them as well. PBGC is also introducing two new “relief” rules. The three regulatory special rules that are eliminated are

(1)the rule that a plan with fewer than 500 participants for the premium payment year is exempt from reporting its VRP information if the plan has no UVBs (the “small well-funded plan rule”),

(2)the rule that a plan with 500 or more participants may report (and compute its VRP on the basis of) accrued rather than vested benefits (the “large plan accrued benefit rule”), and

(3)the rule that a plan may value benefits using the funding interest rate rather than the variable-rate premium interest rate if the funding rate is less than the premium rate (the “funding interest rate rule”). All three represent compromises between the need for accuracy in the determination of the VRP and the reporting of VRP data on the one hand and the need to reduce the burden of compliance on the other. PBGC needs accurate data about UVBs and assets—now as in 1988—to verify the correctness of the reported VRP and for financial projections. But whereas the cost of determining this information 20 years ago could be very significant, because much actuarial valuation work was done using hand calculators and tables of factors, valuations are now computerized and thus cost less. PBGC's need for accurate data now outweighs the burden of determining and reporting the data. The elimination of these three special rules reflects that change in the balance between need and burden. Furthermore, both the “large plan accrued benefit rule” and the “funding interest rate rule” overstate UVBs and are used by very few plans—fewer than three dozen plans used each of these two special rules for the 2004 filing year (the last year for which data are available). In addition, one of the two new “relief” rules that PBGC is introducing—the new alternative premium funding target provision discussed above—provides relief for filers that might otherwise have used any of these three special rules. The alternative premium funding target provision permits the use of funding rates for premium purposes (like the “funding interest rate rule”) without the need for a comparison of rates (albeit with a requirement for a five-year commitment). And by using the alternative premium funding target provision, plans that might have used the “large plan accrued benefit rule” or the “small well-funded plan rule” may be able to base premium reporting on figures that are computed for and included in the annual report (Form 5500 series). PBGC's second new “relief” rule—in addition to the alternative premium funding target provision—is a reporting relief provision for certain small-employer plans. Section 405 of PPA 2006 caps the VRP for certain plans of small employers, a provision that is the subject of another PBGC rulemaking proceeding. This rule exempts plans that qualify for the VRP cap and pay the full amount of the cap from determining or reporting UVBs. Meaning of “Vested” As discussed above, the determination of UVBs—both before and after the PPA 2006 amendments—requires that only vested benefits be taken into account. PBGC believes that there is some uncertainty among pension practitioners as to the meaning of the term “vested” as used in ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E). With a view to reducing uncertainty and promoting consistency in the VRP determination process, § 4006.4(d) of the premium rates regulation, as amended by this final rule, explains—for premium purposes only—when certain benefits are considered vested. The proposed rule specified two circumstances that would not prevent a participant's benefit from being vested for premium purposes. One circumstance is that the benefit is not protected under Code section 411(d)(6) and thus may be eliminated or reduced by the adoption of a plan amendment or by the occurrence of a condition or event (such as a change in marital status). PBGC considers such a benefit to be vested (if the other conditions of entitlement have been met) so long as the benefit has not actually been eliminated or reduced. The other circumstance—applicable to certain benefits payable upon a participant's death—is that the participant is living. The benefits to which this would apply are

(1)a qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity,

(2)a post-retirement survivor annuity such as the annuity paid after a participant's death under a joint and survivor or certain and continuous option, and

(3)a benefit that returns a participant's accumulated mandatory employee contributions. PBGC considers such benefits to be vested (if the other conditions of entitlement have been met) notwithstanding that the participant is alive. The final rule includes two illustrative examples. There was a public comment that the vesting provision in the proposed rule did not address two types of benefits as to which guidance was needed: Pre-retirement lump sum death benefits and disability benefits. PBGC does not intend new § 4006.4(d) (the vesting provision) to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject; the provision is meant merely to provide clarification for the specific cases it mentions. In response to this comment, however, PBGC is expanding § 4006.4(d) to provide that a pre-retirement lump sum death benefit (other than one that returns mandatory employee contributions) is not considered vested for premium purposes where the participant is living and that a disability benefit is not considered vested for premium purposes where the participant is not disabled. Another commenter stated that many practitioners have not been treating as vested the benefits that PBGC would consider vested under the proposed rule and that PBGC's vesting provision is at odds with the standards (currently under revision) of the American Academy of Actuaries. The commenter expressed a preference that PBGC not adopt the proposed vesting provision and urged that the provision be applied prospectively only. PBGC acknowledges that some actuaries may not be using the interpretation of vesting prescribed by this rule but believes that many are doing so; it is precisely to promote consistency in this regard that the vesting provision—applicable for premium purposes only—is included in the rule. For plans that have been computing UVBs without counting benefits that are considered vested under PBGC's rule, adoption of the rule may increase UVBs. As stated in Applicability below, the rule is effective for plan years beginning after 2007. Although PBGC has made no determination as to the position it may take regarding the interpretive issue for prior periods, PBGC currently has no plans to focus on this issue in audits of premium filings for plan years beginning before 2008. Recordkeeping and Audits The rule clarifies and strengthens the provisions of the premium payment regulation dealing with recordkeeping and audits. Most of the changes simply reflect existing recordkeeping and audit practices. In describing the premium records to be kept, the current premium payment regulation mentions explicitly only those prepared by enrolled actuaries and insurance carriers. The rule broadens this to include plan sponsors and employers required to contribute to a plan for their employees and clarifies, with a list of examples of relevant records, that PBGC interprets the term “records” broadly. Similarly, the rule refers explicitly to records supporting the amount of premiums that were *required* to be paid and the premium-related information that was *required* to be reported (rather than just what was actually paid or reported). Where a premium or premium-related information is determined through the use of a manual or automated system or process, the rule allows PBGC to require that the operation of the system or process be demonstrated so that its effectiveness, and the reliability of the results produced, can be assessed. In addition, in situations where plan records are deficient, the rule broadens the categories of data on which PBGC may rely to establish the amount of premiums due to include not just participant count data but UVB data. The rule also makes clear that the 45 days permitted for producing records under § 4007.10(c) applies to records sent to PBGC, not to records audited on-site (which PBGC expects to be produced much more promptly). And the rule broadens the circumstances in which PBGC can require faster submission of records. The existing regulation limits such circumstances to those where collection of money may be jeopardized. This is changed to authorize shorter response times where the interests of PBGC may be prejudiced by delay—such as where PBGC has reason to suspect that records might be destroyed or manipulated. Miscellaneous Provisions Plans Subject to Special Funding Rules Sections 104, 105, and 106 of PPA 2006 defer the effective date of the funding amendments for certain plans described in those sections, which in general deal with plans of cooperatives, plans affected by settlement agreements with PBGC, and plans of government contractors. Section 402 of PPA 2006 (amended by section 6615 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. 110-28) applies special funding rules to certain plans of commercial passenger airlines and airline caterers. None of these provisions affects the applicability of the amendments to ERISA section 4006 regarding the determination of the VRP. The rule provides explicitly that plans in this small group must determine UVBs in the same manner as all other plans. The language of this provision has been revised in the final rule to make this point clearer (in light, particularly, of the amendment to section 402 of PPA 2006, which was made after the proposed rule was cleared for publication in the **Federal Register** ). New and Newly Covered Plans The rule eliminates confusing language in the existing regulations that raised questions about the determination of due dates, participant count dates, and premium proration for new and newly covered plans in certain circumstances. The new language makes clear that the first day of a new plan's first plan year for premium purposes is the effective date of the plan. The final rule goes beyond the proposed rule in this regard by revising the definition of “new plan” to eliminate wording that might suggest that a new plan could become effective after the beginning of its first premium payment year. These changes will obviate the need for plan administrators to choose between the effective date and the adoption date as the first day of the plan year for premium filing. In addition, the final rule eliminates one of the alternative due date computation rules for new and newly covered plans (in new § 4007.11(c)). The proposed rule included an alternative under which the due date would be not earlier than 90 days after the plan's coverage date. This alternative is not necessary. The coverage date must fall within the premium payment year in order for premiums to be due at all, and the due date cannot be earlier than sixteen months after the beginning of that year. Thus, the due date will be at least four months (i.e. more than 90 days) after the date on which the plan became covered. Accordingly, an alternative due date that is 90 days after the coverage date would never come into play and can be eliminated from the regulation. Electronic Filing Requirement Effective July 1, 2006, PBGC amended its regulations to require that annual premium filings be made electronically (71 FR 31077, June 1, 2006). (Exemptions from the e-filing requirement may be granted for good cause in appropriate circumstances.) For PBGC's premium processing systems to work effectively and efficiently, information must be received in an electronic format compatible with those systems; the burden of reformatting information received on paper or in other incompatible formats is significant, and the reformatting process gives rise to data errors. The premium payment regulation as amended by this rule therefore provides explicitly that, in the absence of an exemption, premium filing on paper or in any other manner other than the prescribed electronic filing method does not satisfy the requirement to file. Thus, a penalty under ERISA section 4071 may be assessed for the period from the due date of the premium filing until it is made electronically, even if a timely paper filing is made. Billing “Grace Period” for Interest The rule consolidates paragraphs

(b)and

(c)of § 4007.7, both of which deal with the “grace period” for interest on premium underpayments where a bill is paid within 30 days. No substantive change is intended. VRP Rate ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(ii) sets the variable-rate premium at $9 for each $1,000 (or fraction thereof) of UVBs. Section 4006.3(b) of the existing premium rates regulation omits the phrase “(or fraction thereof).” The requirement is made clear in PBGC's premium instructions; the rule adds this phrase to the regulatory text. Pre-1996 Penalty Accrual Rules The rule eliminates the pre-1996 penalty accrual rules as anachronistic. Definitional Cross-Reference The definition of “participant” in § 4006.6 uses the term “benefit liabilities,” which is defined in § 4001.2 of PBGC's regulation on Terminology. Existing § 4006.2 (dealing with defined terms used in the premium rates regulation) does not include a cross-reference to the definition of “benefit liabilities” in § 4001.2. This final rule corrects that omission (which was not corrected in the proposed rule). Other Changes The rule includes a number of clarifying and editorial changes. Applicability The regulatory changes made by this rule, like the statutory changes to the VRP, apply to plan years beginning after 2007. Compliance With Rulemaking Guidelines E.O. 12866 PBGC has determined, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. The Office of Management and Budget has therefore reviewed the rule under E.O. 12866. Pursuant to section 1(b)(1) of E.O. 12866 (as amended by E.O. 13422), PBGC identifies the following specific problems that warrant this agency action: • There is ambiguity in ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E) regarding the date as of which UVBs are to be measured. This problem is significant because, unless the statutory ambiguity is resolved, it will be unclear what date UVBs are to be measured as of. • The statute lacks clarity and specificity in describing how UVBs are calculated. This problem is significant because, unless clarity and specificity are provided, it will be unclear how to compute UVBs. • The statute does not expressly provide for an alternative premium funding target as described above. This problem is significant because the standard premium funding target provided for in the statute is more burdensome to use than the alternative premium funding target described above without generating significantly different premium revenue than the less burdensome alternative premium funding target. • PBGC's existing premium due date and penalty rules do not accord well with the new rules for the date as of which and manner in which UVBs are to be determined. This problem is significant because, without changes in the due date and penalty rules, some plans may experience difficulties in paying premiums timely and without late payment penalties. • Some existing PBGC VRP relief rules are anachronistic and some new relief provisions are warranted by statutory changes. This problem is significant because the outmoded relief rules detract from accuracy in determining the VRP and deprive PBGC of VRP data without significantly reducing burden, while statutory changes have made it possible to grant new relief without significant adverse consequences for the PBGC insurance program. • There is uncertainty as to the meaning of the term “vested” that is used in the statute to describe benefits taken into account in determining the VRP. This problem is significant because, without improved clarity in the meaning of “vested” as applied to VRP determinations, those determinations may be inconsistent. • PBGC's current recordkeeping and audit rules do not match current recordkeeping and audit practices in scope and specificity, and provide relatively narrow circumstances in which PBGC may require expedited submission of records. This problem is significant because inadequate recordkeeping and audit rules could compromise PBGC's ability to enforce the premium rules in the statute and PBGC's regulations thereunder. • PBGC's existing premium payment regulation does not provide explicitly that, in the absence of an exemption, premium filing on paper or in any other manner other than the prescribed electronic filing method does not satisfy the requirement to file. This problem is significant because, in the absence of an explicit statement, filers might believe they had a basis for taking the position that penalties for late filing would not apply if they timely filed on paper or in some other non-approved manner. Regulatory Flexibility Act PBGC certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) that the amendments in this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, as provided in section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), sections 603 and 604 do not apply. Most of the amendments implement statutory changes made by Congress. They provide procedures for calculating, substantiating, and paying the premiums prescribed by statute and impose no significant burden beyond the burden imposed by statute. To the extent that this rule makes changes that are outside the explicit scope of the statute, they affect primarily the requirement to perform and manner of performing VRP calculations. When the VRP provisions were added to PBGC's regulations nearly 20 years ago, these calculations were mostly done using actuarial tables and hand calculators. Today they are almost universally done using high-memory, high-speed computers. The VRP calculations parallel funding calculations that must be done independently of PBGC premium requirements. Thus, the VRP calculations can be done for the most part by plugging in different parameters (such as interest rates) to computer programs that are used for funding purposes. The incremental cost of such calculations for entities of any size is insignificant. Not including a computation option like the existing alternative computation method

(ACM)in the new rules does not significantly affect compliance costs because such an option would itself be complex and thus burdensome to use and because a simplified computation method is no longer needed in the current environment of computerized actuarial computations. Changes that would tend to increase compliance costs ( *e.g.,* elimination of the VRP exemption for well-funded small plans) are offset by changes tending to reduce compliance costs ( *e.g.,* the introduction of the reporting exemption for plans of small employers paying the maximum capped VRP). The shift from prior-year to current-year data and the deferral of the due date for small plans (those with fewer than 100 participants) should not affect the cost of compliance. Under existing rules, UVBs are determined as of the end of the prior year (or in some cases the beginning of the current year) and the VRP is due 9 1/2 months later. Under the new rules, UVBs will be determined as of the UVB valuation date, which for most small plans may be any day in the current year. For plans that choose a valuation date at the beginning of the year, the VRP is now due 16 months later. For those that choose a valuation date at the end of the year, the VRP is now due 4 months later. For a plan that chooses a mid-year valuation date, the VRP is due 10 months later, providing about the same time for data-gathering and computations as under the existing rules. But even a 4-month period between the valuation date and the due date should be adequate for the data-gathering and UVB computations of small plans, and the change in timing should not affect the cost of compliance. PBGC believes that the changes to the recordkeeping requirements in general simply codify existing practices. The changes to the audit rules will not affect a significant number of plans of any size. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements under this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (OMB control number 1212-0009; expires 02/28/2011). 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 OMB control number. PBGC needs premium-related information to identify the plan for which premiums are paid to PBGC, to verify the determination of the premium, and to help the PBGC determine the magnitude of its exposure in the event of plan termination. The information collection requirements under the premium rates and premium payment regulations that OMB approved included the following changes from those previously approved: • Filers will be required to include in the addresses of the plan sponsor and plan administrator the countries where the addresses are located (if other than the United States). • Filers will no longer be required to report coverage status. • Filers will be required to provide the plan contact's e-mail address (if any). • Filers will no longer be required to provide information on participant notices under ERISA section 4011 (that requirement having been eliminated by PPA 2006). • Filers will be required to report if they qualify for premium proration (for a short plan year) and if so, to report the number of months in the proration period. Proration will be reported separately from credits. (This change will not apply to 2008 estimated flat-rate premium filings.) • Filers will be required to report plan size (small, mid-size, or large) based on the prior year's participant count (or report that the plan is filing for the first time). • Filers will have an opportunity to make alternative premium funding target elections as part of the premium filing. • Filers will be required to report the participant count date. • Most existing VRP information items will be eliminated in connection with the implementation of the new VRP rules. Items retained will be the identification of any applicable VRP exemption and the amount of UVBs. • New VRP data required will be qualification for the VRP cap for certain plans of small employers, the UVB valuation date, the premium funding target as of the UVB valuation date, the premium funding target method (standard or alternative), whether the reported premium funding target is an estimate, the segment rates used to compute the premium funding target (or indication that the full yield curve was used), the market value of assets as of the UVB valuation date, the (unprorated) VRP cap (for plans eligible for the cap), and the (unprorated) uncapped VRP (for plans not eligible for the cap). • For a final filing, filers will be required to report the date and type of event that results in the cessation of the filing obligation. • The existing item on transfers from disappearing plans will be replaced by two new items: information about transfers from other plans (whether disappearing or not) and information about transfers to other plans. (This change will not apply to 2008 estimated flat-rate premium filings.) • For frozen plans, filers will be required to identify the type of freeze and its effective date. • For amended filings, filers will be required to report any change in the beginning and ending dates of the plan year being reported and any change in the plan identifying numbers being reported from those in the original filing. List of Subjects 29 CFR Part 4006 Pension insurance, Pensions. 29 CFR Part 4007 Penalties, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons given above, 29 CFR parts 4006 and 4007 are amended as follows. PART 4006—PREMIUM RATES 1. The authority citation for part 4006 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1306, 1307. 2. In § 4006.2: a. The introductory text is amended by removing the words “chapter: Code” and adding in their place the words “chapter: benefit liabilities, Code”; and by removing the words “irrevocable commitment, multiemployer plan” and adding in their place the words “irrevocable commitment, mandatory employee contributions, multiemployer plan”. b. The definition of “new plan” is amended by removing the words “became effective within” and adding in their place the words “did not exist before”. c. The definition of “short plan year” is revised, and four new definitions are added, to read as follows: § 4006.2 Definitions. *Participant count* of a plan for a plan year means the number of participants in the plan on the participant count date of the plan for the plan year. *Participant count date* of a plan for a plan year means the date provided for in § 4006.5(c), (d), or

(e)as applicable. *Premium funding target* has the meaning described in § 4006.4(b)(1). *Short plan year* means a plan year of coverage that is shorter than a normal plan year. *UVB valuation date* of a plan for a plan year means the plan's funding valuation date for the plan year determined in accordance with ERISA section 303(g)(2). 3. In § 4006.3: a. Paragraph

(a)is amended by removing the words “last day of the plan year preceding the premium payment year,” and adding in their place the words “participant count date”. b. Paragraph (b)(1) is amended by removing the words “$1,000 of a single-employer plan's unfunded vested benefits” and adding in their place the words “$1,000 (or fraction thereof) of a single-employer plan's unfunded vested benefits for the premium payment year”. 4. Section 4006.4 is revised to read as follows: § 4006.4 Determination of unfunded vested benefits.

(a)*In general.* Except as provided in the exemptions and special rules under § 4006.5, the amount of a plan's unfunded vested benefits for the premium payment year is the excess (if any) of the plan's premium funding target for the premium payment year (determined under paragraph

(b)of this section) over the fair market value of the plan's assets for the premium payment year (determined under paragraph

(c)of this section). Unfunded vested benefits for the premium payment year must be determined as of the plan's UVB valuation date for the premium payment year, based on the plan provisions and the plan's population as of that date. The determination must be made in a manner consistent with generally accepted actuarial principles and practices.

(b)*Premium funding target* —

(1)*In general.* A plan's premium funding target is its standard premium funding target under paragraph (b)(2) of this section or, if an election to use the alternative premium funding target under § 4006.5(g) is in effect, its alternative premium funding target under § 4006.5(g).

(2)*Standard premium funding target.* A plan's standard premium funding target under this section is the plan's funding target as determined under ERISA section 303(d) (or 303(i), if applicable) for the premium payment year using the same assumptions that are used for funding purposes, except that—

(i)Only vested benefits are taken into account, and

(ii)The interest rates to be used are the segment rates for the month preceding the month in which the premium payment year begins that are determined in accordance with ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iv). These are the rates that would be determined under ERISA section 303(h)(2)(C) if ERISA section 303(h)(2)(D) were applied by using the monthly yields for the month preceding the month in which the premium payment year begins on investment grade corporate bonds with varying maturities and in the top 3 quality levels rather than the average of such yields for a 24-month period. For this purpose, the transition rule in ERISA section 303(h)(2)(G) is inapplicable.

(c)*Value of assets.* The fair market value of a plan's assets under this section is determined in the same manner as for funding purposes under ERISA section 303(g)(3) and (4), except that averaging as described in ERISA section 303(g)(3)(B) must not be used and prior year contributions are included only to the extent received by the plan by the date the premium is filed. Contribution receipts must be accounted for as described in ERISA section 303(g)(4), using effective interest rates determined under ERISA section 303(h)(2)(A) (not rates that could be determined based on the segment rates described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section).

(d)“ *Vested.* ” For purposes of ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E), this part, and part 4007 of this chapter:

(1)A participant's benefit that is otherwise vested does not fail to be vested merely because of the circumstance that the participant is living, in the case of the following death benefits:

(i)A qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity (as described in ERISA section 205(e)),

(ii)A post-retirement survivor annuity that pays some or all of the participant's benefit amount for a fixed or contingent period (such as a joint and survivor annuity or a certain and continuous annuity), and

(iii)A benefit that returns the participant's accumulated mandatory employee contributions (as described in ERISA section 204(c)(2)(C)).

(2)A benefit otherwise vested does not fail to be vested merely because of the circumstance that the benefit may be eliminated or reduced by the adoption of a plan amendment or by the occurrence of a condition or event (such as a change in marital status).

(3)A participant's pre-retirement lump-sum death benefit (other than a benefit described in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section) is not vested if the participant is living.

(4)A participant's disability benefit is not vested if the participant is not disabled.

(e)Illustration of vesting principles. The vesting principles set forth in paragraph

(d)of this section are illustrated by the following examples:

(1)*Example 1.* Under Plan A, if a participant retires at or after age 55 but before age 62, the participant receives a temporary supplement from retirement until age 62. The supplement is not a QSUPP (qualified social security supplement), as defined in Treasury Reg. § 1.401(a)(4)-12, and is not protected under Code section 411(d)(6). The temporary supplement is considered vested, and its value is included in the premium funding target, for each participant who, on the UVB valuation date, is at least 55 but less than 62, and thus eligible for the supplement. The calculation is unaffected by the fact that the plan could be amended to remove the supplement after the UVB valuation date.

(2)*Example 2.* Plan B provides a qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity

(QPSA)upon the death of a participant who has five years of service, at no charge to the participant. The QPSA is considered vested, and its value is included in the premium funding target, for each participant who, on the UVB valuation date, has five years of service and is thus eligible for the QPSA. The calculation is unaffected by the fact that the participant is alive on that date.

(f)*Plans to which special funding rules apply.* Unfunded vested benefits must be determined (whether the standard premium funding target or the alternative premium funding target is used) without regard to the following provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-280):

(1)Section 104, dealing generally with plans of cooperatives.

(2)Section 105, dealing generally with plans affected by settlement agreements with PBGC.

(3)Section 106, dealing generally with plans of government contractors.

(4)Section 402, dealing generally with plans of commercial passenger airlines and airline caterers. 5. In § 4006.5: a. Paragraph

(a)introductory text is amended by removing the words “paragraphs (a)(1)-(a)(5)” and adding in their place the words “paragraphs (a)(1)-(a)(3)”; and by removing the words “determine its unfunded vested benefits” and adding in their place the words “determine or report its unfunded vested benefits”. b. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(5) are removed. c. Paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) respectively. d. Redesignated paragraph (a)(1) is amended by removing the words “benefit liabilities” from the heading and adding in their place the word “participants”; by removing the word “did” and adding in its place the word “does”; and by removing the words “last day of the plan year preceding the premium payment year” and adding in their place the words “UVB valuation date”. e. Redesignated paragraph (a)(2) is amended by removing the figures “412(i)” where they appear once in the heading and once in the body of the paragraph and adding in their place the figures “412(e)(3)”; by removing the word “was” and adding in its place the word “is”; and by removing the words “last day of the plan year preceding the premium payment year” and adding in their place the words “UVB valuation date”. f. Redesignated paragraph (a)(3)(ii) is amended by removing the words “last day of the plan year preceding the premium payment year” and adding in their place the words “UVB valuation date”. g. The heading of paragraph

(e)is amended by removing the words “ *Special determination date rule for* ” and adding in their place the words “ *Participant count date;* ”. h. Paragraph (e)(2) introductory text is amended by removing the words “paragraph (e)(2) if” and adding in their place the words “paragraph (e)(2) for a plan year if”. i. Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) is amended by removing the words “on the first day of the plan's premium payment year” and adding in their place the words “at the beginning of the plan year”. j. Paragraph

(f)introductory text is amended by removing the words “year as described” and adding in their place the words “year described”. k. Paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e)(1), and (f)(1) are revised, and paragraph

(g)is added, to read as follows: § 4006.5 Exemptions and special rules.

(b)*Reporting exemption for plans paying capped variable-rate premium.* A plan that qualifies for the variable-rate premium cap described in ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(H) is not required to determine or report its unfunded vested benefits under § 4006.4 if it reports that it qualifies for the cap and pays a variable-rate premium equal to the amount of the cap.

(c)*Participant count date; in general.* Except as provided in paragraphs

(d)and

(e)of this section, the participant count date of a plan for a plan year is the last day of the prior plan year.

(d)*Participant count date; new and newly-covered plans.* The participant count date of a new plan or a newly-covered plan for a plan year is the first day of the plan year. For this purpose, a new plan's first plan year begins on the plan's effective date.

(e)*Participant count date; certain mergers and spinoffs.*

(1)The participant count date of a plan described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section for a plan year is the first day of the plan year.

(f)*Proration for certain short plan years.* * * *

(1)*New or newly covered plan.* A new plan becomes effective less than one full year before the beginning of its second plan year, or a newly-covered plan becomes covered on a date other than the first day of its plan year. (Cessation of coverage before the end of a plan year does not give rise to proration under this section.)

(g)*Alternative premium funding target.* A plan's alternative premium funding target is the vested portion of the plan's funding target under ERISA section 303(d)(1) that is used to determine the plan's minimum contribution under ERISA section 303 for the premium payment year, that is, the amount that would be determined under ERISA section 303(d)(1) if only vested benefits were taken into account. A plan may elect to compute unfunded vested benefits using the alternative premium funding target instead of the standard premium funding target described in § 4006.4(b)(2), and may revoke such an election, in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (g). A plan must compute its unfunded vested benefits using the alternative premium funding target instead of the standard premium funding target described in § 4006.4(b)(2) if an election under this paragraph

(g)to use the alternative premium funding target is in effect for the premium payment year.

(1)An election under this paragraph

(g)to use the alternative premium funding target for a plan must specify the first plan year to which it applies and must be filed by the plan's variable-rate premium due date for that plan year. The first plan year to which the election applies must begin at least five years after the first plan year to which a revocation of a prior election applied. The election will be effective—

(i)For the plan year for which made and for all plan years that begin less than five years thereafter, and

(ii)For all succeeding plan years until the first plan year to which a revocation of the election applies.

(2)A revocation of an election under this paragraph

(g)to use the alternative premium funding target for a plan must specify the first plan year to which it applies and must be filed by the plan's variable-rate premium due date for that plan year. The first plan year to which the revocation applies must begin at least five years after the first plan year to which the election applied. 6. In paragraph

(c)of § 4006.6: a. Example 1 is amended by removing the words “July 1, 2000” and adding in their place the words “July 1, 2008”; by removing the words “December 31, 2000” where they appear twice and adding in their place the words “December 31, 2008”; by removing the words “snapshot date” and adding in their place the words “participant count date”; and by removing the words “2001 premium” where they appear twice and adding in their place the words “2009 premium”. b. Example 2 is amended by removing the words “February 1, 2002” where they appear twice and adding in their place the words “February 1, 2010”; by removing the words “July 1, 2000” and adding in their place the words “July 1, 2008”; by removing the words “July 1, 2001” and adding in their place the words “July 1, 2009”; by removing the words “December 31, 2002” and adding in their place the words “December 31, 2010”; by removing the words “snapshot date” and adding in their place the words “participant count date”; and by removing the words “2003 premium” where they appear twice and adding in their place the words “2011 premium”. c. Example 3 is amended by removing the words “January 1, 2004” and adding in their place the words “January 1, 2012”; by removing the words “December 30, 2005” where they appear twice and adding in their place the words “December 30, 2013”; by removing the words “January 9, 2006” and adding in their place the words “January 9, 2014”; by removing the words “December 31, 2005” and adding in their place the words “December 31, 2013”; by removing the words “snapshot date” and adding in their place the words “participant count date”; and by removing the words “2006 premium” where they appear twice and adding in their place the words “2014 premium”. d. Example 4 is amended by removing the words “January 1, 2006” and adding in their place the words “January 1, 2014”; by removing the words “December 31, 2005” and adding in their place the words “December 31, 2013”; and by removing the words “2006 premium” and adding in their place the words “2014 premium”. PART 4007—PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS 7. The authority citation for part 4007 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1303(a), 1306, 1307. 8. In § 4007.2: a. Paragraph

(a)is amended by removing the word “insurer,”; and by removing the words “multiemployer plan,”. b. Paragraph

(b)is amended by removing the words “participant, premium payment year” and adding in their place the words “participant, participant count, premium funding target, premium payment year”. 9. In § 4007.3: a. The first three sentences (ending with the words “prescribed in the instructions.”) of the text of § 4007.3 are designated as paragraph (a), and the remainder of the text (beginning with the words “Information must be filed electronically”) is designated as paragraph (b). b. Newly designated paragraph

(a)is amended by adding the heading “In general.”; and by removing the words “estimation, declaration, reconciliation, and payment” and adding in their place the words “estimation, determination, declaration, and payment”. c. Newly designated paragraph

(b)is amended by adding the heading “ *Electronic filing* .”; by removing the words “requirement to file electronically does not apply” and adding in their place the words “requirement to file electronically applies to all estimated and final flat-rate and variable-rate premium filings (including amended filings) but does not apply”; and by adding two new sentences to the end of the paragraph to read as follows: § 4007.3 Filing requirement; method of filing.

(b)*Electronic filing.* * * * Unless an exemption applies, filing on paper or in any other manner other than by a prescribed electronic filing method does not satisfy the requirement to file. Failure to file electronically as required is subject to penalty under ERISA section 4071. 10. In § 4007.7, paragraph

(c)is removed, and paragraph

(b)is revised to read as follows: § 4007.7 Late payment interest charges.

(b)With respect to any PBGC bill for a premium underpayment and/or interest thereon, interest will accrue only until the date of the bill if the premium underpayment and interest billed are paid within 30 days after the date of the bill. 11. In § 4007.8: a. Paragraph

(a)introductory text is amended by adding at the end of the paragraph the words “The penalty rate is—”. b. Paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and paragraph (a)(2) are removed, and paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) respectively. c. Paragraph

(f)is amended by removing the figures “§ 4007.11(a)(2)(iii)” and adding in their place the figures “§ 4007.11(a)(3)(iii)”; by removing the words “filing is due if fewer” and adding in their place the words “filing is due if either—Fewer”; by removing the period at the end of paragraph

(f)and adding in its place “, or”; and by designating as paragraph (f)(1) the portion of the text of paragraph

(f)that begins with the words “Fewer than 500”. d. Paragraph

(i)is amended by removing the figures “§ 4007.11(a)(2)(iii)” and adding in their place the figures “§ 4007.11(a)(3)(iii)”. e. New paragraphs (f)(2) and

(j)are added to read as follows: § 4007.8 Late payment penalty charges.

(f)*Safe-harbor relief for certain large plans.* * * *

(2)The due date for paying the flat-rate premium for the plan year preceding the premium payment year is later than the due date for paying the flat-rate premium for the premium payment year.

(j)*Variable-rate premium penalty relief.* This waiver applies in the case of a plan for which a reconciliation filing is required under § 4007.11(a)(2)(ii) or (a)(3)(iv). PBGC will waive the penalty on any underpayment of the variable-rate premium for the period that ends on the earlier of the date the reconciliation filing is due or the date the reconciliation filing is made if, by the date the variable-rate premium for the premium payment year is due under § 4007.11(a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(ii)—

(1)The plan administrator reports—

(i)The fair market value of the plan's assets for the premium payment year, and

(ii)An estimate of the plan's premium funding target for the premium payment year that is certified by an enrolled actuary to be a reasonable estimate that takes into account the most current data available to the enrolled actuary and that has been determined in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and practices; and

(2)The plan administrator pays at least the amount of variable-rate premium determined from the value of assets and estimated premium funding target so reported. 12. In § 4007.10: a. Paragraph (c)(3) is amended by removing the words “that collection of unpaid premiums (or any associated interest or penalties) would otherwise be jeopardized” and adding in their place the words “that the interests of PBGC may be prejudiced by a delay in the receipt of the information (e.g., where collection of unpaid premiums (or any associated interest or penalties) would otherwise be jeopardized)”. b. Paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and (c)(1) are revised, and paragraph (a)(4) is added, to read as follows: § 4007.10 Recordkeeping; audits; disclosure of information.

(a)*Retention of records to support premium payments* —(1) *In general.* The designated recordkeeper under paragraph (a)(3) of this section must retain, for a period of six years after the premium due date, all plan records that are necessary to establish, support, and validate the amount of any premium required to be paid and any information required to be reported (“premium-related information”) under this part and part 4006 of this chapter and under PBGC's premium filing instructions. Records that must be retained pursuant to this paragraph include, but are not limited to, records that establish the number of plan participants and that support and demonstrate the calculation of unfunded vested benefits.

(4)*Records.*

(i)Records that must be retained pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section include, but are not limited to, records prepared by the plan administrator, a plan sponsor, an employer required to contribute to the plan with respect to its employees, an enrolled actuary performing services for the plan, or an insurance carrier issuing any contract to pay benefits under the plan.

(ii)For purposes of this section, “records” include, but are not limited to, plan documents; participant data records; personnel and payroll records; actuarial tables, worksheets, and reports; records of computations, projections, and estimates; benefit statements, disclosures, and applications; financial and tax records; insurance contracts; records of plan procedures and practices; and any other records, whether in written, electronic, or other format, that are relevant to the determination of the amount of any premium required to be paid or any premium-related information required to be reported.

(iii)When a record to be produced for PBGC inspection and copying exists in more than one format, it must be produced in the format specified by PBGC.

(b)*PBGC audit* —(1) *In general.* In order to determine the correctness of any premium paid or premium-related information reported or to determine the amount of any premium required to be paid or any premium-related information required to be reported, PBGC may—

(i)Audit any premium filing,

(ii)Inspect and copy any records that are relevant to the determination of the amount of any premium required to be paid and any premium-related information required to be reported, including (without limitation) the records described in paragraph

(a)of this section, and

(iii)Require disclosure of any manual or automated system or process used to determine any premium paid or premium-related information reported, and demonstration of its operation in order to permit PBGC to determine the effectiveness of the system or process and the reliability of information produced by the system or process.

(2)*Deficiencies found on audit.* If, upon audit, PBGC determines that a premium due under this part was underpaid, late payment interest and penalty charges will apply as provided for in this part. If, upon audit, PBGC determines that required information was not timely and accurately reported, a penalty may be assessed under ERISA section 4071.

(3)*Insufficient records.* In determining the premium due, if, in the judgment of PBGC, a plan's records fail to establish the participant count or (for a single-employer plan) the plan's unfunded vested benefits for any premium payment year, PBGC may rely on data it obtains from other sources (including the IRS and the Department of Labor) for presumptively establishing the participant count and/or unfunded vested benefits for premium computation purposes.

(c)*Providing record information* —(1) *In general.* A designated recordkeeper must make the records retained pursuant to paragraph

(a)of this section available to PBGC promptly upon request for inspection and photocopying (or, for electronic records, inspection, electronic copying, and printout) at the location where they are kept (or another, mutually agreeable, location). If PBGC requests in writing that records retained pursuant to paragraph

(a)of this section, or information in such records, be submitted to PBGC, the designated recordkeeper must submit the requested materials to PBGC either electronically or by hand, mail, or commercial delivery service within 45 days of the date of PBGC's request therefor, or by a different time specified in the request. 13. In § 4007.11, paragraphs (a), (b), and

(c)are revised to read as follows: § 4007.11 Due dates.

(a)*In general.* For flat-rate and variable-rate premiums, the premium filing due date for small plans is prescribed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the premium filing due date for mid-size plans is prescribed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and the premium filing due dates for large plans are prescribed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(1)*Small plans.* If the plan had fewer than 100 participants for whom flat-rate premiums were payable for the plan year preceding the premium payment year, the due date is the last day of the sixteenth full calendar month following the end of the plan year preceding the premium payment year.

(2)*Mid-size plans.* If the plan had 100 or more but fewer than 500 participants for whom flat-rate premiums were payable for the plan year preceding the premium payment year:

(i)The due date is the fifteenth day of the tenth full calendar month following the end of the plan year preceding the premium payment year.

(ii)If the premium funding target is not known by the date specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, a reconciliation filing and any required variable-rate premium payment must be made by the last day of the sixteenth full calendar month following the end of the plan year preceding the premium payment year.

(3)*Large plans.* If the plan had 500 or more participants for whom flat-rate premiums were payable for the plan year preceding the premium payment year:

(i)The due date for the flat-rate premium required by § 4006.3(a) of this chapter is the last day of the second full calendar month following the close of the plan year preceding the premium payment year.

(ii)The due date for the variable-rate premium required by § 4006.3(b) of this chapter for single-employer plans is the fifteenth day of the tenth full calendar month following the end of the plan year preceding the premium payment year.

(iii)If the participant count is not known by the date specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, a reconciliation filing and any required flat-rate premium payment must be made by the date specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section.

(iv)If the premium funding target is not known by the date specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, a reconciliation filing and any required variable-rate premium payment must be made by the last day of the sixteenth full calendar month following the end of the plan year preceding the premium payment year.

(b)*Due dates for plans that change plan years.* For any plan that changes its plan year, the due date or due dates for the flat-rate premium and any variable-rate premium for the short plan year are as specified in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), or

(c)of this section (whichever applies). For the plan year that follows a short plan year, each due date is the later of—

(i)The applicable due date specified in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section, or

(ii)30 days after the date on which the amendment changing the plan year was adopted.

(c)*Due dates for new and newly covered plans.* Notwithstanding paragraph

(a)of this section, the due date for the flat-rate premium and any variable-rate premium for the first plan year of coverage of any new plan or newly covered plan is the latest of—

(1)The last day of the sixteenth full calendar month that began on or after the first day of the premium payment year (the effective date, in the case of a new plan), or

(2)90 days after the date of the plan's adoption. Issued in Washington, DC, this 17th day of March 2008. Elaine L. Chao, Chairman, Board of Directors, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Issued on the date set forth above pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing its Chairman to issue this final rule. Judith R. Starr, Secretary, Board of Directors, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E8-5712 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of International Investment 31 CFR Part 800 Regulations Pertaining to Mergers, Acquisitions and Takeovers AGENCY: Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final regulation amends regulations in part 800 of 31 CFR that implement section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950. The regulation amends a provision that pertains to the circumstances under which the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States completes action following an investigation of a notified transaction, consistent with the amendments to section 721 made by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (“FINSA”). DATES: Effective date: March 21, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nova Daly, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220; telephone:

(202)622-2752; or e-mail: *Nova.Daly@do.treas.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 26, 2007, President Bush signed into law the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (“FINSA”) (Pub. L. 110-49), which amends section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170 *et seq.* ) (“section 721”), to codify the structure, role, process, and responsibilities of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”). Section 721 requires that, upon receipt by Treasury of written notification of a “covered transaction” ( *i.e.* , a merger, acquisition, or takeover by or with any foreign person that could result in foreign control of any person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States), the President, acting through CFIUS, shall review the transaction within 30 days to determine its effects on national security, based on any relevant factors, including several new factors FINSA added to an illustrative list contained in section 721. If, during its review, CFIUS determines that

(1)the transaction threatens to impair U.S. national security and the threat has not yet been mitigated,

(2)the lead agency recommends an investigation and CFIUS concurs,

(3)the transaction would result in foreign government control, or

(4)the transaction would result in the control of any U.S. critical infrastructure that could impair U.S. national security and the threat has not yet been mitigated, then CFIUS must conduct and complete within 45 days an investigation of the transaction. (The latter two grounds for an investigation do not mandate an investigation if the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and the equivalent lead agency counterparts jointly determine that the transaction will not impair U.S. national security.) FINSA does not require CFIUS, upon completion or termination of an investigation, to refer a transaction to the President for a final decision. On January 23, 2008, President Bush signed Executive Order 13456 (further amending Executive Order 11858) that sets forth the circumstances under which a transaction shall be referred to the President for a final decision. Specifically, Section 6(c) of Executive Order 11858, as amended, provides that CFIUS “shall send a report to the President requesting the President's decision with respect to a review or investigation of a transaction in the following circumstances:

(i)The Committee recommends that the President suspend or prohibit the transaction;

(ii)The Committee is unable to reach a decision on whether to recommend that the President suspend or prohibit the transaction; or

(iii)The Committee requests that the President make a determination with regard to the transaction.” The current regulations, by contrast, require CFIUS, upon completion or termination of any investigation, to report to the President and include a recommendation for action. This final regulation conforms the regulations to FINSA and Executive Order 11858, as amended, by removing the requirement to report to the President following completion or termination of an investigation, except in the circumstances set forth in Executive Order 11858. *Procedural Matters:* It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866; therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), this final rule relates to a foreign affairs function of the United States, and therefore is not subject to the delayed effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. Section 709 of the Defense Production Act

(DPA)(50 U.S.C. App. 2159) states that any regulation issued under the DPA shall be published in the **Federal Register** and opportunity for public comment shall be provided for not less than 30 days. In addition, FINSA requires regulations that carry out section 721 to be promulgated subject to notice and comment. However, this regulation is not being issued pursuant to the DPA or FINSA. Consequently, the Department is amending this regulation without prior notice and comment. This final rule merely removes an internal CFIUS procedural requirement that was neither required by the DPA nor by any subsequent amendment, and brings the regulations in line with the newly amended Executive Order. The procedural change will affect only CFIUS in its processing of cases and will not affect parties to notified transactions. Accordingly, the Department finds that this final rule is not subject to the notice and comment provision of the DPA or FINSA. List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 800 Foreign investments in United States, Investigations, National defense, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury amends 31 CFR part 800 as follows: PART 800—REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO MERGERS, ACQUISITIONS AND TAKEOVERS BY FOREIGN PERSONS 1. The authority citation for part 800 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Section 721 of Pub. L. 100-418, 102 Stat. 1107, made permanent law by section 8 of Pub. L. 102-99, 105 Stat. 487 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) and amended by section 837 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Pub. L. 102-484, 106 Stat. 2315, 2463 and Pub. L. 110-49, 121 Stat 246; E.O. 11858, as amended by E.O. 12661, and further amended by Executive Order 13456. 2. Amend § 800.504 by revising paragraph

(b)to read as follows: § 800.504 Completion or termination of investigation and report to the President.

(b)In circumstances when the Committee sends a report to the President requesting the President's decision upon completion or termination of an investigation, such report shall include information relevant to subparagraph (d)(4) of section 721, and shall present the Committee's recommendation. If the Committee is unable to reach a decision to present a single recommendation to the President, the Chairman shall submit a report of the Committee to the President setting forth the differing views and presenting the issues for decision. Dated: March 7, 2008. Clay Lowery, Assistant Secretary for International Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-5707 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4811-42-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 3 [USCG-2008-0073] RIN 1625-ZA15 Sector Anchorage Western Alaska Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones; Technical Amendment AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule makes a technical change in the boundary description of the Western Alaska Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones, within the Seventeenth Coast Guard District's Sector Anchorage. This rule will have no substantive effect on the regulated public. DATES: This final rule is effective March 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2008-0073 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at *www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call Commander Todd Styrwold, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-2687. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under both 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and (b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that this rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements because this change involves agency organization, and good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM because the change made is non-substantive. This rule only aligns regulatory language with existing Coast Guard internal documents that establish the boundaries of the affected zones. The change will have no substantive effect on the public; therefore, it is unnecessary to publish an NPRM. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that, for the same reasons, good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose In the **Federal Register** of July 2, 2007 (72 FR 36318), the Coast Guard issued a final rule to align various regulations with internal documents establishing a new system of sector commands. The regulation describing the boundaries of the Western Alaska Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones, within the Seventeenth Coast Guard District's Sector Anchorage, contained an error. Due to the length of time since the erroneous description was issued, the Coast Guard is issuing a technical amendment, instead of a correction notice, to correct the description. The correction is informational and will have no substantive effect on the regulated public. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. As this rule involves internal agency organization and non-substantive changes, it will not impose any costs on the public. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule does not require a general NPRM and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although this rule is exempt, we have reviewed it for potential economic impact on small entities. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a) and (b), of the Instruction from further environmental documentation because this rule involves editorial, procedural, and internal agency functions. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 3 Organization and functions (Government agencies). For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 3 as follows: PART 3—COAST GUARD AREAS, DISTRICTS, SECTORS, MARINE INSPECTION ZONES, AND CAPTAIN OF THE PORT ZONES 1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows: Authority: 14 U.S.C. 92; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. 2(23). 2. Amend § 3.85-15 by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 3.85-15 Sector Anchorage: Western Alaska Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zones; Marine Safety Unit Valdez: Prince William Sound Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones.

(a)Sector Anchorage's Western Alaska Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones start near the Canadian border on the EEZ at latitude 60°18′24″ N, longitude 141°00′00″ W, proceeding southwest to latitude 60°01′18″ N, longitude 142°00′00″ W; thence south to the outermost extent of the EEZ at latitude 56°14′50″ N, longitude 142°00′00″ W; thence southwest along the outermost extent of the EEZ to latitude 51°22′15″ N, longitude 167°38′28″ E; thence northeast along the outermost extent of the EEZ to latitude 65°30′00″ N, longitude 168°58′37″ W; thence north along the outermost extent of the EEZ to latitude 72°46′29″ N, longitude 168°58′37″ W; thence northeast along the outermost extent of the EEZ to latitude 74°42′35″ N, longitude 156°28′30″ W; thence southeast along the outermost extent of the EEZ to latitude 72°56′49″ N, longitude 137°34′08″ W; thence south along the outermost extent of the EEZ to the coast near the Canadian border at latitude 69°38′48.88″ N, longitude 140°59′52.7″ W; thence south along the United States-Canadian boundary to the point of origin; and in addition, all the area described in paragraph

(b)of this section. Dated: March 18, 2008. Steve Venckus, Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law (CG-0943). [FR Doc. E8-5775 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0879; FRL-8533-8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Ohio State Implementation Plan

(SIP)under the Clean Air Act (CAA). On September 7, 2006, Ohio requested approval of revisions to its open burning standards. In order to clarify the open burning rules, Ohio added requirements for specific types of burning that were previously not addressed. The state also added or refined some of the definitions and slightly changed some of the existing rules. The revisions were made to increase clarity of Ohio's open burning rules. EPA finds that the revisions are consistent with the CAA. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 20, 2008, unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 21, 2008. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0879, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*

(312)886-5824. 4. *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. 5. *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-2006-0879. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the 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 Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6524, *rau.matthew@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. What Is EPA Approving? II. What Is the Background for This Action? III. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission? IV. What Action Is EPA Taking? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Is EPA Approving? EPA is approving the Ohio SIP revisions submitted on September 7, 2006, which change its open burning standards. Standards for new open burning purposes were added to Ohio Administrative Code

(OAC)3745-19. The rules were added for emergency burning, recreational fires, hazardous material disposal, and firefighting training. The conditions under which open burning of storm debris is allowed are stated. A definition for emergency burning was added. Minor revisions to some other definitions and to notification requirements were made to enhance clarity. Specifically, EPA is approving revisions to OAC 3745-19 Sections 1, 2, 3 (including Appendix), 4, and 5. II. What Is the Background for this Action? Ohio conducted a periodic review of its open burning standards, OAC 3745-19. The state determined that rewording portions of the rules and adding language for new types of burning would clarify the rules. Questions from the regulated community and field staff led to the revisions. The standards the state added explicitly list the requirements for each type of burning. III. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission? Ohio made revisions to its open burning rules with the intent to improve rule clarity. It added a definition of emergency burning that lists six distinct disaster types. This sufficiently limits the types of events that could lead to emergency burning. Ohio also declared the conditions for special approvals for the open burning of storm debris. The state also added requirements for new burning types. The new requirements provide restrictions that are appropriate for the type of burning being conducted. Requirements were added for recreational fires such as campfires, emergency disposal of hazardous materials, fire extinguisher training, fire department training burns, and for emergency burning. The specific requirements for certain types of burning clarify the standards that apply to those burns. The emergency burning situations that do not need a permit or that only need oral permission are clearly stated. Under the rules, written permission will follow oral permission, but the burning can proceed prior to the written permission being issued. This allows for emergency burning that protects public health and welfare to proceed without unnecessary delay. The strict definition of emergency burning should prevent an overly broad application of the emergency burning provisions. The revised rules make it clear when a burning permit is not required and what restrictions apply to several types of burning. This should improve compliance and aid enforcement of Ohio's open burning standards. IV. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is approving revisions to the Ohio SIP. The revisions were submitted on September 7, 2006. Specifically, EPA is approving the revisions to OAC Chapter 3745-19, Sections 1 through 5 including the Section 3 Appendix. The changes to Ohio's open burning regulations were made to increase the clarity of regulations particularly for select types of burning. Specific regulations were added for emergency burning, recreational fires, hazardous material disposal, and firefighting training. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and do not anticipate 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 20, 2008 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by April 21, 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 20, 2008. V. 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 approves a state rule implementing a Federal Standard. 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. section 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 20, 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: February 15, 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 KK—Ohio 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(143) to read as follows: § 52.1870 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(143)On September 7, 2006, Ohio submitted revisions to Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-19, Rules 3745-19-01 through 3745-19-05 including the 3754-19-03 Appendix. The revisions update Ohio's open burning regulations. Ohio added requirements for specific types of burning: emergency burning, recreational fires, hazardous material disposal, and firefighting training. The State also added or refined some of the definitions.

(i)Incorporation by reference.

(A)Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Chapter 19: Open Burning Standards, Rule 3745-19-01: Definitions, Rule 3745-19-02: Relations to Other Prohibitions, Rule 3745-19-03: Open Burning in Restricted Areas with Appendix “Open Burning of Storm Debris Conditions”, Rule 3745-19-04: Open Burning in Unrestricted Areas, and Rule 3745-19-05: Permission to Individuals and Notification to the Ohio EPA. The rules were effective on July 7, 2006.

(B)June 27, 2006, “Director's Final Findings and Orders”, signed by Joseph P. Koncelik, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, adopting rules 3745-19-01, 3745-19-02, 3745-19-03, 3745-19-04, and 3745-19-05. [FR Doc. E8-5667 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0546; FRL-8534-4] Approval and Promulgation of Ohio SO2 Air Quality Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving an assortment of rules, submitted by Ohio on May 16, 2006, as amended on December 10, 2007, setting limits on sulfur dioxide

(SO2)emissions. Most significantly, EPA is approving rules for Franklin, Stark, and Summit Counties and for one source in Sandusky County, rules that supersede regulations that EPA promulgated in 1976 as a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). This action provides that the entire FIP for SO2 in Ohio will now be superseded by approved State limits. Consequently, EPA is rescinding the entire FIP. EPA is also approving several substantive rule revisions and approving numerous Ohio rules that update various company names and unit identifications. Finally, since this rulemaking resolves the issues, which led a court to remand the designation for a portion of Summit County to EPA for reconsideration, EPA is promulgating a designation of attainment for the presently undesignated portion of this county. DATES: This final rule is effective on April 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0546. 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., Confidential Business Information

(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 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 Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, at

(312)886-6067 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6067, *summerhays.john@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. Background for This Action A. Summary of Ohio's Submittal B. Summary of EPA's Proposed Rulemaking C. Comments on EPA's Proposal II. What Action Is EPA Taking? III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. I. Background for This Action A. Summary of Ohio's Submittal On May 16, 2006, Ohio EPA submitted 4 amended general SO2 rules and 40 county-specific SO2 rules. The county-specific rules include 4 rules that were submitted to supersede remaining FIP rules, 4 rules that include substantive revisions to the limits, and 32 rules, which only change company names or unit identifications or make other such administrative changes. On July 24, 2007, Ohio submitted a letter identifying an error, noted by the company, in its SO2 limit for the facility in Stark County owned by the Canton Drop Forging and Manufacturing Company. On December 10, 2007, Ohio submitted rule revisions correcting this error. The correction of this error makes the Stark County rules consistent with Ohio's attainment demonstration for this county and fully approvable. B. Summary of EPA's Proposed Rulemaking EPA proposed action on this submittal on May 1, 2007. The notice of proposed rulemaking provided a summary of the full history of the regulation of SO2 emissions in the State of Ohio. Most notably, because Ohio withdrew its original SO2 rules from EPA consideration, EPA promulgated a FIP for SO2 on August 27, 1976, with numerous subsequent amendments. On September 12, 1979, Ohio submitted a plan with limits for SO2 in all 88 Ohio counties. For many of the counties, EPA approved Ohio's rules and provided that the approved rules would supersede the corresponding federally promulgated rules. For other counties, EPA had concerns about the 1979 rules that Ohio addressed with subsequent submittals. With its May 2006 submittal, Ohio completed the process of submitting State rules to address all 88 counties in the state and to entirely supersede the FIP for SO2 in Ohio. EPA's May 2007 proposed rulemaking included three components. First, EPA addressed the state rules that Ohio submitted. EPA proposed to approve all of the submitted rules. Second, EPA addressed the FIP rules that the state rules supersede. Since the submitted rules, along with rules approved previously, would complete the process of superseding the entire FIP, EPA proposed to rescind the entire FIP. Third, EPA addressed the designation of portions of Summit County, Ohio. Portions of this county have been undesignated as a result of a lawsuit that led the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to remand the designation to EPA pending resolution of modeling issues as to what emission limits are necessary to attain the standard. EPA believes that these issues are resolved by the modeling underlying Ohio's Summit County SO2 limits, and so EPA proposed to establish a designation of attainment for this county. EPA's proposed rulemaking was based on EPA's belief that Ohio's rules were fully consistent with the attainment demonstrations for the applicable counties. Although Ohio's letter of July 25, 2007, indicates that this was not the case for one boiler at one source in Stark County, the revised rules that Ohio submitted on December 10, 2007, remove this discrepancy. As a result, EPA believes that Ohio's limits are now consistent with the applicable attainment demonstrations and are fully approvable. C. Comments on EPA's Proposal EPA received no comments on its proposed rulemaking. II. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA believes that the SO2 rules submitted by Ohio meet applicable requirements, most notably by assuring attainment in the applicable areas. Therefore, EPA is approving the rules that Ohio submitted on May 16, 2006, as amended in the rule submitted on December 10, 2007. Specifically, EPA is fully approving 44 rules for SO2 in Ohio, including 4 general rules, 4 county-specific rules that replace FIP rules, 4 county-specific rules that incorporate substantive changes in limits, and 32 county-specific rules that reflect only administrative changes such as updating company names. This action provides that state rules now supersede the last remaining portions of the FIP that was promulgated in 1976 et seq. Therefore, the FIP may be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Even after the FIP is removed, EPA may continue to take enforcement action against violations of the FIP limits discovered to have occurred during the time the FIP was in effect. Accordingly, EPA is rescinding the entirety of 40 CFR 52.1881(b) (including general provisions and county-specific limits) and of 40 CFR 52.1882 (providing FIP compliance schedules). Since EPA has now approved rules for the entire State, EPA is rescinding the sections of 40 CFR 52.1881(a) that identify counties for which EPA has taken no action or has disapproved the state's plan. EPA is replacing the listing of counties having approved rules with a rule-by-rule listing of approved rules. Finally, EPA is also establishing a designation of attainment for the portion of Summit County that is presently undesignated. For simplicity, EPA is combining the designations into a single designation for the entire county rather than have separate designations for four subdivisions of the county. EPA is also rescinding the footnote that was inadvertently applied to the designation of Trumbull County. III. 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. 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 approves State rules regulating emissions of SO 2 . The present action 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 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 today's 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 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. This action merely approves state rules regulating SO 2 emissions and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state rules. Accordingly, 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 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. Today's 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. This action merely approves state rules regulating SO 2 emissions and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state rules. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, because the state emission limitations being approved apply to industrial facilities, not to any small government. 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 action merely approves state rules regulating SO2 emissions and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state rules. This action will not modify the relationship of the States and EPA for purposes of developing programs to implement the NAAQS. 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 approves state rules regulating SO2 emissions in a state with no federally recognized tribes. 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 merely approves state rules regulating SO2 emissions and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state rules. 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. 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 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. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order

(EO)12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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 final 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 approves emission limitations that are equivalent or more stringent than current SIP limitations, and so this rule will not have adverse effects on any population. 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. The 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). This action will be effective April 21, 2008. 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 20, 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 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National parks, Sulfur dioxide, Wilderness areas. Dated: February 21, 2008. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 52 and 81, chapter I, of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are 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 K—Ohio 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(136) to read as follows: § 52.1870 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(136)On May 16, 2006, Ohio submitted numerous regulations for sulfur dioxide. These regulations were submitted to replace the remaining federally promulgated regulations, to make selected revisions to applicable limits, and to update company names and make other similar administrative changes. On December 10, 2007, Ohio submitted a corrected rule for Stark County.

(i)Incorporation by reference.

(A)Ohio Administrative Code Rules 3745-18-01 “Definitions and incorporation by reference.”, 3745-18-02 “Ambient air quality standards; sulfur dioxide.”, 3745-18-03 “Attainment dates and compliance time schedules.”, 3745-18-06 “General emission limit provisions.”, 3745-18-10 “Ashtabula County emission limits.”, 3745-18-11 “Athens County emission limits.”, 3745-18-12 “Auglaize County emission limits.”, 3745-18-17 “Champaign County emission limits.”, 3745-18-18 “Clark County emission limits.”, 3745-18-28 “Erie County emission limits.”, 3745-18-29 “Fairfield County emission limits.”, 3745-18-31 “Franklin County emission limits.”, 3745-18-34 “Geauga County emission limits.”, 3745-18-35 “Greene County emission limits.”, 3745-18-37 “Hamilton County emission limits.”, 3745-18-38 “Hancock County emission limits.”, 3745-18-49 “Lake County emission limits.”, 3745-18-50 “Lawrence County emission limits.”, 3745-18-53 “Lorain County emission limits.”, 3745-18-57 “Marion County emission limits.”, 3745-18-61 “Miami County emission limits.”, 3745-18-63 “Montgomery County emission limits.”, 3745-18-66 “Muskingum County emission limits.”, 3745-18-68 “Ottawa County emission limits.”, 3745-18-69 “Paulding County emission limits.”, 3745-18-72 “Pike County emission limits.”, 3745-18-76 “Richland County emission limits.”, 3745-18-77 “Ross County emission limits.”, 3745-18-78 “Sandusky County emission limits.”, 3745-18-79 “Scioto County emission limits.”, 3745-18-80 “Seneca County emission limits.”, 3745-18-81 “Shelby County emission limits.”, 3745-18-83 “Summit County emission limits.”, 3745-18-84 “Trumbull County emission limits.”, 3745-18-85 “Tuscarawas County emission limits.”, 3745-18-87 “Van Wert County emission limits.”, 3745-18-90 “Washington County emission limits.”, 3745-18-91 “Wayne County emission limits.”, and 3745-18-93 “Wood County emission limits.”, adopted on January 13, 2006, effective January 23, 2006.

(B)January 13, 2006, “Director's Final Findings and Orders”, signed by Joseph P. Koncelik, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, adopting the rules identified in paragraph

(A)above.

(C)Ohio Administrative Code Rules 3745-18-08 “Allen County emission limits.”, 3745-18-15 “Butler County emission limits.”, 3745-18-24 “Cuyahoga County emission limits.”, and 3745-18-54 “Lucas County emission limits.”, adopted on March 16, 2006, effective March 27, 2006.

(D)March 16, 2006, “Director's Final Findings and Orders”, signed by Joseph P. Koncelik, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, adopting rules 3745-18-08, 3745-18-15, 3745-18-24, and 3745-18-54.

(E)Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-18-82 “Stark County emission limits.”, adopted on November 28, 2007, effective December 8, 2007.

(F)November 28, 2007, “Director's Final Findings and Orders”, signed by Chris Korleski, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, adopting rule 3745-18-82. 3. Section 52.1881 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraph (a)(4). b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(7), (a)(8), and (b). § 52.1881 Control strategy: Sulfur oxides (sulfur dioxide).

(a)* * *

(4)Notwithstanding the portions of Ohio's sulfur dioxide rules identified in this section that EPA has either disapproved or taken no action on, EPA has approved a complete plan addressing all counties in the State of Ohio. EPA has approved the following rules, supplemented by any additional approved rules specified in 40 CFR 52.1870:

(i)Rules as effective in Ohio on December 28, 1979: OAC 3745-18-04(A), (B), (C), (D)(1), (D)(4), (E)(1), and

(H)(measurement methods), OAC 3745-18-05 (ambient monitoring), OAC 3745-18-09 (Ashland County), OAC 3745-18-13 (Belmont), OAC 3745-18-14 (Brown), OAC 3745-18-16 (Carroll), OAC 3745-18-19 (Clermont)—except for one paragraph approved later (CG&E Beckjord), OAC 3745-18-20 (Clinton), OAC 3745-18-21 (Columbiana), OAC 3745-18-23 (Crawford), OAC 3745-18-25 (Darke), OAC 3745-18-26 (Defiance), OAC 3745-18-27 (Delaware), OAC 3745-18-30 (Fayette), OAC 3745-18-32 (Fulton), OAC 3745-18-36 (Guernsey), OAC 3745-18-39 (Hardin), OAC 3745-18-40 (Harrison), OAC 3745-18-41 (Henry), OAC 3745-18-42 (Highland), OAC 3745-18-43 (Hocking), OAC 3745-18-44 (Holmes), OAC 3745-18-45 (Huron), OAC 3745-18-46 (Jackson), OAC 3745-18-48 (Knox), OAC 3745-18-51 (Licking), OAC 3745-18-52 (Logan), OAC 3745-18-55 (Madison), OAC 3745-18-58 (Medina), OAC 3745-18-59 (Meigs), OAC 3745-18-60 (Mercer), OAC 3745-18-62 (Monroe), OAC 3745-18-64 (Morgan)—except for one paragraph approved later (OP Muskingum River), OAC 3745-18-65 (Morrow), OAC 3745-18-67 (Noble), OAC 3745-18-70 (Perry), OAC 3745-18-73 (Portage), OAC 3745-18-74 (Preble), OAC 3745-18-75 (Putnam), OAC 3745-18-86 (Union), OAC 3745-18-88 (Vinton), OAC 3745-18-89 (Warren), OAC 3745-18-92 (Williams), and OAC 3745-18-94 (Wyandot);

(ii)Rules as effective in Ohio on October 1, 1982: OAC 3745-18-64

(B)(OP Muskingum River in Morgan County);

(iii)Rules as effective in Ohio on May 11, 1987: OAC 3745-18-19(B) (CG&E Beckjord);

(iv)Rules as effective in Ohio on October 31, 1991: OAC 3745-18-04 (D)(7), (D)(8)(a) to (D)(8)(e), (E)(5), (E)(6)(a), (E)(6)(b), (F), and

(I)(measurement methods);

(v)Rules as effective in Ohio on July 25, 1996: OAC 3745-18-47 (Jefferson);

(vi)Rules as effective in Ohio on March 21, 2000: OAC 3745-18-04(D)(8), (D)(9), and (E)(7) (measurement methods), OAC 3745-18-22 (Coshocton), OAC 3745-18-33 (Gallia), and OAC 3745-18-71 (Pickaway);

(vii)Rules as effective in Ohio on September 1, 2003: OAC 3745-18-04(F) and

(J)(measurement methods), and OAC 3745-18-56 (Mahoning);

(viii)Rules as effective in Ohio on January 23, 2006: OAC 3745-18-01 (definitions), OAC 3745-18-02 (air quality standards), OAC 3745-18-03 (compliance dates), OAC 3745-18-06 (general provisions), OAC 3745-18-07 (Adams), OAC 3745-18-10 (Ashtabula), OAC 3745-18-11 (Athens), OAC 3745-18-12 (Auglaize), OAC 3745-18-17 (Champaign), OAC 3745-18-18 (Clark), OAC 3745-18-28 (Erie), OAC 3745-18-29 (Fairfield), OAC 3745-18-31 (Franklin), OAC 3745-18-34 (Geauga), OAC 3745-18-35 (Greene), OAC 3745-18-37 (Hamilton), OAC 3745-18-38 (Hancock), OAC 3745-18-49 (Lake), OAC 3745-18-50 (Lawrence), OAC 3745-18-53 (Lorain), OAC 3745-18-57 (Marion), OAC 3745-18-61 (Miami), OAC 3745-18-63 (Montgomery), OAC 3745-18-66 (Muskingum), OAC 3745-18-68 (Ottawa), OAC 3745-18-69 (Paulding), OAC 3745-18-72 (Pike), OAC 3745-18-76 (Richland), OAC 3745-18-77 (Ross), OAC 3745-18-78 (Sandusky), OAC 3745-18-79 (Scioto), OAC 3745-18-80 (Seneca), OAC 3745-18-81 (Shelby), OAC 3745-18-83 (Summit), OAC 3745-18-84 (Trumbull), OAC 3745-18-85 (Tuscarawas), OAC 3745-18-87 (Van Wert), OAC 3745-18-90 (Washington), OAC 3745-18-91 (Wayne), and OAC 3745-18-93 (Wood);

(ix)Rules as effective in Ohio on March 27, 2006: OAC 3745-18-08 (Allen), OAC 3745-18-15 (Butler), OAC 3745-18-24 (Cuyahoga), and OAC 3745-18-54 (Lucas); and

(x)Rule as effective in Ohio on December 8, 2007: OAC 3745-18-82 (Stark). § 52.1882 [Removed and Reserved] 4. Section 52.1882 is removed and reserved. PART 81—[AMENDED] 5. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment Status Designations 6. The table in § 81.336 entitled “Ohio—SO 2 ” is amended by removing the three footnotes and revising the entries for Summit and Trumbull Counties to read as follows: § 81.336 Ohio. Ohio.—SO 2 Designated area Does not meet primary standards Does not meet secondary standards Cannot be classified Better than national standards * * * * * * * Summit County X Trumbull County X * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E8-5666 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0967; FRL-8544-6] Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the Baton Rouge 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; State of Louisiana AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its finding that the Baton Rouge “marginal” 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the Baton Rouge area) did not 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 or the Act) and Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)for “marginal” nonattainment areas. By operation of law, the Baton Rouge area is to be reclassified from a “marginal” to a “moderate” 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on the effective date of this rule. The new attainment deadline for the reclassified Baton Rouge nonattainment area is “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than June 15, 2010. In addition, EPA is requiring Louisiana to submit State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revisions addressing the CAA's pollution control requirements for “moderate” 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas no later than January 1, 2009. DATES: This final rule is effective on *April 21, 2008.* ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0967. 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., 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection 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 to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), the Galvez Building, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section, (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone

(214)665-7367. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background A complete description of the 8-hour designation process for the Baton Rouge area can be found in the proposal for this rulemaking at 72 FR 61315, October 30, 2007. In addition, under § 51.908 of the Code of Federal Regulations, states containing areas classified as “marginal” non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard were not required to submit attainment demonstration SIPs. However, states were required to submit other SIP elements, as required by Subpart 2 of the Act, that included the following: submitting an emission inventory within two years and periodic inventories every three years thereafter, reasonably available control technology corrections, and retaining a vehicle inspection and maintenance program that may have previously been in place. Baton Rouge has met these requirements for a “marginal” nonattainment area under the 8-hour standard and the 1-hour standard. Table of Contents I. What Does This Action Do? II. What Does the CAA Say About Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification, and How Does It Apply to the Baton Rouge Area? III. What Is the Area's New Classification? IV. What Is the New Attainment Date for the Baton Rouge Area? V. When Must Louisiana Submit SIP Revisions Fulfilling the Requirements for 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas? VI. What Comments Were Received on the Proposed Rule? VII. Final Action VIII. Administrative Requirements I. What Does This Action Do? On October 30, 2007, EPA proposed its finding that the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area did not attain the 8-hour NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (72 FR 61315). The proposed finding was based upon ambient air quality data from the years 2004-2006. These data showed that the 8-hour NAAQS of 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered) had been exceeded based on the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentration and that the area did not qualify for an attainment date extension under section 181(a)(5) of the Act. We also proposed to determine that the appropriate reclassification of the area was to “moderate.” This action finalizes our finding that the Baton Rouge area did not attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007, as prescribed in section 181 of the Act, and as detailed in EPA's final designations rule published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). It also fulfills EPA's duty pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the Act. In addition, this action sets the dates by which Louisiana must submit SIP revisions addressing the CAA's pollution control requirements for “moderate” ozone nonattainment areas and attain the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA's rulemaking actions are to be effective [30] days from publication in the **Federal Register** . II. What Does the CAA Say About Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification, and How Does it Apply to the Baton Rouge Area? Under sections 107(d)(1)(c) and 181(a) of the Act, the Baton Rouge area was designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and classified as “marginal” based on its design value of 0.086 ppm in 2004. These nonattainment designations and classifications are codified in 40 CFR Part 81 (See 69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). In addition, states containing areas that were classified as “marginal” nonattainment were required to submit SIPs to provide for certain controls and submit emission inventories. The Baton Rouge area met these requirements by submitting an updated emission inventory. As a “severe” nonattainment area under the 1-hour standard, the area was already implementing “marginal” area requirements in Subpart 2 of the Act. No attainment demonstrations were required, but attainment of the standard was required to be achieved by June 15, 2007. Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act specifies that: 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 areas, 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)to the higher of— a. The next higher classification for the area, or b. The classification applicable to the area's design value as determined at the time of the notice required under subparagraph (B). No area shall be reclassified as Extreme under clause (ii). Furthermore, section 181(b)(2)(B) of the Act provides that: The Administrator shall publish a notice in the **Federal Register** no later than 6 months following the attainment date, identifying each area that the Administrator has determined under subparagraph

(A)as having failed to attain and identifying the reclassification, if any, described under subparagraph (A). On October 30, 2007, EPA proposed its finding that the Baton Rouge area did not attain the 8-hour ozone standard by the applicable date (72 FR 61315). The proposed finding was based upon ambient ozone concentration data for the period 2004-2006, from monitoring sites in the Baton Rouge area that recorded a 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentration that exceeded the standard. You may refer to the proposal to review these values which are presented in “Table 1.—Baton Rouge Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations and Design Values (ppm).” The air quality data in Table 1 were available for comment in our October 30, 2007, proposed finding of the area's failure to attain the ozone NAAQS. We received no comments pertaining to these data. Therefore, pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(B) of the CAA, we hereby finalize our determination that the Baton Rouge area did not attain the 8-hour standard by the June 15, 2007, attainment date. III. What Is The Area's New Classification? Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that, when an area is reclassified for failure to attain, its reclassification be the higher of either the next higher classification or the classification applicable to the area's ozone design value at the time the notice of reclassification is published in the **Federal Register** . Section 181(b)(2)(B) requires EPA to publish in the **Federal Register** a notice identifying the appropriate reclassification for the area in accordance with section 181(b)(2)(A). The classification that would be applicable to the Baton Rouge area's design value at the time of today's final rule is “marginal” because the area's 2006 calculated design value, based on quality-assured ozone monitoring data from 2004-2006, is 0.091 ppm. By contrast, the next higher classification for the Baton Rouge area is “moderate.” As EPA explained in the proposal, because “moderate” is a higher classification than “marginal” under the CAA statutory scheme, upon the effective date of this final rulemaking, the Baton Rouge area is reclassified by operation of law as “moderate.” IV. What is the New Attainment Date for the Baton Rouge Area? Under section 181(a)(1) of the Act, the new attainment deadline for “marginal” ozone nonattainment areas, reclassified to “moderate” under section 181(b)(2), would generally be as “expeditious as practicable” but no later than the date applicable to the new classification, i.e., 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. V. When Must Louisiana Submit SIP Revisions Fulfilling the Requirements for 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas? Under section 181(a)(1) of the Act, the attainment deadline for “marginal” ozone nonattainment areas reclassified to “moderate” under section 181(b)(2) is as “expeditiously as practicable” but no later than June 15, 2010. Under section 182(i) of the Act, such areas are required to submit SIP revisions addressing the “moderate” area requirements for 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.908(d), for each nonattainment area, a state must provide for the 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 defined in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D, section 4.1, Table D-3 (71 FR 61236, October 17, 2006). For the purpose of reclassification of the Baton Rouge nonattainment area, January 1, 2009, is the beginning of the ozone monitoring season. As a result, EPA is requiring that the required SIP revisions be submitted by Louisiana as “expeditiously as practicable,” but no later than January 1, 2009. This timeline also calls for implementation of applicable controls no later than January 1, 2009. (See 72 FR 61318). The area was previously required to submit the requirements for “marginal” areas and under section 182(b) of the Act, remains required to meet them, and now must meet the requirements for “moderate” areas as well. A revised SIP must include, among other things, the following “moderate” area requirements:

(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 X ) emissions (40 CFR 51.910),

(4)contingency measures to be implemented in the event of failure to meet a milestone or attain the standard (CAA 172(c)(9)). See also the requirements for “moderate” ozone nonattainment areas set forth in CAA section 182(b). Since the Baton Rouge area also is a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, the anti-backsliding requirements of the 8-hour ozone implementation rule at 40 CFR 51.900 and 51.905 apply too. See also *S. Coast Air Quality Management District* v. *Environmental Protection Agency,* 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006), *reh'g denied,* 489 F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2007). VI. What Comments Were Received on the Proposed Rule? EPA received no comments from the public on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61315), Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the Baton Rouge 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; State of Louisiana. VII. Final Action Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), EPA is making a final determination that the Baton Rouge “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 Baton Rouge “marginal” 8-hour ozone nonattainment area will be reclassified by operation of law as a “moderate” 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Pursuant to section 182(i) of the CAA, EPA is establishing the schedule for submittal of the SIP revisions required for “moderate” areas once the area is reclassified. The required SIP revision for Baton Rouge must be submitted as “expeditiously as practicable,” but no later than January 1, 2009. VIII. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. 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 Baton Rouge 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, sections 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 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 sections 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 final 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 Baton Rouge area had not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge 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 “A Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure a 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 Baton Rouge area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge area as a “moderate” ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. The CAA 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 Baton Rouge area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge 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 As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 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 Baton Rouge area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge “marginal” Nonattainment Area as a “moderate” ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. 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 Baton Rouge area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge 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 20, 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 Baton Rouge 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, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 7, 2008. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. Part 81, chapter 1, 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 § 81.319 the table entitled “Louisiana—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for the Baton Rouge area to read as follows: § 81.319. Louisiana. Louisiana—Ozone (8-Hour Standard) Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/classification Date 1 Type Baton Rouge Area: Ascension Parish Nonattainment 4/21/08 Subpart 2/Moderate. East Baton Rouge Parish Nonattainment 4/21/08 Subpart 2/Moderate. Iberville Parish Nonattainment 4/21/08 Subpart 2/Moderate. Livingston Parish Nonattainment 4/21/08 Subpart 2/Moderate. West Baton Rouge Parish Nonattainment 4/21/08 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. [FR Doc. E8-5663 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 46 CFR Part 401 [USCG-2007-0039] RIN 1625-AB23 2008 Rates for Pilotage on the Great Lakes AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Interim rule. SUMMARY: As required by statute, the Coast Guard has reviewed and is updating the rates for pilotage service on the Great Lakes for the 2008 navigation season. We are increasing pilotage rates an average 8.17% over the last ratemaking that was completed in September 2007. This rulemaking promotes the Coast Guard strategic goals of maritime safety, protection of natural resources, maritime security, and maritime mobility. DATES: This interim rule is effective March 21, 2008. Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before April 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-0039 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:

(1)*Online: http://www.regulations.gov.*

(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(3)*Hand delivery:* Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this interim rule, please call Mr. Paul Wasserman, Chief, Great Lakes Pilotage Branch, Commandant (CG-54122), U.S. Coast Guard, at 202-372-1535, by fax 202-372-1929, or by e-mail at *Paul.M.Wasserman@uscg.mil.* For questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Dockets Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Public Participation and Request for Comments II. Effective Date III. Background and Purpose IV. Discussion of Comments V. Discussion of the Interim Rule VI. Regulatory Evaluation I. Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation

(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. A. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0039), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this rule in view of them. B. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0039) in the Search box, and click “Go >>.” You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. C. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* D. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . II. Effective Date This interim rule takes effect upon publication in the **Federal Register** . Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the Coast Guard finds good cause for this interim rule to take effect less than 30 days after publication. Congress mandates that Great Lakes pilotage rates be reviewed and adjusted annually by March 1. This interim rule cannot be issued until some time after that date, but we expect it to be issued close to the beginning of the 2008 Great Lakes shipping season in late March. If the interim rule takes effect upon publication, the Congressional intent for rate adjustments before the shipping season opens will essentially be met. Although the public comments received in response to our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM; 73 FR 6085, Feb. 1, 2008) raised several substantive issues that will require some additional time for the Coast Guard to review and to properly address in a final rule, several comments pointed to the need for early rate adjustment, and there is no question that a rate adjustment at least as large as that proposed in the NPRM is fully justified. Therefore, to delay implementation of a rate adjustment that is unquestionably justified, and that Congress intended the Coast Guard to make in time for the annual resumption of Great Lakes shipping is both unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, and the Coast Guard finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this interim rule to take effect upon its publication in the **Federal Register** . III. Background and Purpose The Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, codified in Title 46, Chapter 93, of the United States Code (U.S.C.), requires foreign-flag vessels and U.S.-flag vessels in foreign trade to use Federal Great Lakes registered pilots while transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes system. 46 U.S.C. 9302, 9308. The Coast Guard is responsible for administering this pilotage program, which includes setting rates for pilotage service. 46 U.S.C. 9303. The Coast Guard pilotage regulations require annual reviews of pilotage rates and the creation of a new rate at least once every five years, or sooner, if annual reviews show a need. 46 CFR part 404. Annual reviews ensure that sufficient revenues are generated to cover the annual projected allowable expenses, target pilot compensation, and returns on investment of the pilot associations. 46 U.S.C. 9303(f) requires that we conduct these reviews and make appropriate rate adjustments by March 1 of every shipping season. To assist in calculating pilotage rates, the three Great Lakes pilotage associations are required to submit to the Coast Guard annual financial statements prepared by certified public accounting firms. In addition, every fifth year, in connection with the full ratemaking, the Coast Guard contracts with an independent accounting firm to conduct audits of the accounts and records of the pilotage associations and to submit financial reports relevant to the ratemaking process. In those years when a full ratemaking is conducted, the Coast Guard generates the pilotage rates using Appendix A to 46 CFR Part 404. Between the five-year full ratemaking intervals, the Coast Guard annually reviews the pilotage rates using Appendix C to 46 CFR Part 404, and adjusts rates as appropriate. The last ratemaking was completed by publication of a final rule in the **Federal Register** on September 18, 2007 (72 FR 53158). The annual review following the 2007 ratemaking showed a need to adjust rates for the 2008 Great Lakes shipping season. That adjustment was the subject of the NPRM published in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2008. IV. Discussion of Comments The Coast Guard received six comments in response to the NPRM. The comments raised several issues that we considered substantive and which will require the Coast Guard to conduct additional review to properly address. Public comments on the NPRM suggested that: • We should revise our monthly multiplier from 49.5 to 54.5 days; • We should apply the AMO wage rate and health insurance adjustments that are in effect on August 1, 2008; • The projected bridge hours for Areas 2, 4, and 5 are too high when compared to their 2007 actual bridge hours experience; • We need to address the Riker Report on Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking and revise the bridge hours standards; • We should increase our calculations for the length of the navigation season from 270 days to 284 days; • We should raise our weighting factor for smaller vessels from 1.0 to 1.15 in order to align with the Canadians current system of weighting factors; • We should further justify our proposal for clarifying the duty of compliance with lawful orders; and • We should place supporting financial and contract documents in the public docket. At the same time, commenters also commended the Coast Guard for acting to put new rates in place early in the 2008 shipping season and urged us to implement the rate adjustment as soon as possible. We agree that action as close to the beginning of the shipping season as possible is very important, and we acknowledge that Congress has set a March 1 deadline for taking that action. Although the comments on the NPRM indicate a possible need for further rate adjustments in 2008, there is no question that a rate increase at least as large as that proposed in the NPRM is fully justified. Therefore, we are issuing this interim rule in order to make the presently justified rate adjustments as close as possible to the beginning of the 2008 Great Lakes navigation season. Other issues raised by the public in their comments will be addressed in a subsequent final rule which we hope to issue by this summer. V. Discussion of the Interim Rule This interim rule puts into place, without modification, the rate changes that were proposed in the NPRM. Because we are implementing this portion of the NPRM proposals without modification, we will not repeat the extended discussion of these changes that appears in the NPRM. We are increasing pilotage rates in accordance with the methodology outlined in Appendix C to 46 CFR Part 404. The rate changes for each individual pilotage Area are shown in Table 1. They average 8.17% across all Areas. For a full discussion of how rate changes were calculated, see pages 6087 through 6094 of the NPRM. Based upon comments received, we are withholding implementation of the amendments proposed to 46 CFR §§ 401.700 and 401.710 to clarify the obligation imposed on Great Lakes registered pilots and authorized pilotage pools to fully and professionally cooperate in the course of performing their duties with U.S. and Canadian Coast Guard units and personnel, vessel traffic service personnel, and other lawful authority. Upon final review, we will determine whether these amendments should be implemented. Table 1.—2008 Area Rate Changes If pilotage service is required in: Then the percentage increases over the current rate is: Area 1 (Designated waters) 7.78 Area 2 (Undesignated waters) 8.41 Area 4 (Undesignated waters) 8.50 Area 5 (Designated waters) 7.98 Area 6 (Undesignated waters) 8.37 Area 7 (Designated waters) 7.83 Area 8 (Undesignated waters) 8.31 VI. Regulatory Evaluation We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analysis based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. A. Regulatory Analysis This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The changes proposed in the February 1, 2008 NPRM have not been modified for this interim rule. The cost and population data contained in the NPRM analysis is also unchanged for this interim rule. Consequently, we adopt the analysis from the NPRM for this interim rule. This rule puts into place the 8.17 percent average rate adjustment for the Great Lakes system over the rate adjustment found in the 2007 final rule. The annual cost of the rate adjustment in this rule to shippers is approximately $1.0 million (non-discounted). The total five-year present value cost estimate (2008-2012) of this rule to shippers is $4.4 million discounted at a seven percent discount rate and $4.7 million discounted at a three percent discount rate. We use a five-year cost estimate because the Coast Guard is required to determine and, if necessary, perform a full adjustment of Great Lakes pilotage rates every five years. B. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The analysis of the impact to small entities in the NPRM resulted in a finding that the proposed changes would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since we received no comments pertaining to small entities and the analysis has not changed, we adopt the NPRM's analysis for this interim rule. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of U.S. small entities. C. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule affects your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Paul Wasserman, Great Lakes Pilotage Branch, (CG-54122), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1535, or send him e-mail at *Paul.M.Wasserman@uscg.mil.* Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). D. Collection of Information Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)reviews each rule that contains a collection of information requirement to determine whether the practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by its collection. Collection of information requirements include reporting, record keeping, notification, and other similar requirements. This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not change the burden in the collection currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB Control Number 1625-0086, Great Lakes Pilotage Methodology. E. Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism because there are no similar State regulations, and the States do not have the authority to regulate and adjust rates for pilotage services in the Great Lakes system. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the economic impact of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. G. Taking of Private Property This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. H. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. I. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. J. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. K. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. L. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. § 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. M. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). We have concluded that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment and that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Paragraph 34(a) pertains to minor regulatory changes that are editorial or procedural in nature. This rule adjusts rates in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory mandates. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. List of Subjects in 46 CFR part 401 Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR part 401 as follows: PART 401—GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows: Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 46 CFR 401.105 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507. 2. In § 401.405, revise paragraphs

(a)and (b), including the footnote to Table (a), to read as follows: § 401.405 Basic rates and charges on the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario.

(a)Area 1 (Designated Waters): Service St. Lawrence River Basic Pilotage $14 per Kilometer or $25 per mile. 1 Each Lock Transited $310. 1 Harbor Movage $1,016. 1 1 The minimum basic rate for assignment of a pilot in the St. Lawrence River is $678, and the maximum basic rate for a through trip is $2,976.

(b)Area 2 (Undesignated Waters): Service Lake Ontario Six-Hour Period $517 Docking or Undocking 493 3. In § 401.407 revise paragraphs

(a)and (b), including the footnote to Table (b), to read as follows: § 401.407 Basic rates and charges on Lake Erie and the navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI.

(a)Area 4 (Undesignated Waters): Service Lake Erie (East of Southeast Shoal) Buffalo Six-Hour Period $695 $695 Docking or Undocking 536 536 Any Point on the Niagara River below the Black Rock Lock N/A 1,368

(b)Area 5 (Designated Waters): Any point on or in Southeast Shoal Toledo or any point on Lake Erie west of Southeast Shoal Detroit River Detroit Pilot Boat St. Clair River Toledo or any port on Lake Erie west of Southeast Shoal $1,835 $1,084 $2,382 $1,835 N/A Port Huron Change Point 1 3,195 3,702 2,400 1,867 1,327 St. Clair River 1 3,195 N/A 2,400 2,400 1,084 Detroit or Windsor or the Detroit River 1,835 2,382 1,084 N/A 2,400 Detroit Pilot Boat 1,327 1,835 N/A N/A 2,400 1 When pilots are not changed at the Detroit Pilot Boat. 4. In § 401.410, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and

(c)to read as follows: § 401.410 Basic rates and charges on Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior, and the St Mary's River.

(a)Area 6 (Undesignated Waters): Service Lakes Huron and Michigan Six-Hour Period $519 Docking or Undocking 493

(b)Area 7 (Designated Waters): Area De Tour Gros Cap Any Harbor Gros Cap $1,853 N/A N/A Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf at Sault Ste. Marie Ontario 1,853 $698 N/A Any point in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, except the Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf 1,553 698 N/A Sault Ste. Marie, MI 1,553 698 N/A Harbor Movage N/A N/A $698

(c)Area 8 (Undesignated Waters): Service Lake Superior Six-Hour Period $503 Docking or Undocking 478 § 401.420 [Amended] 5. In § 401.420— a. In paragraph (a), remove the number “$86” and add, in its place, the number “$93”; and remove the number “$1,349” and add, in its place, the number “$1,459”. b. In paragraph (b), remove the number “$86” and add, in its place, the number “$93”; and remove the number “$1,349” and add, in its place, the number “$1,459”. c. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the number “$510” and add, in its place, the number “$552”; in paragraph (c)(3), remove the number “$86” and add, in its place, the number “$93”; and, also in paragraph (c)(3), remove the number “$1,349” and add, in its place, the number “$1,459”. § 401.428 [Amended] 6. In § 401.428, remove the number “$520” and add, in its place, the number “$562”. Dated: March 18, 2008. James Watson, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship. [FR Doc. 08-1063 Filed 3-18-08; 4:02 pm]

Connectionstraces to 34

Traces to 34 documents

CFR