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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-04-29 · National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce · Notices

Notices. Temporary rule; reduction of landing limit

50,858 words·~231 min read·/register/2008/04/29/08-1200

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 0401120010-4114-02] RIN 0648-XH45 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast
(NE)Multispecies Fishery; Modification of the Yellowtail Flounder Landing Limit for the U.S./Canada Management Area AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; reduction of landing limit. SUMMARY: NMFS announces a decrease in the Georges Bank
(GB)yellowtail flounder trip limit to 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) for NE multispecies days-at-sea
(DAS)vessels fishing in the U.S./Canada Management Area. This action is authorized by the regulations implementing Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and is intended to prevent over-harvesting of the total allowable catch
(TAC)for GB yellowtail flounder during the 2008 fishing year. This action is being taken to maintain opportunities for vessels to fully harvest the TACs for transboundary stocks of GB cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). DATES: Effective May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978)281-9141, fax
(978)281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations governing the GB yellowtail flounder landing limit within the U.S./Canada Management Area are found at 50 CFR 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(C) and (D). The regulations authorize vessels issued a valid limited access NE multispecies permit and fishing under a NE multispecies DAS to fish in the U.S./Canada Management Area, as defined at § 648.85(a)(1), under specific conditions. The TAC for GB yellowtail flounder for the 2008 fishing year (May 1, 2008 - April 30, 2009) was set at 1,950 mt (73 FR 16572, March 28, 2008), a 217-percent increase from the TAC for the 2007 fishing year. The regulations at § 648.85(b)(3)(iv)(C) specify the initial GB yellowtail flounder for each fishing year at 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) per trip. The regulations at § 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(D) authorize the Regional Administrator to increase or decrease the trip limits in the U.S./Canada Management Area to prevent over-harvesting or under-harvesting the TAC allocation. Despite the substantially larger 2008 TAC for GB yellowtail flounder, projections of harvest rates in the fishery indicate that the current trip limit of 10,000 lb (4,536kg) per trip could still result in the over-harvest of the GB yellowtail flounder TAC before the end of the 2008 fishing year. The regulations at § 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(C)( *3* ) state that when 100 percent of the GB yellowtail flounder TAC is projected to be harvested, NMFS shall close the Eastern U.S./Canada Area to NE multispecies DAS vessels and prohibit all vessels from harvesting, possessing, or landing yellowtail flounder from the entire U.S./Canada Management Area. Therefore, any closure resulting from exceeding the GB yellowtail flounder TAC would unnecessarily reduce opportunities to fish for Eastern GB cod and haddock in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area. Based upon this information, NMFS is decreasing the current 10,000-lb (4,536 kg) trip limit in the U.S./Canada Management Area to 5,000 lb (2,268 kg), effective May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009. This will allow for the fishery in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area to remain open longer and increase the opportunities to target Eastern GB cod and haddock during the 2008 fishing year. Any NE multispecies DAS vessels that have declared into the U.S./Canada Management Area, departed on a trip, and crossed the VMS demarcation line to start their trip prior to 12:01 AM on May 1, 2008, may possess and land up to 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of GB yellowtail flounder on that trip only. GB yellowtail flounder landings will be closely monitored through the Vessel Monitoring System
(VMS)and other available information. Should 100 percent of the TAC allocation for GB yellowtail flounder be projected to be harvested, the Eastern U.S./Canada Area will close to all limited access NE multispecies DAS vessels, and all vessels will be prohibited from harvesting, possessing, or landing yellowtail flounder from the entire U.S./Canada Management Area for the remainder of the fishing year. Conversely, if the TAC is projected to be under-harvested by the end of the fishing year, in-season adjustments to increase the trip limit may be considered. Classification This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment, as well as the delayed effectiveness for this action, because notice, comment, and a delayed effectiveness would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The regulations under § 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(D) grant the Regional Administrator the authority to adjust the GB yellowtail flounder trip limit to prevent over-harvesting or under-harvesting the TAC allocation. Based upon recent projections, even though the 2008 GB yellowtail flounder TAC is substantially larger than the 2007 TAC, a trip limit of 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) would likely cause the 2008 GB yellowtail flounder TAC to be exceeded before August. These projections were not completed in sufficient time to allow for a proposed rule. Therefore, during the time necessary to provide for prior notice, opportunity for public comment, and delayed effectiveness for this action, vessels would be able to land GB yellowtail flounder at a rate which would likely result in the full harvest of the 2008 GB yellowtail flounder TAC prior to the end of the 2008 fishing year. This would necessitate the premature closure of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area and a prohibition on the retention of GB yellowtail flounder in the entire U.S./Canada Management Area, thereby preventing the Agency from meeting its obligation to ensure that full opportunity is provided to harvest the 2008 U.S./Canada Management Area TACs for GB cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder at a level that approaches optimum yield. Further, over-harvesting the GB yellowtail TAC would result in an overage deduction in fishing year 2009, and increase economic impacts to the industry and social impacts beyond those analyzed for Amendment 13. Exceeding the 2008 TAC for GB yellowtail flounder would increase mortality of this overfished stock beyond that evaluated during the development of Amendment 13 and Framework Adjustment 42, resulting in decreased revenue for the NE multispecies fishery, increased negative economic impacts to vessels operating in the U.S./Canada Management Area, a reduced chance of achieving optimum yield in the groundfish fishery, and unnecessary delays to the rebuilding of this overfished stock. The rate of harvest of the GB yellowtail flounder TAC in the U.S./Canada Management Area is updated weekly on the internet at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov* . Accordingly, the public is able to obtain information that would provide some advanced notice of a potential action to provide additional opportunities to the NE multispecies industry to fully harvest the TAC for GB yellowtail flounder, as well as Eastern GB cod and haddock, during the 2008 fishing year. Further, the potential for this action was considered and open to public comment during the development of Amendment 13 and Framework 42 to the NE Multispecies FMP. Therefore, any negative effect the waiving of public comment and delayed effectiveness may have on the public is mitigated by these factors. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: April 24, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-9383 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 83 Tuesday, April 29, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0416; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-297-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been found the occurrence of cable guard pins not installed in the aileron control system, which may lead to jamming of the aileron control cables, reducing the aircraft controllability. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1405; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0416; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-297-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2006-07-01, effective July 31, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found the occurrence of cable guard pins not installed in the aileron control system, which may lead to jamming of the aileron control cables, reducing the aircraft controllability. The corrective actions include inspecting for possible absence of the cable guard pins in the aileron control system inside the wings, and installing new ones bearing the same part number. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-0023, dated January 24, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a **NOTE** within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,080, or $160 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER)** : Docket No. FAA-2008-0416; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-297-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by May 29, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 145363, 145412, 145462, 145484, 145495, 145505, 145516, 145528, 145540, 145549, 145555, 145586, 145591, 145625, 145637, 145642, 145644, 145678, 145686, 145699, 145706, 145711, 145717, 145730, 145770, 145775, 145780, 145789, 145796, 14500802, and 14500809. Subject
(d)*Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 27:* Flight Controls. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It has been found the occurrence of cable guard pins not installed in the aileron control system, which may lead to jamming of the aileron control cables, reducing the aircraft controllability. The corrective actions include inspecting for possible absence of the cable guard pins in the aileron control system inside the wings, and installing new ones bearing the same part number. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 270 calendar days after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Do a detailed inspection with the aid of a borescope for possible absence of the cable guard pins in the aileron control system inside the wings.
(i)If any cable guard pin having part number (P/N) NAS427K8, NAS427K28, or NAS427K36 is missing in the internal part of the left and right halfwing spar boxes, before further flight, install a new one bearing the same part number, in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-0023, dated January 24, 2006.
(ii)If any cable guard pin P/N NAS427K26 is missing in the aileron control cable pulleys in the internal part of the wing leading edge III, before further flight, remove the corresponding leading edge and install a new cable guard pin bearing the same part number, in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-0023, dated January 24, 2006. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI includes airplanes in addition to those specified in the applicability of this AD. Those airplanes are not included in this AD because they are modified by Supplemental Type Certificates
(STC)that are not FAA-approved. This AD includes only the U.S. certified airplanes identified in the referenced service information. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1405; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to ensure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2006-07-01, effective July 31, 2006; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-0023, dated January 24, 2006; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9313 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0483; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-006-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 Airplanes, and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been found the occurrence of smoke in the flight deck originated from Pitot 1/2 and TAT 1/2 current sensor relays and [their] respective sockets, caused by poor electrical contacts between those relays and their sockets. The unsafe condition is that smoke in the flight deck may interfere with the flightcrew's ability to operate the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1405; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0483; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-006-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-11-04R1, effective December 21, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found the occurrence of smoke in the flight deck originated from Pitot 1/2 and TAT 1/2 current sensor relays and [their] respective sockets, caused by poor electrical contacts between those relays and their sockets. The unsafe condition is that smoke in the flight deck may interfere with the flightcrew's ability to operate the airplane. Corrective actions include inspecting for damage of the Pitot 1 and 2 and TAT 1 and 2 current sensor relays and sockets; and, as applicable, replacing the A1 and C1 electrical contacts of the sockets and reidentifying the sockets, replacing the sockets, and replacing current sensor relays. Damage may include melted points or stuck material of the silicone gasket, incorrect shape of the current sensor relay/sockets, discoloration of contacts, loose pin-type contacts, cracking or loose material of the polish and sealant of the bases, contaminants of the current sensor relays/sockets, and stuck material or roughness of the surface of the current sensor relay/pin-type contact. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Embraer has issued Service Bulletin 145-30-0052, dated August 2, 2007; and Service Bulletin 145LEG-30-0019, dated August 28, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 704 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $450,560, or $640 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER)** : Docket No. FAA-2008-0483; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-006-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by May 29, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Embraer Model EMB-135 airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certificated in any category; having serial numbers 145002 through 145362, 145364 through 145590, and 145592 through 14500987. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 30: Ice and Rain Protection. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It has been found the occurrence of smoke in the flight deck originated from Pitot 1/2 and TAT 1/2 current sensor relays and [their] respective sockets, caused by poor electrical contacts between those relays and their sockets. The unsafe condition is that smoke in the flight deck may interfere with the flightcrew's ability to operate the airplane. Corrective actions include inspecting for damage of the Pitot 1 and 2 and TAT 1 and 2 current sensor relays and sockets; and, as applicable, replacing the A1 and C1 electrical contacts of the sockets and reidentifying the sockets, replacing the sockets, and replacing current sensor relays. Damage may include melted points or stuck material of the silicone gasket, incorrect shape of the current sensor relay/sockets, discoloration of contacts, loose pin-type contacts, cracking or loose material of the polish and sealant of the bases, contaminants of the current sensor relays/sockets, and stuck material or roughness of the surface of the current sensor relay/pin-type contact. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 2,500 flight hours or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, unless already done, do the following actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 145-30-0052, dated August 2, 2007; or Service Bulletin 145LEG-30-0019, dated August 28, 2007; as applicable. Do all applicable replacements and re-identification before further flight.
(1)Perform a detailed inspection of the Pitot 1 (K0053), Pitot 2 (K0054), TAT 1 (K0064), and TAT 2 (K0494) current sensor relays for possible damage caused by overheating in their contacts, enclosure, and finishing material.
(i)If no damage is found on a current sensor relay, that relay may be reinstalled.
(ii)If any damage is found on a current sensor relay, replace the relay with a new relay having the same part number (P/N) CS500-060-D4A.
(2)Perform a detailed inspection on the Pitot 1 (XK0053), Pitot 2 (XK0054), TAT 1 (XK0064), and TAT 2 (XK0494) relay sockets for possible damage caused by overheating in their contacts, enclosure, and finishing material.
(i)If no damage is found on a socket, replace electrical contacts A1 and C1 of the socket with new contacts having P/N M39029/92-536; re-identify the socket from P/N S500-9140 to S500-9140-A; and re-identify the socket electrical code from XK0053, XK0054, XK0064, and XK0494, to XK1243, XK1242, XK1245, and XK1244, respectively.
(ii)If any damage is found on a socket, replace the socket with a new socket having P/N S500-9140-A or S500-9216. Note 1: For the purpose of this AD, a detailed inspection
(DET)is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation or assembly to detect damage, failure or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirrors, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.” FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1405; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-11-04R1, effective December 21, 2007; Embraer Service Bulletin 145-30-0052, dated August 2, 2007; and Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-30-0019, dated August 28, 2007; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9315 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0419; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANM-3] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Low Altitude Area Navigation Routes (T-Routes); Southwest Oregon AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish a low altitude Area Navigation
(RNAV)route, designated T-276 in the Southwest Oregon. T-routes are low altitude Air Traffic Service
(ATS)routes, based on RNAV, for use by aircraft having instrument flight rules (IFR)-approved Global Positioning System (GPS)/Global Navigation Satellite System
(GNSS)equipment. The FAA is proposing this action to reduce controller workload, enhance safety and improve the efficient use of the navigable airspace in the Portland, OR, terminal area. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone:
(202)366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-0419 and Airspace Docket No. 08-ANM-3 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:
(202)267-8783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-0419 and Airspace Docket No. 08-ANM-3) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-0419 and Airspace Docket No. 08-ANM-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet 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.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, 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 Western Service Center, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, 15000 SW., Renton, WA 98055. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. Low Altitude RNAV Route Identification and Charting Low altitude RNAV routes are identified by the letter “T” prefix followed by a three digit number. The “T” prefix is one of several International Civil Aviation Organization designators used to identify domestic RNAV routes. The FAA has been allocated the letter “T” prefix and the number block 200 to 500 for use in naming these routes. The FAA uses the “T” prefix for RNAV routes in the low altitude en route structure of the National Airspace System. T-routes are depicted in blue on the appropriate IFR en route low altitude chart(s). Each route depiction includes a GNSS minimum en route altitude to ensure obstacle clearance and communications reception. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish a low altitude RNAV route in the Portland, OR, terminal area. The route would be designated T-276, and would be depicted on the appropriate IFR En Route Low Altitude charts. T-routes are low altitude RNAV ATS routes, similar to Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Federal airways, but based on GNSS navigation. RNAV-equipped aircraft capable of filing flight plan equipment suffix “G” may file for these routes. The T-route described in this notice is being proposed to enhance safety, and to facilitate the more flexible and efficient use of the navigable airspace for en route IFR operations transitioning through and around the Portland Terminal Area. Low altitude RNAV routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.9R signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The low altitude RNAV routes listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation
(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 proposed 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 the 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 a RNAV T-Route in Southwest Oregon. Environmental Review The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a, 311b, and 311k. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes T-276 COUGA, OR to CARBY, OR [New] COUGA WP (Lat. 46°05′31″ N., long. 122°40′39″ W.) CARBY WP (Lat. 45°44′06″ N., long. 121°55′32″ W.) Issued in Washington, DC, on April 18, 2008. Stephen L. Rohring, Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules Group. [FR Doc. E8-9245 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 35, 131, 154, 157, 250, 281, 284, 300, 341, 344, 346, 347, 348, 375 and 385 [Docket No. RM01-5-000] Electronic Tariff Filings Issued April 17, 2008. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy. ACTION: Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is proposing to revise its previous Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for electronic tariff filing. The revised proposal would require that all tariffs and tariff revisions and rate change applications for the public utility, natural gas pipeline, and oil pipeline industries be filed electronically according to a set of standards developed in conjunction with the North American Energy Standards Board. These standards will enable the Commission to develop a tariff database for use by the Commission staff, the industry, and the public to view and research tariffs, and also provides companies the flexibility to design or purchase software for making tariff filings that best fits their business needs. Upon the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding, the Commission will no longer accept tariff filings submitted in paper format. DATES: Comments are due May 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number, by any of the following methods: • *Agency Web Site:* *http://ferc.gov.* Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. • *Mail/Hand Delivery:* Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. *Instructions:* For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment Procedures Section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H. Keith Pierce (Technical Information), Office of Markets, Tariffs, and Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-8525, *Keith.Pierce@ferc.gov.* Anthony Barracchini (IT Information), Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-8940, *Anthony.Barracchini@ferc.gov.* Andre Goodson (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-8560, *Andre.Goodson@ferc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Table of Contents Paragraph Nos. I. Background 2 II. Discussion 7 A. Companies Required to File Tariffs Electronically 13 B. Filing Process 14 1. Procedures for Making Tariff Filings 14 2. XML Schema 20 C. Tariff Filing Requirements 22 1. Sheets or Section Filing Requirements 24 2. Gas and Electric Open Access Transmission Tariffs 27 3. Versioning 31 4. Clean and Marked Tariff Changes as Attachments 36 5. Joint, Shared, and Section 206 Filings 39 a. Joint Tariff Filings 40 b. Shared Tariffs 44 c. Section 206 Filings Related to ISOs/RTOs 49 D. Other Business Practice Changes 52 1. Electronic Service 52 2. Attachment Documents 53 3. Withdrawal of Pending Tariff Filings and Amendments to Tariff Filings 54 4. Motions 56 5. Rate Sheets for Tariff Filings by Intrastate and Hinshaw Pipelines 57 E. Transition Procedures 59 1. Baseline Tariff Filings 59 2. Testing, Implementation and Further Procedures 64 III. Information Collection Statement 67 IV. Environmental Analysis 72 V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 73 VI. Comment Procedures 74 VII. Document Availability 78 1. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NOPR)issued on July 8, 2004, the Commission proposed to require public utilities and gas and oil pipelines to file tariff and tariff related material electronically. 1 The Commission's initial proposal contemplated that tariff filings would be made using electronic tariff filing software developed by the Commission. Based on the comments on the initial proposal, the Commission staff in collaboration with the wholesale electric and gas quadrants of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), and representatives from the Association of Oil Pipelines
(AOPL)have developed a set of standards to be used by companies in making tariff and tariff related filings at the Commission. The Commission is proposing to adopt those standards as the requirement for making tariff and tariff related filings. As a result of the adoption of these standards, and additional considerations raised in the comments at NAESB, the Commission is proposing several revisions to the manner in which companies will make tariff and tariff related filings. 1 Electronic Tariff Filings, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 69 FR 43,929 (July 23, 2004) FERC Stats. & Regs., Proposed Regulations ¶ 32,575
(2004)(2004 NOPR), Notice of Additional Proposals and Procedures, 70 FR 40941 (July 15, 2005), FERC Stats. & Regs., Proposed Regulations ¶ 35,551 (2005), 112 FERC ¶ 61,043 (2005 Notice). I. Background 2. In the 2004 NOPR, the Commission proposed to require public utilities, power administrations, interstate and intrastate gas pipelines, and oil pipelines to file tariff and tariff related material electronically. The Commission proposed to develop an electronic tariff database to store tariff and tariff related information for retrieval by Commission staff and the public. In order to implement a tariff database system that would permit such functionality, Commission staff developed a software system for tariff filings similar to that used in filing forms with the Commission. Commission staff worked with many industry representatives and experts to test this software and held public meetings to demonstrate and receive comment on the software. Based on these efforts, the Commission, in the 2005 Notice, proposed two changes to the 2004 NOPR intended to ease utilities' burdens in complying and to expand the efficiency of the electronic filing process. 3. Comments were filed on the proposed changes to the regulations and the software. 2 While some of the commenters supported using the Commission-provided software as an acceptable solution, others were concerned that this software might not work well for making tariff filings. Some also were concerned that the Commission software would not integrate well with their existing tariff management systems and that formatting tariffs to fit the parameters of the software could be difficult or time consuming. 2 Comments on the proposed changes and the software were due August 1, 2005 and May 31, 2006, respectively. 4. As a result of the review of the comments, on February 1, 2007, a public meeting was held with NAESB to discuss NAESB's assistance in the process of developing the protocols, standards, and data formats needed to provide tariff and related data to enable the Commission to develop a database to track electronic tariff and rate schedules filings. At the meeting, NAESB agreed to develop these standards and report back to the Commission. 5. NAESB established two committees, a business eTariff Subcommittee and an eTariff Technical Task Force. These committees included representatives from the wholesale natural gas industry, wholesale electric industry, oil pipelines, and intrastate natural gas pipelines who worked along with Commission staff to develop the applicable standards. Between February 1, 2007 and January 23, 2008, these committees held a total of 16 meetings in various cities over 24 days. An average of 61 people participated in these meetings either in person or by electronic conferencing. The Executive Committees for both the Wholesale Gas and Wholesale Electric Quadrants of NAESB approved the standards on March 4, 2008, and the NAESB membership ratified the standards on April 4, 2008. 6. On April 15, 2008, NAESB filed the standards with the Commission along with a record of the NAESB proceedings. This material included questions about the policies to be followed in using the standards to make tariff filings. NAESB also provided a copyright waiver stating: “While the eTariff standards are copyrighted by NAESB, a limited waiver is granted to the FERC to modify and post any excerpts of the eTariff standards and eTariff work products that they deem appropriate. These excerpts will be available for companies to reproduce only for their own internal use.” II. Discussion 7. We want to thank NAESB, and its Board of Directors, for taking on this somewhat out of the ordinary project of working with the Commission staff to develop standards for tariff filings with the Commission. We particularly want to thank the numerous volunteers, and the companies who sponsored them, from the gas, electric, and oil industries who spent countless hours developing the business and technical standards as well as evaluating how the standards could be used to make a broad array of different filings. The meetings provided a valuable opportunity for the exchange of ideas and concerns among the industries and Commission staff. As a result, we are proposing to revise our regulations and procedures to accommodate the way industry maintains tariffs. We believe that the protocols and standards that have been developed will provide a robust framework for the filing of tariff and tariff related materials with the Commission and the development of a Commission database to enable staff, industry, and the public to access and search those data. 8. With the advent of eFiling 7.0, the Commission has been expanding its ability to receive electronic filings through its eFiling and eLibrary systems. While eLibrary works very well as a document repository that stores, and permits retrieval of, all documents filed in individual docketed proceedings, it is not well suited to the processing of tariff and tariff related filings. Tariff filings occur in many different dockets over time, and in order for the Commission and the public to obtain a complete picture of a company's tariff, these various provisions need to be integrated into a single system that will provide information as to the status of tariff provisions, permit the assembly of a complete tariff, and permit tariff related research. Prior to the advent of electronic filing, the Commission would keep tariff books, open to the public, in which new pages would be inserted to reflect revisions and ensure that the tariff reflects the currently effective tariff. 3 The provision of an electronic database of company tariffs will make such information available more efficiently and to a broader audience. 3 In fact, companies themselves would often arrange to view those tariffs to try and recreate either effective tariffs or the tariff in effect during the time period of a particular proceeding. 9. The database will provide easier access to tariffs and allow the viewing of proposed tariff sections in context. One of the principal benefits of such a database is the ability to do historical research into tariffs. For example, proceedings such as complaints may involve past tariff provisions that have already been revised by the utility by the time the complaint is considered by the Commission. In order to expeditiously process such filings, the Commission, the parties, and the public need to be able to obtain the tariff provision that applies to the time period under review, rather than the currently effective tariff provision. 4 4 *See FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P.* v. *PJM Interconnection, LLC* , 118 FERC ¶ 61,169, at P 11, n.9
(2007)(parties litigated a complaint case based on a superseded tariff provision). 10. The set of NAESB protocols and standards provides a foundation for building such a database. The standards define an extensible markup language
(XML)schema 5 that will permit filers to assemble a filing package that includes the tariff changes, the accompanying tariff-related documents, such as the transmittal letter, rate schedules, and spreadsheets that are required to accompany various tariff filings, and other required information such as the proposed effective date of the filing. Upon the receipt of the filing electronically, the XML schema will enable the Commission to parse 6 (divide) the filed package into its component parts, place the filed documents into its eLibrary system, organize the tariff database and provide a metadata 7 that will permit the Commission and the public to search that database. 5 XML schemas facilitate the sharing of data across different information systems, particularly via the Internet, by structuring the data using tags to identify particular data elements. For example, each filed tariff change will include tags for the relevant information, such as the utility name, the tariff section being changed, the name for that section, the effective date, and certain sections of tariff text. The tagged information could then be extracted and separately searched. 6 Parse means to capture the hierarchy of the text in the XML file and transform it into a form suitable for further processing. 7 The term metadata is based on the Greek word “meta” meaning after or beyond and in epistemology means “about.” Thus, metadata is data or information beyond or about other data. Digital Libraries, by William Arms (M.I.T. Press 2000), *http://www.cs.cornell.edu/wya/DigLib/MS1999/Chapter1.html* (visited April 11, 2008); The University of Queensland, *http://www.library.uq.edu.au/iad/ctmeta4.html* (visited April 11, 2008); The Linux Information Project, *http://www.linfo.org/metadata.html* (visited April 11, 2008). For example, in the XML schema, one required element is a proposed effective date and another element is the text of the tariff provision. The proposed effective date would be considered metadata relative to the tariff text. 11. The NAESB standards and protocols also will provide flexibility to companies making tariff filings. In contrast to the Commission's prior approach, the standards will enable each regulated company to design or purchase software for creating tariff filings that will best accommodate its filing patterns and the needs of its business. 12. As a result of using the NAESB XML standards, we needed to make revisions in the regulations we previously proposed and in the method by which tariff related filings will be made at the Commission. In addition, several issues were raised regarding Commission policies for filing tariffs in the comments filed with NAESB. We address these issues below. Some of the most significant changes and proposals are the following: • Tariffs 8 may be filed either using the current sheet based nomenclature or using section-based numbering at the choice of the filer. 9 8 The term tariff is used herein to refer to tariffs, rate schedules, jurisdictional contracts, and other jurisdictional agreements that are required to be on file with the Commission. 9 Section-based filings will not have to include the sheet based nomenclature as a header or footer on the tariff page. • Tariffs may be filed as entire documents in either of two electronic formats, RTF 10 or PDF, 11 except with respect to open access transmission tariffs for electric utilities and interstate natural gas companies which would have to be filed as individual sheets or as sections in RTF format as defined in the proposed regulations. 10 RTF refers to Rich Text Format which is a standardized textual format that can be produced by a number of word processors. 11 PDF refers to Portable Document Format which is a format used for representing documents that closely resembles the original formatting of the document. • Tariff filings can be served electronically using the same approach used for electronic service of other Commission filings. • Filings of joint tariffs (tariffs covering two regulated entities) may be made with a single tariff filing by the entity designated to make the filing. • Tariff filings for tariffs shared among companies (such as RTO tariffs) can be made individually by any of the companies with rights to file tariff changes. • During initial baseline implementation of electronic tariff filing, only open access transmission tariffs and agreements need to be filed. • After implementation of electronic tariff filing, all new tariffs and agreements must be filed using the standards. Existing agreements need to be filed only when they are revised. A. Companies Required To File Tariffs Electronically 13. The companies or entities covered by this NOPR are those that submit tariffs, rates, or contracts with the Commission pursuant to the Natural Gas Act (NGA), the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), the Flood Control Act, the Bonneville Power Act, the Northwest Power Planning Act, any other relevant statutes. Included among the companies or entities proposed to be covered by requirement are: Regional transmission organizations
(RTOs)and independent system operators (ISOs); power authorities and federal power marketing administrations which file rates, contracts, or tariffs at the Commission; intrastate natural gas pipelines that file rates and operating conditions pursuant to the NGPA; interstate natural gas pipelines subject to the NGA which serve only an industrial customer; and companies or entities that may make voluntary tariff filings, such as reciprocity filings pursuant to Order No. 888. B. Filing Process 1. Procedures for Making Tariff Filings 14. Using the new XML schema, companies will make tariff related filings using the existing eFiling portal. As described below, the filing process will be modified slightly from the current eFiling process, in particular to include a company registration that will provide increased security for the filing, as well as additional e-mail notifications of potential problems with the filing. 15. The person making a tariff filing must have previously registered in eFiling (Filer). Upon successfully logging into the FERC eFiling portal, the Filer will be presented with the introductory screen indicating success in accessing the site, and presented with a link to the filing creation part of the site, which will include an option to make a Tariff filing (eTariff portal). 16. The eTariff filing portal will prompt the Filer to enter the company identification number assigned during the company registration process and an associated password. After successfully passing this step, the Filer will upload an eTariff XML filing package that conforms to the XML schema. Once the filing is uploaded, the eFiling Web page will indicate the filing has been submitted. 17. After the filing has been submitted, a Confirmation of Receipt will be e-mailed to both the e-mail address of the Filer and to the e-mail address on file with FERC for the company identification number. This ­e-mail only acknowledges the receipt of the filing through the eFiling portal, provides a timestamp, and indicates that the filing is placed in the queue to be processed. 18. The XML filing package will be validated programmatically by an eTariff verification process. Depending upon the success of the verification process, a number of e-mails will be sent. • If the verification is completed successfully, an e-mail will be sent to the validation e-mail address provided in the XML package and to the e-mail address associated with the company whose tariff is being revised. 12 This e-mail means only that the filing has passed the validation, not that it has been officially accepted by the Secretary of the Commission. 12 This may not be the same company making the filing; for example, in the case of a shared tariff, one notification will go to the company making the filing and the other will go to the ISO or RTO whose tariff is being revised. • If the XML filing package can be parsed (and the validation e-mail address can be obtained), but the package does not otherwise pass verification, an e-mail will be sent to the validation e-mail address provided in the XML filing package. This e-mail will provide information about the problems encountered during the verification process. • If the XML cannot be parsed at all (is unreadable), an e-mail will be sent to the Filer and to the e-mail address associated with the company identification number indicating a problem has been encountered with the filing. 19. Once passed validation, the standard eFiling email will be sent to indicate whether the Secretary of the Commission has accepted and docketed the filing or rejected it. As occurs with all filings, the docketing email does not guarantee that other filing deficiencies will not result in rejection or other action pertaining to the filing later in the review processes within the Commission. After this step, the filing is passed on to eLibrary, the tariff database and other Commission systems. 2. XML Schema 20. Under the standards, the tariff filing must be made in conformance with the XML schema. The schema essentially is a method by which the filing entities can communicate information to the Commission. The schema proscribes the metadata elements and the textual information that must be included in the filing package. The data elements included in XML package are required to properly organize the tariff database and to maintain the proper relationship of tariff provisions in relation to other provisions. For example, these elements will identify which tariff provision is being revised so that the revised tariff can be placed electronically in the proper location within the tariff hierarchy. The filing package itself will include the text of tariff changes as well as all filing attachments, such as transmittal letters. 13 The XML schema will be maintained on the Commission website along with the required codes, descriptions, and other requirements, as well as information that may be useful to those developing filing software. 14 Contemporaneously with the issuance of this NOPR, we are posting on the website the XML schema along with the descriptions of the fields used in the schema, a proposed instruction manual, and preliminary codes to be used with the XML schema. 13 The XML must be filed as a zip (compressed) file. 14 *http://www.ferc.gov* under the tab Documents and Filings, eTariff. 21. Although we do not envision that the schema and related code values will need to be changed frequently, the Secretary of the Commission, under Order No. 703, will have delegated authority to make modifications to them if necessary. 15 Before any such changes are made, a notice of the proposed change will be issued sufficiently in advance to permit companies to revise their software. 15 18 CFR 375.302(z). C. Tariff Filing Requirements 22. The Commission's current regulations require companies to file tariff sheets that include specifically defined nomenclature to identify each sheet of the tariff. 16 A company is required to file only the tariff sheets containing the tariff revisions or changes. 16 *See* 18 CFR 35.9; 154.102(e). 23. As a result of the implementation of electronic tariff filing, the exchange of information between Commission staff and the various industries during the NAESB process, and the comments submitted to NAESB, we are proposing to allow far more flexibility in the structure and identification of tariffs. Companies may determine to structure their tariffs either using the existing tariff sheet format or as sections. Companies will also be given more flexibility to file tariffs either by dividing the tariff into sheet or sections and filing only the changed sheet or section, or for a wide range of tariff documents, by filing the entire tariff document for each change. In order to ensure that the Commission and the public have the ability to identify specific tariff provisions (either sections or pages), the version for each tariff filing will still need to be identified, but the versioning information has been simplified and will be included as metadata in the XML package, except for certain documents filed as PDFs. 1. Sheets or Section Filing Requirements 24. In order to compile the tariff database, the standards require companies to file tariff text as a specific data element. Companies will be permitted to choose whether to continue to number tariff provisions as individual tariff sheets ( *e.g.* , Original Sheet No. 1) or sections ( *e.g.* , 1.1.1). 25. We also do not believe there is a one size fits all approach to the way in which companies divide their tariffs in making tariff filings. Some individual rate schedules and agreements may be filed only once or revised only infrequently, while other rate schedules and tariffs may be extraordinarily large and revised frequently. Except as discussed in the following section with respect to open access tariffs, we therefore propose to allow companies to determine based on the nature of the tariff and frequency of filing whether to file tariffs by breaking the tariff into sheets or sections or by filing the tariff as an entire document. Companies that initially file using the entire document option will be allowed later to divide the tariff document into sections or sheets. However, we propose that, except with advance permission from the Office of Energy Market Regulation (or any successor name), a company that has already broken its tariff into sections or sheets, will not be able to recompile those sheets or sections and use the entire document option. 26. In order to facilitate database management, the NAESB standards provide that tariff text must be filed either using the RTF file format or the PDF file format. 17 Tariffs filed under the entire document option may be filed either in RTF or PDF. Tariffs filed as sections or sheets must be filed in RTF, due to limitations on the ability to process and assemble PDF files. 18 17 The requirements adopted by the Commission in Order No. 703 will apply to PDF formatted documents filed as tariff text. Tariffs filed in PDF format must use the print-to-pdf feature as opposed to an unsearchable scanned format, except that tariff documents existing only on paper may be scanned into PDF. *Filing Via the Internet,* Order No. 703, 72 FR 65659 (Nov. 23, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,259, P 23 (2007). We, however, encourage filers that scan old paper tariff documents to use an optical character recognition program to convert the scanned file to text prior to filing, so that copy and paste and search functions may be used. 18 RTF is a text format that will enable the Commission's software to assemble quickly the sheets or sections into a complete tariff document. In contrast, PDF is not a textual format, and does not permit such processing. 2. Gas and Electric Open Access Transmission Tariffs 27. We are not proposing to permit the open access transmission tariffs for interstate natural gas pipelines and electric utilities to be filed using the entire document option for several reasons. Unlike individual service agreements or contracts that affect only the signatories to the agreements, the open access transmission tariffs affect a wide variety of customers and are the most frequently revised. Moreover, because of the breadth of these tariffs, and the need to review and research portions of these tariffs, it would not be efficient for staff or for the public to have these documents refiled in their entirety every time a company proposes to revise an individual tariff section or page. 28. We are therefore proposing revisions to §§ 35.9 and 154.102 to require that open access transmission tariffs, which will include other open access documents and documents of general applicability, such as ISO/RTO operating agreements and market rules, must be filed as sheets or sections. Because the electric OATTs are based on the Commission's pro forma OATT, we have specified the minimum required divisions for such filings. For non-ISO/RTO OATTs, the OATT must be divided at least at the section 1.0 level, with individual sections for each schedule or attachment. Because ISO/RTO OATTs are much more complex, we propose to require at a minimum that they be divided at the 1.1 level. In their comments to NAESB, the RTOs ask whether they can divide tariffs into smaller divisions, because of their complexity. We clarify that the proposed standards in the regulations are the minimum divisions only. We propose to permit, and encourage, filers to use even smaller divisions that are appropriate to their individual tariffs and filing patterns. 29. In addition, to aid electric utilities in filing their OATTs, we propose to post on our website a pro forma OATT divided into the largest allowable sections, as well as information that will help companies develop Microsoft Word macros to electronically divide tariffs at this level. 30. Because we have not specified a pro forma interstate natural gas tariff, the proposed regulation will require that the interstate natural gas pipeline tariffs filed as sections be divided so that each section includes only related subject matter and is of reasonable length. Negotiated rate agreements and other non-conforming service agreements need not be divided, but can be filed as entire documents. 3. Versioning 31. The Commission currently requires each tariff page to include a version number that can be used to identify the particular revision of that page ( *e.g.* , First Revised Sheet No. 1 would replace Original Sheet No. 1). Because tariff provisions change, often frequently, over time this convention is useful for identifying and referring to particular tariff provisions in orders. A number of the comments filed with NAESB maintain that the existing versioning requirement is unnecessarily complex for certain types of filings and urge us to eliminate the requirement to include versioning associated with every page or section of the tariff. The comments maintain that the XML schema includes a revised versioning requirement that would be satisfactory for identifying particular tariff provisions. 32. We recognize that in many proceedings, the official tariff designation is not used by the parties and may not be of critical importance. However, in proceedings in which past tariff language is of importance, the ability to have a unique reference to the precise tariff provision is still needed. As we move to electronic tariff filing, we believe that with the adoption of the standards our versioning requirement can be modified and made less complicated. 33. The XML schema requires that each sheet, section, or entire tariff be identified with a version number in an x.y.z format. The x.y.z format will accommodate the same level of identification as our existing nomenclature, including items such as squeezed and retroactive sheets. Some companies may want to continue this detailed approach to better identify the placement and relative position of tariff sheets and sections, and the x.y.z format will accommodate such identification. Other companies do not believe that their tariffs require such a detailed hierarchy of changes. As long as each tariff section, sheet, or entire document is identified uniquely, we propose to allow companies to choose how complex to make their identification. Companies, for example, may choose simply to numerically number each section, sheet, or entire tariff document as they file it, using just the x field. 34. The comments also raise questions about whether any such identification must continue to appear in the text of the filed documents. Except in the case of tariffs filed in PDF, we do not propose to require that identification be placed on the individual tariff revisions that are filed; companies however may choose to include such identification if they desire. Because the requisite versioning information is in the XML schema and will be made available to staff and the public in the tariff database, companies do not need to include that information in their filing. However, in order to ensure that the versioning information is available to the public on eLibrary, the Commission will use the metadata provided in the XML schema to generate a document on eLibrary that contains the appropriate versioning information. Because we are creating this document by electronically combining information from the database, the formatting of the versions and tariff text may not appear identical to the filing made by the company. 35. The only exception to this rule is for tariff documents filed using PDF. Because PDF is not a textual format and does not permit easy electronic manipulation, we cannot generate a document for eLibrary that contains the correct versioning information. For these documents, therefore, the first page of the tariff document must include the required information: Company name, tariff title (if applicable), and the appropriate version number. 4. Clean and Marked Tariff Changes as Attachments 36. As discussed above, the tariff text for use by the database will be filed as a separate data element. But, as discussed above, the Commission may not be able to generate a formatted version of that tariff text acceptable to the filer for inclusion in eLibrary. For this reason, the standards provide that companies will also include as an attachment to their filing a clean copy of the relevant tariff sheets, sections, or entire document formatted as the filer prefers. 19 The clean version of the tariff text may be filed using any software currently approved by the Secretary of the Commission for eFiling. 19 The text of the tariff to be included in the database must, of course, match exactly the text of the clean copy of the tariff filed as an attachment. The standards also will require the company to include a non-formatted plain text copy of the tariff for search purposes. 37. The Commission's current interstate natural gas pipeline (§ 154.201) and electric utility regulations (§ 35.10), require companies to provide a marked version of the tariff text in the tariff filing indicating the changes and deletions made to the existing tariff text. The oil pipeline regulations (§ 341.3) provide for the use of special symbols to denote changes. 38. We propose to continue the requirement for filing marked versions of tariffs. We also are proposing to modify the symbols used by the oil pipelines so that the symbols can be entered into a find or search message box using keystrokes available on a keyboard. Tariff documents can now be filed as large sections or as entire documents. Although we are confident that filing companies will not intentionally make extraneous, unmarked changes to tariff text, we want to ensure that both staff and the public are not put in the position of having to read the entire tariff text of large sections or an entire document to ensure that unmarked changes were not made. As a precaution, therefore, we are proposing to revise our regulations to make clear that only the sections of the tariff document appropriately marked will be considered part of the filing. Revisions that are not marked will not be considered a part of the requested tariff revision and any acceptance of a filing by the Commission will not constitute acceptance of an unmarked tariff change. 5. Joint, Shared, and Section 206 Filings 39. An issue raised in the comments by the electric industry is how companies are to make joint and shared tariff filings and section 206 filings. Joint filings refer to tariffs applicable to more than one company. Shared tariffs refer to a tariff that can be amended by one or more parties. Shared tariffs principally refer to ISO or RTO tariffs, sections of which can be revised by the ISO and RTO as well as by individual transmission owners. Section 206 tariff filings again relate principally to ISOs and RTOs, which may not have the ability to make tariff filings under section 205 of the FPA, but have the right to make such filings under section 206 of the FPA. The comments are concerned that the filing process for such tariffs not be unduly complicated. We have developed approaches to the filing of these more complicated tariffs that we believe will ensure that all parties with rights can make appropriate filings without undue burden. a. Joint Tariff Filings 40. Section 35.1(a) of the Commission's regulations establishes two methods by which public utilities that are parties to the same rate schedule may file the rate schedule with the Commission:
(1)Each public utility can file the rate schedule itself, or
(2)“or the rate schedule may be filed by one such public utility and all other parties having an obligation to file may post and file a certificate of concurrence.” 20 Prior to Order No. 614, when filers made a single filing, Commission staff would copy the rate schedule or tariff for the number of joint filers, place the appropriate designations on the tariffs, and put them in the tariff books. In Order No. 614, the Commission stated in the preamble that “on joint services, each utility offering a service must file its own tariff sheets.” 21 Currently, we therefore receive a single filing usually from a designated filer with identical tariff sheets for each joint filing utility, except that each utility's tariff contains the appropriate sheet designation for that utility. Given the prevalence of joint tariff filings, the electric utilities request that they not be required to make separate tariff filings for each utility covered by the tariff, including all supporting materials, in place of the single filing now permitted. 20 18 CFR 35.1(a). 21 *Designation of Electric Rate Schedule Sheets* , Order No. 614, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,096, at 31,503 (2000). 41. In the Commission's current state of software development, we are not in a position to permit a single designated filer to submit tariff sheets on behalf of multiple entities. We, however, recognize the inefficiency and confusion for the filer, the staff, and the public in having multiple identical filings made on behalf of different companies. We therefore have developed what we think is a reasonable approach for handling such filings that will minimize the burden on the filer but provide ready access to the tariff. 42. We propose to no longer require utilities to follow the Order No. 614 preamble instructions to file multiple copies of a tariff. Instead, the joint filers will be permitted to designate one filer to submit a single tariff filing for inclusion in its database that reflects the joint tariff, along with the requisite certificates of concurrence. The non-designated joint filers would include in their tariff database a tariff section consisting of a single page or section that would provide the appropriate name of the tariff and identify which utility is the designated filer for the joint tariff. In this way, the staff or the public will be able to find quickly the appropriate tariff in the database, without the need for multiple filings by each of the filers. 43. While this issue arose in the context of joint filings by public utilities, the solution proposed here should be equally applicable to other industries that have joint tariffs. b. Shared Tariffs 44. Shared tariffs refer principally to ISO and RTO tariffs, portions of which may be revised by FPA section 205 filings by the ISO/RTO or other transmission owners. Depending on the tariff section involved, one party may have exclusive rights to modify the section or multiple parties may have rights to modify the section. The structure of all the ISO and RTO tariffs as well as their filings rights are different. 45. In order to file shared tariffs today, parties with joint filing rights have to share information about the tariff, such as the current section numbering and sheet designations as well as the text of the provisions. Some ISOs and RTOs provide in their tariffs that the ISO/RTO is responsible for administering the Transmission Tariff. 22 22 *See* Midwest ISO Transmission Tariff, Appendix K, § F. *http://mktweb.midwestiso.org/publish/Document/469a41_10a26fa6c1e_-6d790a48324a/TOA%20(As%20Accepted%20on%2012-03-07%20EC07-89).pdf?action=download&_property=Attachment* . 46. Electronic filing should provide parties with shared tariffs with greater opportunities to develop electronic filing methods that fit their respective tariff structure and filing rights:
(1)Parties in organized markets can develop or commission filing software to be shared among those with filing rights that imposes restrictions on filing rights as applicable under the individual ISO or RTO tariff;
(2)ISOs and RTOs can agree to make all filings on behalf of the members in order to maintain administrative control over the tariff; or
(3)each of the respective parties with filing rights can continue to make individual filings as they do today by sharing certain relevant tariff and relevant metadata among the parties with shared rights. 47. Since the comments focus on the third option, individual filings by each company, we will describe how such filings can be made securely. The party initiating the filing (Company A) would need to have an eRegistered party (Filer) log-on to make the filing. The Filer would have to know Company A's company identification number and password. In order to make such a filing, the ISO and RTO would have to share with Company A its company identification number 23 and tariff identifier used in the XML schema for the ISO or RTO's tariff along with other required metadata for making the filing. 23 The ISO or RTO, however, would not have to share its password. 48. Currently, for some ISOs and RTOs, when a transmission owner makes a section 205 filing to revise an ISO or RTO tariff, the ISO or RTO is notified only through service. In order to provide greater security and more immediate notification to the ISO or RTO, we will provide an email to the ISO or RTO when the XML filing passes verification checks. Although we have not experienced unauthorized filings to date through our paper or eFiling system, this notification will ensure that the ISO or RTO can detect immediately any potential unauthorized filing. Moreover, because the person making the filing will be eRegistered and will be using the company identification number of the filer (Company A), we will be able to easily identify who made the filing in case any questions are raised. c. Section 206 Filings Related to ISOs/RTOs 49. ISOs and RTOs sometimes have tariff or operating agreement provisions that require a certain percentage of stakeholder support for making FPA section 205 filings. As a result, if the requisite stakeholder approval is not obtained, ISOs and RTOs have retained rights to make filings pursuant to section 206 of the FPA, and may make a single filing under both section 205 and section 206. 24 In addition, transmission owners that are part of the RTO also may file complaints under FPA section 206 contending that the ISO or RTO tariff is unjust and unreasonable. In the comments included in the NAESB submission, a question was asked about the appropriate method of making such filings, in particular whether the section 206 filing should be made using the Commission's eFiling complaint mechanism, with the ISO or RTO filing through the eTariff to amend its tariff only if the Commission's ruling requires tariff changes. 24 *See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, LLC,* 115 FERC ¶ 61,079 (2006). 50. For ISO or RTO transmission owners filing a complaint against the ISO or RTO, we think the complaint should be filed pursuant to the standard complaint mechanism. While these transmission owners may have legal rights to make section 205 filings to change certain aspects of the ISO or RTO tariff, they do not have any different rights than any other party to file complaints under section 206. If the Commission agrees with the complainant, the ISO or RTO would then be directed to submit a compliance filing through the eTariff portal to make the required tariff changes. 51. However, we propose that the RTO or ISO making a filing to revise its own tariff pursuant to section 206 should make such a filing through the eTariff portal with the appropriate tariff revisions and XML metadata. Because such a filing relates to the ISO's or RTO's own tariff, and the ISO or RTO has a reserved right to make such a section 206 filing, such a filing is more similar to a standard tariff filing by a utility as opposed to a complaint filing. In addition, since RTOs or ISOs may make a single filing in one proceeding under both sections 205 and 206, it seems appropriate to have such a filing made using the standard eTariff mechanism. D. Other Business Practice Changes 1. Electronic Service 52. Many parties requested that once an electronic tariff mechanism is in place that they be able to serve their initial tariff filings electronically. In the 2005 Notice, the Commission stated that it would permit electronic service for initial filings. 25 The proposed changes to our regulations will permit electronic service according to the same procedures and protocols used for other forms of service under the Commission's regulations. 26 Customers and state agencies wishing to receive service will be required to provide the company with an applicable email address (since a service list will not exist at the time of an initial filing). Any customer believing it is unable to receive electronic service will need to request a waiver of electronic service as provided in the regulations. 27 25 112 FERC ¶ 61,043 at P 7. 26 18 CFR 385.2010. 27 18 CFR 390.3. 2. Attachment Documents 53. Under the standards, all attachments to a filing, such as the transmittal letter, testimony, cost-of-service statements, will be included as part of the XML package. The attachments must meet the formatting requirements for any other eFiled document, as set forth by the Secretary of the Commission. 3. Withdrawal of Pending Tariff Filings and Amendments to Tariff Filings 54. As discussed in the 2004 NOPR, the electric, gas, and oil industries have different procedures for withdrawing and amending a tariff filing. For example, the regulations governing oil pipelines permit withdrawal of proposed tariff filings before the tariff filing is effective, 28 while the regulations for electric and gas companies do not address withdrawal of tariff filings prior to suspension. 29 Because tariff withdrawal and amendment filings affect the status of tariff proposals, standardization of these procedures is needed in order to effectuate an electronic tariff system. We are therefore continuing our proposal from the 2004 NOPR to allow a company to withdraw in its entirety a tariff filing, which has not become effective, and upon which no Commission or delegated order has been issued, by filing a withdrawal motion with the Commission. The withdrawal will become effective, and the filing deemed withdrawn, at the end of 15 days, so long as no answer in opposition to the withdrawal motion is filed within that period and the Commission has not acted to deny the withdrawal motion. If such an answer in opposition is made, the withdrawal is not effective until a Commission or delegated order accepting the withdrawal is issued. In order to ensure that the tariff database remains accurate, such withdrawal filings will need to be made through the eTariff portal using the XML schema so that the appropriate data elements can be revised. 28 18 CFR 341.13. 29 18 CFR 35.17; 154.205. 55. Electric utilities and interstate pipelines file amendments or modifications to tariff provisions to make substantive changes to their filings as well as to correct minor errors. Because such modifications can have substantive effect, the Commission is proposing to revise § 35.17 and § 154.205 to make clear that the filing of an amendment or modification to a tariff provision will toll the period for action on the prior filing and establish a new period for action. 30 30 As we stated in the 2004 NOPR, we recognize that in the past, we have sought to process minor changes filed in NGA cases within the 30-day statutory period, and we will continue to try to do so for those amendments that are not significant or do not create a major substantive difference in the tariff proposal. 4. Motions 56. Several types of motions may be made by regulated entities that do not include tariff sheets, but that affect the status of a tariff filing. For example, interstate natural gas pipelines may file motions to move suspended tariff sheets into effect, and other regulated companies may file motions to change the effective dates of tariff filings or to withdraw tariff filings. Because such filings affect the metadata associated with the tariff filing, such motions must be filed through the eTariff portal using the XML schema. 5. Rate Sheets for Tariff Filings by Intrastate and Hinshaw Pipelines 57. Under the Commission's current regulations in section 284, subparts C and G, an intrastate or Hinshaw pipeline must provide the Commission with an election of how it will determine its interstate service rates. An intrastate or Hinshaw pipeline also is required to file with the Commission, within 30 days of the commencement of service, a statement of operating conditions, which includes the rate election it has made, but which currently does not require a statement of the interstate rates to be charged. The interstate rates are included only as part of the overall filing. 58. In implementing the proposal for electronic filing tariff filing, the statement of operating conditions will be placed in the tariff database. To facilitate easier access by the Commission and the public to the interstate service rates of intrastate and Hinshaw pipelines, we are proposing to revise § 284.123 of the regulations to require intrastate and Hinshaw pipelines to include a statement of their interstate service rates as part of the statement of operating conditions that will appear in the tariff database. Including a statement of interstate service rates in the statement of operating conditions will ensure that all relevant information related to interstate service will be accessible in the tariff database. E. Transition Procedures 1. Baseline Tariff Filings 59. Each utility will be required to make a filing to establish its baseline tariffs. In the 2005 Notice, we proposed to reduce the burden in making the baseline filing and limit such filings to tariffs of generally applicability. As applied to filings by electric utilities, the baseline filing would include open access transmission tariffs (OATTs), power sales tariffs available to any customer, and market-based rate tariffs. Individually negotiated rate schedules and agreements would not have to be included as part of the baseline filing. Interstate natural gas pipelines would have to file their existing Volume No. 1 tariffs, but would not have to file special rate schedules included in Volume No. 2 tariffs, or any existing negotiated rate or non-conforming service agreements. Intrastate pipelines would have to file their statement of operating conditions including their interstate service rates. Oil pipelines would need to file their tariff publications. Other pre-existing tariffs, rate schedules, and agreements do not need to be included in the baseline filing, although companies are free to include these agreements in their baseline filings, and we would encourage them to do so. 60. After implementation, all new tariffs and rates schedules would have to be filed using the XML schema. Existing tariffs and rate schedules not included as part of the baseline filing would need to be filed electronically only when they are revised or amended. 61. We recognize that some of the pre-existing tariffs and rates schedules may not exist in electronic form. Companies having or electing to file such agreements do not need to retype the entire agreement. They may scan these agreements into PDF format and file them in that fashion as an entire document. Although not required, companies should run an optical character recognition program
(OCR)to convert these scanned documents into text so that the text of the tariff can be searched and copied. We recognize that OCR may not work well on some older documents, but even if the OCR version is not filed as the tariff text, it should be included in the plain text field of the XML schema for search purposes. 62. The baseline tariff filing is not a substantive tariff revision, and will be used only for placing generally available tariffs into the database. The baseline filing, therefore, should reflect the existing effective tariff, with no proposed substantive changes or revisions. The baseline tariff filings will be subject to notice and comment solely to permit customers to ensure that the proposed baseline tariff is an accurate reflection of the effective tariff. No protests involving other issues, such as the merits of various sections of the tariff, will be considered. We also propose a one-time delegation of authority to the Director of OEMR to rule on protests. 63. If a regulated entity has a pending or suspended tariff change filing at the time of the filing of the baseline tariff, the regulated entity should not file these pending or suspended tariff sections as part of the baseline tariff filing. When the Commission acts on pending or suspended tariffs provisions, the companies will file the tariff provisions through the eTariff portal for inclusion in the database. 2. Testing, Implementation and Further Procedures 64. We recognize that after the final rule, companies and third-party vendors developing tariff filing software will need time for development as well as a mechanism for testing their software to make sure that their filings will be accepted by the Commission. We will therefore provide a testing site where companies can make test electronic filings to determine whether their XML packages can be received and can be parsed in order to determine if the XML package can be opened and broken into its constituent parts, and to verify whether the metadata supplied meets the requirements of the XML schema. 65. Further, as the development process continues, we think it will be useful to continue the dialog among FERC staff and the industries involved, perhaps through the good offices of NAESB, to help the industries better understand the use of the code values as well as to discuss issues that may arise regarding methods of implementing the standards. Commission staff also will be available to answer individual questions about the use of the XML schema. 66. While we would like to move as quickly as possible to electronic tariff filing and the tariff database (and we think the industries also would like to take advantage of the ease of electronic filing and electronic service), we recognize that we need to provide sufficient time for software development and testing to ensure that the filing of tariffs electronically has as few bugs as possible. As a general matter, we envision that compliance with the electronic filing should be able to begin within six months to one year after the final rule is issued, but we will not propose a firm deadline or structure for compliance at this point. III. Information Collection Statement 67. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)regulations require approval of certain information collection and data retention requirements imposed by agency rules. 31 Upon approval of a collection of information and data retention, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. 31 5 CFR 1320.11. 68. The information provided under Part 35 is identified for information collection and records retention purposes as FERC-516. Data collection FERC-516 applies to all reporting requirements covered in 18 CFR Part 35 including electric rate schedule filings, market power analysis, tariff submissions, triennial reviews, and reporting requirements for changes in status for public utilities with market-based rate authority. The information provided under Parts 154 and 284 is identified for information collection and records retention purposes as FERC-545. Data collection FERC-545 applies to all reporting requirements covered in 18 CFR Part 154 including natural gas rate schedule filings, and tariff submissions. The information provided under Part 153 is identified for information collection and records retention purposes as FERC-539. The information provided for under Part 341 is identified for information collection and records retention purposes as FERC-550. Data collection FERC-550 applies to all reporting requirements covered in 18 CFR Part 341 including oil pipeline tariffs, indexes of tariffs, rates, and tariff publications. The Commission is submitting these information collection requirements to OMB under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 32 Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the use of automated information techniques. 32 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2000). *Burden Estimates:* As discussed herein, the Commission proposes amending its regulations to require that all tariffs, tariff revisions and rate change applications for natural gas, oil pipeline and public utilities be filed electronically based on standards developed by the electric, gas, and oil industries through the NAESB process. During the NAESB process, the industries opted for the flexibility provided by the standards in place of using the filing software developed by the Commission. The standards provide companies with the ability to obtain software, or modify existing tariff maintenance software, that better integrates with their individual tariff maintenance and business needs. The use of the NAESB standards, in place of Commission distributed software, also provides an open framework for third-party software developers to develop filing applications or processes, which, by handling multiple parties' filings, may prove less expensive than the cost to each company of building its own system. Because cost estimates for such third party programs are not available, the following burden estimates reflect the cost to an individual company of obtaining software, including open access software, and programming time, that is sufficient to meet the requirements of the regulation, as well as the cost of making the required baseline filing. These costs are one-time compliance costs. Individual companies' costs may differ depending on their internal business needs and the features they need. In addition, the use of electronic filing will save the costs of making and serving paper filings on an ongoing basis due to savings in mail and messenger delivery and copying, and we provide estimates of those savings below for one year. The public reporting and records retention burdens for the proposed reporting requirements and the records retention requirement are as follows. 33 33 These burden estimates apply only to this NOPR and do not reflect upon all of FERC-516, FERC-545, FERC-539 or FERC-550. Baseline Tariff—Hours Data collection Number of respondents Hours per tariff Total hours Installation hours Total install hours Total hours FERC-516: Utilities 152 9 1368 16 2432 3800 Marketers 984 5 4920 16 7872 12792 RTOs/ISOs 6 362 2172 24 144 2316 FERC-545: Small 96 7 672 16 1536 2208 Pipelines: Large 60 18 1080 16 960 2040 Pipelines: NGPA 200 6 1200 16 3200 4400 FERC-550 Oil 200 9 1800 16 3200 5000 Totals 13212 19344 32556 Total Annual Hours for Collections: 32,556. Baseline Tariff—Costs Data collection Number of respondents Cost per tariff Total filing cost Software purchase & installation Total cost FERC-516: Utilities 152 $211 $32,027 $1,690 $256,880 Marketers 34 984 109 107,448 845 831,480 RTOs/ISOs 6 8,345 50,072 2,450 14,700 FERC-545: Small Pipelines 96 171 16,429 1,690 162,240 Large Pipelines 60 423 25,391 1,690 101,400 NGPA 200 132 26,484 1,690 338,000 FERC-550 Oil 200 206 41,152 1,690 338,000 Totals 299,003 2,042,700 Combined Total 2,341,703 Going Forward Cost Savings Per Annum Total number of filings Cost per filing Total cost Oil 689 $110 $75,790 Electric 4,445 406 1,804,670 Gas 2,548 406 1,034,488 Total 2,914,948 OMB's regulations require it to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by an agency rule. The Commission is submitting notification of this proposed rule to OMB. If the proposed requirements are adopted they will be mandatory requirements. 34 The costs for marketers assumes that affiliated marketers will share a single installation. *Title:* FERC-516, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings; FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non Formal); FERC-549 Gas Pipeline Rates: NGPA Title III Transactions; and FERC-550 Oil Pipeline Rates: Tariff Filings. *Action:* Proposed Collections. *OMB Control Nos.* 1902-0096, 1902-0154, 1902-0062 and 1902-0089. *Respondents:* Business or other for profit. *Frequency of responses:* On occasion. *Necessity of the Information:* 69. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is proposing amendments to its regulations to require that all tariffs and tariff revisions and rate change applications for the public utility natural gas pipeline and oil pipeline industries be filed electronically with the Commission in lieu of paper. Electronically filed tariffs and rate case filings should improve the efficiency of the administrative process for tariff and rate case filings, by providing time and resource savings for all stakeholders. Respondents should see savings by reducing the number of personnel required to assemble and submit paper filings, and a reduction in duplication and mailing expenses. Users of the information will be able to access the data at lower costs due to efficiencies provided by electronic filing and retrieval. Data filed electronically can be processed faster than paper filings. This is due in part because procedural steps related to verifying the applicant, receiving the tariff filing, routing the tariff filing, entering the tariff filing into FERC's official record, public tariff maintenance, public access to the tariff and tariff filing, and confirming receipt of the tariff filing largely can be automated. Also the speed at which tariff filings can be processed electronically can increase the integrity of the data by speeding the process by which the applicants and public can view the filings and identify errors, and facilitating rapid filing of corrections. This capability is beneficial as many tariff filings involve statutory processing deadlines. 70. The Proposed rule will assist the Commission's efforts to comply with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act
(GPEA)by developing the capability to file electronically with the Commission via the Internet with uniform formats using software that is readily available and easy to use and also achieve the President's Management Agenda initiatives of expanding electronic government. *Internal Review:* The Commission has conducted an internal review of the public reporting burden associated with the collections of information and assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the information collection burden estimates. Moreover, the Commission has reviewed the collections of information proposed by this NOPR and has determined that these collections of information are necessary and conform to the Commission's plans, as described in this rule, for the collection, efficient management, and use of the required information. 35 Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, Phone:
(202)502-8415, fax:
(202)273-0873, e-mail: *michael.miller@ferc.gov.* ] 35 See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c). (2000). 71. For submitting comments concerning the collections of information and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your comments to the contact listed above and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone
(202)395-4650, fax:
(202)395-7285. Due to security concerns, comments should be sent electronically to the following e-mail address: *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* . Please reference the docket number of this rulemaking in your submission. IV. Environmental Analysis 72. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 36 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these requirements as not having a significant effect on the human environment. The actions proposed here fall within categorical exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and transportation of natural gas that requires no construction of facilities. Therefore, an environmental assessment is unnecessary and has not been prepared in this NOPR. 36 *Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act* , Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987). V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 73. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA)37 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule will be applicable to all entities regulated by the Commission, a small number of which may be small businesses. The Commission finds that the regulations proposed here should not have a significant impact on these few small businesses as they should be able to acquire relevant software. Software to create XML files is available from several Internet Web sites as shareware or subject to low-cost licensing options. Moreover, by eliminating the requirement to file numerous paper copies of tariffs and documents associated with rate filings, these regulations are designed to reduce the filing burden on all companies, including small businesses. Accordingly, the Commission finds that these regulations will not impose a significant economic impact on small businesses and no regulatory flexibility analysis is required pursuant to § 603 of the RFA. 37 5 U.S.C. 601-612. VI. Comment Procedures 74. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due May 29, 2008. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM01-5-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments. 75. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov.* The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. 76. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20426. 77. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters. VII. Document Availability 78. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the **Federal Register** , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426. 79. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 80. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at *ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov,* or the Public Reference Room at
(202)502-8371, TTY
(202)502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at *public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.* List of Subjects 18 CFR Part 35 Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Electricity, Incorporation by reference. 18 CFR Part 131 Electric power. 18 CFR Part 154 Natural gas, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Natural gas companies, Rate schedules and tariffs. 18 CFR Part 157 Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 18 CFR Part 250 Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 18 CFR Part 281 Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 18 CFR Part 284 Continental shelf, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Incorporation by reference. 18 CFR Part 300 Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power rates, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Electricity. 18 CFR Part 341 Maritime carriers, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 18 CFR Part 344 Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 18 CFR Part 346 Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 18 CFR Part 347 Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 18 CFR Part 348 Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 18 CFR Part 375 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Seals and insignia, Sunshine Act, Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 18 CFR Part 385 Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. By direction of the Commission. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Parts 35, 131, 154, 157, 250, 281, 284, 300, 341, 344, 346, 347, 348, 375 and 385, Chapter I, Title 18, *Code of Federal Regulations,* as follows. PART 35—FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS 1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. § 35.1 [Amended] 2. Section 35.1 is amended as follows: a. In paragraphs
(b)and
(c)remove all references to “supplement”. b. In paragraph (c), the words “Notices of Cancellation or Termination” are removed and the words “cancellation or termination” are added in their place. 3. Section 35.2 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (b), remove and reserve footnote 1. b. Paragraphs (c), (d), and
(e)are redesignated as paragraphs (d), (e), and
(f)respectively. c. In redesignated paragraphs
(d)and (f), the words “rate schedule” are removed and the words “rate schedule or tariff” are added in their place. d. Paragraph
(c)is added, and redesignated paragraph
(e)is revised to read as follows: § 35.2 Definitions.
(c)*Tariff.* The term “tariff” means a compilation of rate schedules, service agreements, and other schedules of a public utility.
(e)*Posting.*
(1)The term “posting” as used in this part shall mean:
(i)Keeping a copy of every rate schedule, service agreement, or tariff of a public utility as currently on file, or as tendered for filing, with the Commission open and available during regular business hours for public inspection in a convenient form and placed at the public utility's principal and district or division offices in the territory served, and
(ii)Serving each purchaser under a rate schedule, service agreement, or tariff either electronically or by mail in accordance with the service regulations in part 385 of this chapter with a copy of the rate schedule, service agreement, or tariff. Posting shall include, in the event of the filing of increased rates or charges, serving either electronically or by mail in accordance with the service regulations in part 385 of this chapter each purchaser under a rate schedule or schedules proposed to be changed and to each State Commission within whose jurisdiction such purchaser or purchasers distribute and sell electric energy at retail, a copy of the rate schedule showing such increased rates or charges, comparative billing data as required under this part, and, if requested by a purchaser or State Commission, a copy of the supporting data required to be submitted to this Commission under this part. Upon direction of the Secretary, the public utility shall serve copies of rate schedules, service agreements, or tariffs, and supplementary data, upon designated parties other than those specified herein.
(2)Unless it seeks a waiver of electronic service, each customer, State Commission, or other party entitled to service under this paragraph
(e)must notify the company of the e-mail address to which service should be directed. A customer, State Commission, or other party may seek a waiver of electronic service by filing a waiver request under part 390 of this chapter providing good cause for its inability to accept electronic service. 4. Section 35.3(a) is revised to read as follows: § 35.3 Notice requirements.
(a)*Rate schedules or tariffs.* All rate schedules or tariffs or any part thereof shall be tendered for filing with the Commission and posted not less than sixty days nor more than one hundred-twenty days prior to the date on which the electric service is to commence and become effective under an initial rate schedule or the date on which the filing party proposes to make any change in electric service and/or rate, charge, classification, practice, rule, regulation, or contract effective as a change in rate schedule, except as provided in paragraph
(b)of this section, or unless a different period of time is permitted by the Commission. Nothing herein shall be construed as in any way precluding a public utility from entering into agreements which, under this section, may not be filed at the time of execution thereof by reason of the aforementioned sixty to one hundred-twenty day prior filing requirements. The proposed effective date of any rate schedule or tariff filing having a filing date in accordance with § 35.2(d) may be deferred by making a filing requesting deferral prior to its acceptance by the Commission. 5. Section 35.7 is revised to read as follows: § 35.7 Electronic filing requirements.
(a)*General rule.* All filings made in proceedings initiated under this part must be made electronically, including tariffs, rate schedules, service agreements, and contracts, or parts thereof, and material that relates to or bears upon such documents, such as cancellations, amendments, withdrawals, termination, or adoption of tariffs. Paper submittals are not required.
(b)*Requirement for signature.* All filings must be signed in compliance with the following:
(1)The signature on a filing constitutes a certification that: the contents are true and correct to the best knowledge and belief of the signer; and that the signer possesses full power and authority to sign the filing.
(2)A filing must be signed by one of the following:
(i)The person on behalf of whom the filing is made;
(ii)An officer, agent, or employee of the company, governmental authority, agency, or instrumentality on behalf of which the filing is made; or,
(iii)A representative qualified to practice before the Commission under § 385.2101 of this chapter who possesses authority to sign.
(3)All signatures on the filing or any document included in the filing must comply, where applicable, with the requirements in part 385 of this chapter with respect to sworn declarations or statements and electronic signatures.
(c)*Format requirements for electronic filing.* The requirements and formats for electronic filing are listed in instructions for electronic filing and for each form. These formats are available on the Internet at *http://www.ferc.gov* and can be obtained at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Information and Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 6. In § 35.8, the section heading is revised to read as set forth below, paragraph
(b)is removed, and the designation “(a)” is removed from paragraph (a). § 35.8 Protests and interventions by interested parties. 7. Section 35.9 is revised to read as follows: § 35.9 Requirements for filing rate schedules and tariffs.
(a)All rate schedules, tariffs, and service agreements may be filed either by dividing the rate schedule, tariff, or agreements into individual tariff sheets, or tariff sections, or as an entire document except as provided in paragraphs
(b)and
(c)of this section.
(b)Open Access Transmission Tariffs
(OATT)filed by utilities that are not Independent System Operators or Regional Transmission Organizations must be filed either as individual sheets or sections. If filed as sections, the sections must be no larger than the 1.0 level with single sections for each schedule or attachment. Individual agreements that are part of the OATT may be filed as entire documents.
(c)Open Access Transmission Tariffs and other open access documents filed by Independent System Operators or Regional Transmission Organizations must be filed either as individual sheets or sections. If filed as sections, the sections must be no larger than the 1.1 level including schedules or attachments. Individual agreements that are part of the OATT may be filed as entire documents. 8. In § 35.10, paragraphs
(b)and
(c)are revised to read as follows: § 35.10 Form and style of rate schedules and tariffs.
(b)At the time a public utility files with the Commission and posts under this part to supersede, supplement, or otherwise change the provisions of a rate schedule, tariff, or service agreement previously filed with the Commission under this part, in addition to the other requirements of this part, it must list in the transmittal letter the pages or sections revised and file a marked version of the rate schedule or tariff pages or sections showing additions and deletions. New language must be marked by either highlight, background shading, bold text, or underlined text. Deleted language must be marked by strike-through.
(c)In any filing to supersede, supplement, or otherwise change the provisions of a rate schedule, tariff, or service agreement previously filed with the Commission under this part, only those revisions appropriately designated and marked under paragraph
(b)of this section constitute the filing. Revisions to unmarked portions of the rate schedule or tariff are not considered part of the filing nor will any acceptance of the filing by the Commission constitute acceptance of such unmarked changes. § 35.10a [Amended] 9. In § 35.10a(b), the word “§ 35.10(b)” is removed and the word “§ 35.7” is added in its place. § 35.11 [Amended] 10. In § 35.11, the words “purchasers under other rate schedules” are removed and the words “purchasers under other rate schedules or tariff provisions” are added in their place. 11. Amend § 35.13 as follows: a. In paragraph
(a)introductory text, remove the reference to “supplement,”. b. In paragraph (c)(1) introductory text, remove the reference to “or supplemented”. c. Revise the section heading to read as follows: § 35.13 Filing of changes in rate schedules or tariffs. 12. In § 35.15, paragraph (a), the first sentence is revised to read as follows: § 35.15 Notices of cancellation or termination.
(a)*General rule.* When a rate schedule or tariff or part thereof required to be on file with the Commission is proposed to be cancelled or is to terminate by its own terms and no new rate schedule or tariff or part thereof is to be filed in its place, a filing must be made to cancel such rate schedule or tariff at least sixty days but not more than one hundred-twenty days prior to the date such cancellation or termination is proposed to take effect. * * * § 35.16 [Amended] 13. In § 35.16, the words “on the form indicated in § 131.51 of this chapter” are removed and the words “with a tariff consistent with the electronic filing requirements in § 35.7 of this part” are added in their place. 14. Section 35.17 is amended as follows: a. Paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c)are redesignated as paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), respectively. b. The section heading is revised, and new paragraphs
(a)and
(b)are added to read as follows: § 35.17 Withdrawals and amendments of rate schedules or tariff filings.
(a)*Withdrawals of rate schedule or tariff filings prior to Commission action.*
(1)A public utility may withdraw in its entirety a rate schedule or tariff filing that has not become effective and upon which no Commission or delegated order has been issued by filing a withdrawal motion with the Commission. Upon the filing of such motion, the proposed rate schedule or tariff sections will not become effective under section 205(d) of the Federal Power Act in the absence of Commission action making the rate schedule or tariff filing effective.
(2)The withdrawal motion will become effective, and the rate schedule or tariff filing will be deemed withdrawn, at the end of 15 days from the date of filing of the withdrawal motion, if no answer in opposition to the withdrawal motion is filed within that period and if no order disallowing the withdrawal is issued within that period. If an answer in opposition is filed within the 15 day period, the withdrawal is not effective until an order accepting the withdrawal is issued.
(b)*Amendments or modifications to rates or tariff sections prior to Commission action on the filing.* A public utility may file to amend or modify a rate or tariff section contained in a rate schedule or tariff filing that has not become effective and upon which no Commission or delegated order has yet been issued. Such filing will toll the notice period in section 205(d) of the Federal Power Act for the original filing, and establish a new date on which the entire filing will become effective, in the absence of Commission action, no earlier than 61 days from the date of the filing of the amendment or modification. § 35.21 [Amended] 15. In § 35.21, footnote 5, to the words “footnote 1 to” are removed. § 35.23 [Amended] 16. In § 35.23, paragraph (b)(1)(ii), the word “pages” is removed and the words “pages or sections” are added in their place. §§ 35.1, 35.4, 35.5, 35.6, 35.11, 35.12, 35.13, and 35.17 [Amended] 17. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 18 CFR part 35, the following nomenclature changes are made to the sections indicated: a. In §§ 35.1(b) and (c), 35.4, 35.6, 35.11, 35.12(a), 35.13(a), 35.13(a)(1), 35.13(a)(2)(iii), 35.13(b)(1), 35.13(c)(1), 35.17(c), 35.17(d), and 35.17(e), all references to “rate schedule” are removed and “rate schedule or tariff” is added in their place. b. In the headings of §§ 35.17(c), 35.17(d), and 35.17(e), all references to “rate schedules” are removed and “rate schedules or tariffs” is added in their place. PART 131—FORMS 18. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. §§ 131.51 and 131.53 [Removed and Reserved] 19. Sections 131.51 and 131.53 are removed and reserved. § 131.52 [Amended] 20. In § 131.52, the words “(An original and one conformed copy to be submitted)” are removed. PART 154—RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS 21. The authority citation for part 154 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7102-7352. § 154.2 [Amended] 22. In § 154.2, paragraph (b), the words “either in book form or” are removed. 23. Section 154.4 is revised to read as follows: § 154.4 Electronic filing of tariffs and related materials.
(a)*General rule* . All filings made in proceedings initiated under this part must be made electronically, including tariffs, rate schedules, service agreements, and contracts, or parts thereof, and material that relates to or bears upon such documents, such as cancellations, amendments, withdrawals, termination, or adoption of tariffs. Paper submittals are not required.
(b)*Requirement for signature* . All filings must be signed in compliance with the following:
(1)The signature on a filing constitutes a certification that the contents are true to the best knowledge and belief of the signer, and that the signer possesses full power and authority to sign the filing.
(2)A filing must be signed by one of the following:
(i)The person on behalf of whom the filing is made;
(ii)An officer, agent, or employee of the company, governmental authority, agency, or instrumentality on behalf of which the filing is made; or,
(iii)A representative qualified to practice before the Commission under § 385.2101 of this chapter who possesses authority to sign.
(3)All signatures on the filing or any document included in the filing must comply, where applicable, with the requirements in § 385.2005 of this chapter with respect to sworn declarations or statements and electronic signatures.
(c)*Format requirements for electronic filing.* The requirements and formats for electronic filing are listed in instructions for electronic filing and for each form. These formats are available on the Internet at *http://www.ferc.gov* and can be obtained at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Information and Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. § 154.5 [Amended] 24. In § 154.5, the words “375.307 (b)(2)” are removed and the words “part 375” are added in their place. § 154.101 [Removed and Reserved] 25. Section 154.101 is removed and reserved. 26. Section 154.102 is revised to read as follows: § 154.102 Requirements for filing rate schedules and tariffs.
(a)All rates schedules, tariffs, and service agreements may be filed either by dividing the rate schedule, tariff, or agreement into individual tariff sheets, or tariff sections, or as an entire document except as provided in paragraph
(b)of this section.
(b)Open Access Transmission Tariffs must be filed either as individual sheets or sections. If filed as sections, each section must include only material of related subject matter and must be of reasonable length. Individual negotiated rate agreements, non-conforming service agreements, or other agreements that are included in the tariff may be filed as entire documents. 27. Section 154.104 is revised to read as follows: § 154.104 Table of contents. The table of contents must contain a list of the rate schedules, sections of the general terms and conditions, and other sections in the order in which they appear, showing the sheet number of the first page of each section or the section number. The list of rate schedules must consist of: The alphanumeric designation of each rate schedule, a very brief description of the service, and the sheet number of the first page of each rate schedule or the section number. § 154.106 [Amended] 28. In § 154.106, paragraph
(b)is removed and reserved. § 154.112 [Amended] 29. Amend § 154.112 as follows: a. In paragraph
(a)remove the word “page” and add in its place “page or section”. b. In paragraph
(a)remove the words “or insert sheets” and add in their place “inserted sheets or sections”. 30. Section 154.201
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 154.201 Filing requirements.
(a)A list in the transmittal letter of the tariff pages or sections being revised and a marked version of the pages or sections to be changed or superseded showing additions and deletions. New numbers and text must be marked by either highlight, background shading, bold, or underline. Deleted text and numbers must be indicated by strike-through. Only those revisions appropriately designated and marked constitute the filing. Revisions to unmarked portions of the rate schedule or tariff are not considered part of the filing nor will any acceptance of the filing by the Commission constitute acceptance of such unmarked changes. 31. Section 154.205 is amended as follows: a. Paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c)are redesignated as paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), respectively. b. The section heading is revised, and paragraphs
(a)and
(b)are added to read as follows: § 154.205 Withdrawals and amendments of tariff filings and executed service agreements.
(a)*Withdrawals of tariff filings or service agreements prior to Commission action.*
(1)A natural gas company may withdraw in its entirety a tariff filing or executed service agreement that has not become effective and upon which no Commission or delegated order has been issued by filing a withdrawal motion with the Commission. Upon the filing of such motion, the proposed tariff sections or service agreements will not become effective under section 4(d) of the Natural Gas Act in the absence of Commission action making the rate schedule or tariff filing effective.
(2)The withdrawal motion will become effective, and the rate schedule or tariff filing will be deemed withdrawn, at the end of 15 days from the date of filing of the withdrawal motion, if no answer in opposition to the withdrawal motion is filed within that period and if no order disallowing the withdrawal is issued within that period. If an answer in opposition is filed within the 15 day period, the withdrawal is not effective until an order accepting the withdrawal is issued.
(b)*Amendments or modifications to tariff sections or service agreements prior to Commission action on a tariff filing.* A natural gas company may file to amend or modify a tariff or service agreement contained in a tariff filing upon which no Commission or delegated order has yet been issued. Such filing will toll the notice period in section 4(d) of the Natural Gas Act for the original filing, and establish a new date on which the entire filing will become effective, in the absence of Commission action, no earlier than 31 days from the date of the filing of the amendment or modification. 32. In § 154.208, paragraph
(d)is revised and paragraphs
(e)and
(f)are added to read as follows: § 154.208 Service on customers and other parties.
(d)A customer or other party may designate a recipient of service. The filing company must serve the designated recipient, in accordance with this section, instead of the customer or other party. For the purposes of this section, service upon the designated recipient will be deemed service upon the customer or other party.
(e)The company may choose to effect service either electronically or by paper. Such service must be made in accordance with the requirements of part 385 of this chapter.
(f)Unless it seeks a waiver of electronic service, each customer or party entitled to service under this section must notify the company of the e-mail address to which service should be directed. A customer or party may seek a waiver of electronic service by filing a waiver request under part 390 of this chapter, providing good cause for its inability to accept electronic service. § 154.209 [Removed and Reserved] 33. Section 154.209 is removed and reserved. § 154.402 [Amended] 34. In § 154.402, paragraph (b)(1), the word “schedules” is removed and the words “rate schedules” are added in its place. § 154.602 [Amended] 35. Section 154.602 is amended by removing the phrase “on the form indicated in § 250.2 or § 250.3 of this chapter, whichever is applicable” and adding in its place the phrase “tariff filing in the electronic format required by § 154.4”. 36. Section 154.603 is revised as follows: § 154.603 Adoption of the tariff by a successor. Whenever the tariff or contracts of a natural gas company on file with the Commission is to be adopted by another company or person as a result of an acquisition, or merger, authorized by a certificate of public convenience and necessity, or for any other reason, the succeeding company must file with the Commission, and post within 30 days after such succession, a tariff filing in the electronic format required by § 154.4 bearing the name of the successor company. §§ 154.7, 154.111, 154.202, 154.206, 154.208, 154.402, and 154.403 [Amended] 37. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 18 CFR part 154, the following nomenclature changes are made to the sections as amended: a. In §§ 154.7(a)(5), 154.111(c), 154.202(b), 154.206(a), 154.208(a), all references to “sheets” are removed and “sheets or sections” is added in their place. b. In §§ 154.402(b) introductory text, 154.402(b)(3), 154.403(b), all references to “sheet” are removed and “sheet or section” is added in their place. PART 157—APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT 38. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w. 39. Amend § 157.217 by adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: § 157.217 Changes in rate schedules.
(a)* * *
(4)* * * This tariff filing must be filed in the electronic format required by § 154.4 of this chapter. PART 250—FORMS 40. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w; 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. §§ 250.2, 250.3, and 250.4 [Removed and Reserved] 41. Sections 250.2, 250.3, and 250.4 are removed and reserved. PART 281—NATURAL GAS CURTAILMENT UNDER THE NATURAL GAS POLICY ACT OF 1978 42. The authority citation for part 281 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w; 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. 43. In § 281.204, the first sentence in paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 281.204 Tariff filing requirements.
(a)*General Rule.* Each interstate pipeline listed in § 281.202 shall file tariff sheets, in accordance with § 154.4 of this chapter, including an index of entitlements, which provides that if the interstate pipeline is in curtailment, natural gas will be delivered in accordance with the provisions of this subpart. * * * §§ 281.204, 281.212, 281.213 [Amended] 44. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 18 CFR part 281, the following nomenclature changes are made to the sections as amended: a. In §§ 281.204(a), 281.212(a), 281.212(b), 281.212(c), 281.213(b), 281.213(d), 281.213(e), all references to “sheets” are removed and “sheets or sections” is added in their place. b. In § 281.212, the section heading is amended to remove the reference to “sheets.” PART 284—CERTAIN SALES AND TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS UNDER THE NATURAL GAS POLICY ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED AUTHORITIES 45. The authority citation for part 284 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w; 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 43 U.S.C. 1331-1356. 46. In § 284.123, paragraph
(e)is revised and paragraph
(f)is added to read as follows: § 284.123 Rates and charges.
(e)*Filing requirements.* Within 30 days of commencement of new service, any intrastate pipeline that engages in transportation arrangements under this subpart must file with the Commission a statement that includes the pipeline's interstate rates, the rate election made pursuant to paragraph
(b)of this section, and a description of how the pipeline will engage in these transportation arrangements, including operating conditions, such as, quality standards and financial viability of the shipper. If the pipeline changes its operations, rates, or rate election under this subpart, it must amend the statement and file such amendments not later than 30 days after commencement of the change in operations or the change in rate election.
(f)*Electronic filing of statements, and related materials.*
(1)*General rule.* All filings made in proceedings initiated under this part must be made electronically, including rates and charges, or parts thereof, and material related thereto, statements, and all workpapers. Paper submittals are not required to be filed.
(2)*Requirements for signature.* All filings must be signed in compliance with the following:
(i)The signature on a filing constitutes a certification that the contents are true to the best knowledge and belief of the signer, and that the signer possesses full power and authority to sign the filing.
(ii)A filing must be signed by one of the following:
(A)The person on behalf of whom the filing is made;
(B)An officer, agent, or employee of the company, governmental authority, agency, or instrumentality on behalf of which the filing is made; or,
(C)A representative qualified to practice before the Commission under § 385.2101 of this chapter who possesses authority to sign.
(iii)All signatures on the filing or any document included in the filing must comply, where applicable, with the requirements in § 385.2005 of this chapter with respect to sworn declarations or statements and electronic signatures.
(3)*Format requirements for electronic filing.* The requirements and formats for electronic filing are listed in instructions for electronic filing and for each form. These formats are available on the Internet at *http://www.ferc.gov* and can be obtained at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Information and Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 47. In § 284.224, paragraph (e)(5) is revised to read as follows: § 284.224 Certain transportation and sales by local distribution companies.
(e)* * *
(5)*Filing Requirements.* Filings under this section must comply with the requirements of § 284.123(f) of this part. The tariff filing requirements of part 154 of this chapter shall not apply to transactions authorized by the blanket certificate. PART 300—CONFIRMATION AND APPROVAL OF THE RATES OF FEDERAL POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 48. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 825s, 832-832l, 838-838k, 839-839h; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 43 U.S.C. 485-485k. 49. In § 300.10, paragraph (a)(4) is added to read as follows: § 300.10 Application for confirmation and approval.
(a)* * *
(4)*Electronic filing.* All material must be filed electronically in accordance with the requirements of § 35.7 of this chapter. Paper submittals are not required to be filed. PART 341—OIL PIPELINE TARIFFS: OIL PIPELINE COMPANIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 6 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT 50. The authority citation for part 341 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 U.S.C. 1-27. 51. In § 341.0, paragraph (a)(11) is revised and paragraph (a)(13) is added to read as follows: § 341.0 Definitions; application.
(a)* * *
(11)*Tariff publication* means all parts of a filed tariff, including revised pages, and supplements and sections.
(13)*Section* means an individual portion of a tariff that is tracked and accorded appropriate legal status (proposed, suspended, effective). A section is the smallest portion of a tariff that can be submitted as part of a tariff filing. 52. Section 341.1 is revised to read as follows: § 341.1 Electronic filing of tariffs and related materials.
(a)*General rule.* All filings of tariff publications and related materials made in proceedings initiated under this part must be made electronically. Paper submittals are not required.
(b)*Requirement for signature.* All filings must be signed in compliance with the following:
(1)The signature on a filing constitutes a certification that the contents are true to the best knowledge and belief of the signer, and that the signer possesses full power and authority to sign the filing.
(2)A filing must be signed by one of the following:
(i)The person on behalf of whom the filing is made;
(ii)An officer, agent, or employee of the company, governmental authority, agency, or instrumentality on behalf of which the filing is made; or,
(iii)A representative qualified to practice before the Commission under § 385.2101 of this chapter who possesses authority to sign.
(3)All signatures on the filing or any document included in the filing must comply, where applicable, with the requirements in § 385.2005 of this chapter with respect to sworn declarations or statements and electronic signatures.
(c)*Format requirements for electronic filing.* The requirements and formats for electronic filing are listed in instructions for electronic filing and for each form. These formats are available on the Internet at *http://www.ferc.gov* and can be obtained at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Information and Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 53. Section 341.2 is amended as follows: a. Paragraph (c)(3) is removed. b. In paragraph (c)(1), the reference to “ or supplement numbers” is removed and “supplemental numbers, or tariff sections” is added in its place. c. Paragraphs
(a)and (c)(2) are revised to read as follows: § 341.2 Filing requirements.
(a)*Service of filings.*
(1)Carriers must serve tariff publications and justifications to each shipper and subscriber. The company may choose to effect service either electronically or by paper. Such service shall be made in accordance with the requirements of part 385 of this chapter.
(2)Unless it seeks a waiver of electronic service, each customer or party entitled to service under this paragraph
(a)must notify the company of the email address to which service should be directed. A customer or party may seek a waiver of electronic service by filing a waiver request under part 390 of this chapter providing good cause for its inability to accept electronic service.
(c)* * *
(2)*Certification.* Letters of transmittal must certify that the filing has been sent to each subscriber of the tariff publication pursuant to paragraph
(a)of this section. If there are no subscribers, letters of transmittal must so certify. 54. In § 341.3, paragraphs (a), (b)(6)(ii), and (b)(10)(i) are revised, and paragraph (b)(10)(vi) is added to read as follows. § 341.3 Form of tariff.
(a)Tariffs may be filed either by dividing the tariff into individual loose-leaf tariff sheets or tariff sections, or as an entire document.
(b)* * *
(6)* * *
(ii)Each rule must be given a separate item number, (e.g., Item No. 1), and the title of each rule must be distinctive.
(10)* * *
(i)All tariff publications must identify where changes have been made in existing rates or charges, rules, regulations or practices, or classifications. One of the following letter designations or uniform symbols may be used to indicate the change, and insertions, other than to tables and rates, must be indicated by either highlight, background shading, bold, or underline, with deleted text indicated by strike-through.: Description Option 1 Option 2 Increase ± [I] Decrease ~ [D] Change in wording only − [W] Cancel } [C] Reissued Item = [R] Unchanged Rate { [U] New * [N]
(vi)Only revisions that are marked appropriately constitute the filing. Revisions to unmarked portions of the rate schedule or tariff are not considered part of the filing nor will any acceptance of the filing by the Commission constitute acceptance of such unmarked changes. § 341.4 [Amended] 55. In § 341.4, paragraph
(c)is removed and reserved. 56. In § 341.13, paragraph
(a)and paragraph
(b)introductory text are revised to read as follows: § 341.13 Withdrawal of proposed tariff publications.
(a)*Proposed tariff publications.* A proposed tariff publication which is not yet effective may be withdrawn at any time by filing a notice with the Commission with a certification that all subscribers have been notified by copy of such withdrawal.
(b)*Tariff publications that are subject to investigation.* A tariff publication that has been permitted to become effective subject to investigation may be withdrawn at any time by filing a notice with the Commission, which includes a transmittal letter, a certification that all subscribers have been notified of the withdrawal, and the previous tariff provisions that are to be reinstated upon withdrawal of the tariff publication under investigation. Such withdrawal shall be effective immediately upon the submission of the notice, unless a specific effective date is set forth in the notice, and must have the following effects: PART 344—FILING QUOTATIONS FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT SHIPMENTS AT REDUCED RATES 57. The authority citation for part 344 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S. 7101-7352; 49 U.S.C. 1-27. 58. Amend § 344.2 as follows: a. Remove and reserve paragraph (b). b. Revise paragraphs
(a)and
(c)to read as follows: § 344.2 Manner of submitting quotations.
(a)The quotation or tender must be submitted to the Commission concurrently with the submittal of the quotation or tender to the Federal department or agency for whose account the quotation or tender is offered or the proposed services are to be rendered.
(b)[Reserved]
(c)*Filing procedure.*
(1)The quotation must be filed with a letter of transmittal that prominently indicates that the filing is in accordance with section 22 of the Interstate Commerce Act.
(2)All filings pursuant to this part must be filed electronically consistent with §§ 341.1 and 341.2 of this chapter. PART 346—OIL PIPELINE COST-OF-SERVICE FILING REQUIREMENTS 59. The authority citation for part 346 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85. 60. In § 346.1, the introductory text is revised to read as follows: § 346.1 Content of filing for cost-of-service rates. A carrier that seeks to establish rates pursuant to § 342.2(a) of this chapter, or a carrier that seeks to change rates pursuant to § 342.4(a) of this chapter, or a carrier described in § 342.0(b) of this chapter that seeks to establish or change rates by filing cost, revenue, and throughput data supporting such rates, other than pursuant to a Commission-approved settlement, must file, consistent with the requirements of §§ 341.1 and 341.2 of this chapter: PART 347—OIL PIPELINE DEPRECIATION STUDIES 61. The authority citation for part 347 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85. 62. In § 347.1, remove and reserve paragraph (b), remove the last two sentences of paragraph (c), and revise paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 347.1 Material to support request for newly established or changed property account depreciation studies.
(a)*Means of filing.* Filing of a request for new or changed property account depreciation rates must be made under this part 347 and must be consistent with §§ 341.1 and 341.2 of this chapter. b. Remove and reserve paragraph (b). c. In paragraph (c), remove the last two sentences. PART 348—OIL PIPELINE APPLICATIONS FOR MARKET POWER DETERMINATIONS 63. The authority citation for part 348 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85. 64. In § 348.2, paragraphs
(a)and
(c)are revised to read as follows: § 348.2 Procedures.
(a)A carrier must file in the manner provided by §§ 341.1 and 341.2 of this chapter. A carrier must submit with its application any request for privileged treatment of documents and information under § 388.112 of this chapter and a proposed form of protective agreement.
(c)A letter of transmittal must describe the market-based rate filing, including an identification of each rate that would be market-based, and the pertinent tariffs, state if a waiver is being requested and specify the statute, section, subsection, regulation, policy or order requested to be waived. Letters of transmittal must be certified pursuant to § 341.1(b) of this chapter. PART 375—THE COMMISSION 65. The authority citation for part 375 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. 66. Amend § 375.307 as follows: a. Paragraph (b)(1)(i) is amended by removing the word “and” from the end of the paragraph. b. Paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is amended by removing the period at the end of the paragraph and adding “; and” in its place. c. Paragraph (b)(1)(iii) is added to read as follows: § 375.307 Delegations to the Director of the Office of Energy Market Regulation.
(b)* * *
(1)* * *
(iii)Filings for administrative revisions to electronic filed tariffs. PART 385—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 67. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 791a-825v, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16441,16451-16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85 (1988). § 385.203 [Amended] 68. In § 385.203, paragraph (a)(4), the reference to “sheets” is removed and “sheets or sections” is added in its place. 69. In § 385.215, paragraph (a)(2) is amended to add a first sentence to read as follows: § 385.215 Amendment of pleadings and tariff or rate filings (Rule 215).
(a)* * *
(2)A tariff or rate filing may be amended or modified only as provided in the regulations under this chapter. * * * 70. In § 385.216, the heading and paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 385.216 Withdrawal of pleadings and tariff or rate filings (Rule 216).
(a)*Filing.* Any participant, or any person who has filed a timely motion to intervene which has not been denied, may seek to withdraw a pleading by filing a notice of withdrawal. The procedures provided in this section do not apply to withdrawals of tariff or rate filings, which may be withdrawn only as provided in the regulations under this chapter. § 385.217 [Amended] 71. In § 385.217, paragraph (d)(1)(iii), the reference to “sheets” is removed and “sheets or sections” is added in its place. § 385.2011 [Amended] 72. In § 385.2011, paragraph (b)(1) is removed and reserved, and paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) are removed. [FR Doc. E8-9297 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 200 RIN 1810-AB01 [Docket ID ED-2008-OESE-0003] Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of public meetings on the proposed regulations for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. SUMMARY: On April 23, 2008, the Secretary of Education (Secretary) published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 22020) to amend the regulations implementing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The Secretary announces a series of public meetings to seek public comments on these proposed regulations. *Dates, Times, and Locations of Public Meetings:* See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates, times, and locations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zollie Stevenson, Jr., U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., room 3W230, Washington, DC 20202-6132. *Phone:* at 202-260-1824. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 23, 2008, the Secretary published an NPRM in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 22020) to amend certain of the Title I regulations. The purpose of these proposed regulations is to build on the advancements of State accountability and assessment systems over the six years since NCLB was signed into law, while incorporating key feedback from the field into an even clearer vision of what it takes to educate each and every one of our Nation's school children. The proposed regulations would clarify and strengthen current Title I regulations in the areas of assessment, accountability, supplemental educational services (SES), and public school choice. Issuing regulations that strengthen Title I implementation in these areas will help bring about higher-quality assessments and stronger accountability for results, as well as provide parents with the information they need to make informed decisions about public school choice and SES. A copy of the NPRM is available at *http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/reg/proposal/index.html.* The Department is accepting public comments on the NPRM through June 23, 2008. Comments must be submitted in writing to the Department in accordance with the instructions in the NPRM. We look forward to receiving your comments on these proposed regulations to ensure that they accomplish our intended objectives. Public Meetings The Department will also be holding four public meetings to receive comments on the NPRM. The meetings will occur on the following dates at the times and locations indicated: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 Hilton Boston Back Bay Hotel, 40 Dalton Street, Boston, MA 02115, *Time:* 9 a.m.-12 p.m. & 2 p.m.-5 p.m., *Meeting Room:* Fenway Room. Thursday, May 15, 2008 Georgia Perimeter College, Dunwoody Campus, 2101 Womack Road, Dunwoody, GA 30338, *Time:* 9 a.m.-12 p.m. & 2 p.m.-5 p.m., *Meeting Room:* Auditorium, C1100, North Campus. Monday, May 19, 2008 Sheraton Kansas City Sports Complex Hotel, 9103 East 39th Street, Kansas City, MO 64133, *Time:* 9 a.m.-12 p.m. & 2 p.m.-5 p.m., *Meeting Room:* Royal Ballroom. Thursday, May 22, 2008 W Hotel, 1112 4th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, *Time:* 9 a.m.-12 p.m. & 2 p.m.-5 p.m., *Meeting Room:* Great Room 1. Individuals who wish to present comments during a public meeting should register at *Special.Events@ed.gov* at least one week before the public meeting. Any meeting time that remains after the Web site registrations are processed will be made available on the day of the meeting. Individuals who have not registered on the Web site and who wish to present comments should do so at the on-site registration desk on the day of the meeting. We will process Web-site and on-site registrations on a first-come, first-served basis. Each individual will be allowed three minutes to present comments. Individuals are requested to submit three written copies and an electronic file (CD or diskette) of their comments at the meeting, which should be labeled with their name and contact information. Transcripts of these meetings, along with any written comments received, will be made a part of the official rulemaking record. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who need accommodations in order to attend the meeting ( *e.g.* , interpreting services, assistive listening devices, materials in alternative formats) should notify Frances Hopkins at *Special.Events@ed.gov* or call 202-205-6268 no later than 14 days prior to the meeting the individual will attend. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date, but cannot guarantee their availability. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* Dated: April 24, 2008. Kerri L. Briggs, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. [FR Doc. E8-9351 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0336; FRL-8559-3] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Idaho AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Idaho's State Implementation Plan
(SIP)relating to open burning and crop residue disposal requirements and visible emissions. The Director of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
(IDEQ)submitted a draft SIP revision to the EPA on April 15, 2008. The EPA is proposing to approve this draft SIP revision at Idaho's request because, if adopted by the State in its current form, it would satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act (hereinafter the Act or CAA). The State has scheduled a public hearing on this draft revision for May 2, 2008. The Director of the IDEQ also submitted a SIP revision relating to open burning and crop residue disposal requirements on May 22, 2003, which the EPA approved on July 11, 2005 (70 FR 39658). A State public hearing for this revision was held on September 11, 2002. In a ruling issued on January 30, 2007, and amended on May 29, 2007, that approval was remanded and vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in *Safe Air for Everyone* v. *USEPA,* 475 F.3d 1096, amended 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir 2007) (SAFE decision). The EPA is re-proposing to approve the portion of the May 22, 2003, SIP revision that would not be changed by the draft SIP revision, if adopted, submitted on April 15, 2008. We are proposing to approve this portion of the SIP revision because it satisfies the requirements of the Act and does not contravene the Court's SAFE decision. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before *May 29, 2008.* ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0336, by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *Mail:* Donna Deneen, EPA, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101 C. *Hand Delivery:* EPA, Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Donna Deneen, Office of Air Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107). Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0336. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the 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 the EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 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 electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Deneen,
(206)553-6706, or by e-mail at *R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized as follows: Table of Contents I. Background II. Proposed Action A. General Open Burning Rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.600 through 616 B. Crop Residue Disposal Rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.617 through 623, Provision Addressing Visible Emissions at IDAPA 58.01.01.625, and New Legislation 1. Background 2. Section 110(l) Requirements 3. Section 193 Requirements III. Scope of Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Idaho's SIP relating to open burning and crop residue disposal requirements and to a provision addressing visible emissions. This proposed approval encompasses a draft revision (IDAPA 58.01.01.600-603, 606, 617-623, and 625), submitted by the IDEQ on April 15, 2008 (the 2008 draft SIP revision request) and a portion of a revision request (IDAPA 58.01.01.604, 607-610, 612, 613, 615 and 616) submitted by the IDEQ on May 22, 2003. (We will refer to this portion of the May 22, 2003, SIP revision request as the “2003 SIP revision request.”) Idaho has requested that the EPA “parallel process” the 2008 draft SIP revision request. Parallel processing means that the EPA proposes rulemaking action on a state's rule revision before the state regulation is adopted in final form under state law. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, section 2.3. Parallel processing generally saves total processing time and allows the SIP revision, if approved, to become effective sooner than under the traditional federal review process. Under the traditional process the EPA does not first propose to approve or disapprove a SIP revision request until it has been finally adopted under state law. Under parallel processing, the EPA may take final action to approve a SIP revision request if the final version of the adopted state submission remains substantially unchanged from the submission on which the proposed approval rulemaking was based. If there are significant changes in the State's final submission, the EPA would not take final action approving this proposal. The EPA is not parallel processing the portion of the 2003 SIP revision request that would not be changed by the 2008 draft SIP revision request, if adopted. This portion of the 2003 SIP revision request has already been through the state public process and adopted in its final form under state law, and remains officially submitted to the EPA. We expect that Idaho will make no further changes to these already adopted and submitted provisions. Therefore it is not necessary to parallel process the request to approve these revisions. Rather, in today's notice the EPA proposes to approve these provisions as currently adopted under State law, based on our expectation that they will not be changed in the State's adoption of its 2008 SIP revision request. History of the 2003 and 2008 SIP Revision Requests On May 22, 2003, Idaho submitted to the EPA a requested revision to its SIP relating to open burning and crop residue disposal requirements. This 2003 SIP revision request contained a number of changes including editorial changes, the addition of a provision regarding the immediate abatement of open burning in emergencies, removal of a provision regarding discretionary approval of alternatives to open burning, and the addition of a provision to specify that crop residue burning was an allowable form of open burning. On July 11, 2005, the EPA approved Idaho's 2003 SIP revision request, explaining that we considered it to be a clarification of Idaho's prior SIP rather than a substantive amendment. 70 FR 39658 and 70 FR 41963 (2005 SIP approval). A citizen's group filed a petition for judicial review of our 2005 SIP approval in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, claiming that the approval relaxed the existing SIP and that we were incorrect in viewing the 2003 SIP revision request as a clarification of the prior SIP. ( *Safe Air for Everyone* v. *USEPA* , 475 F.3d 1096, amended 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir 2007)). On January 30, 2007 (as amended on May 29, 2007), the Court granted the petition for review, vacated the 2005 SIP approval, and remanded the matter to the EPA. Subsequent to the remand, Idaho initiated a negotiated process to revise the challenged portions of the 2003 SIP revision request. As described in more detail below, this negotiated process included discussions with representatives of the State, the IDEQ, the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA), Safe Air For Everyone, (SAFE), numerous agricultural organizations, and farmers who burn crop residue. As a result of the negotiations, the State has revised its approach to the open burning of crop residue, enacted new legislation addressing the practice, and has developed draft rules for submission to the EPA. II. Proposed Action For the reasons discussed below, this action proposes to approve the State's draft revised open burning rules, including the revisions to allow the open burning of crop residue, and the provision addressing visible emissions. More specifically, we are proposing to approve the 2008 draft SIP revision request (IDAPA 58.01.01.600-603, 606, 617-623, and 625) that includes both draft changes to the general open burning rules that were contained in the 2003 SIP revision request and draft changes to those rules that specifically relate to crop residue burning. We are also proposing to approve the portion of the 2003 SIP revision request (IDAPA 58.01.01.604, 607-610, 612, 613, 615 and 616) that would not be changed by the 2008 draft SIP revision request and that is currently not part of the federally approved Idaho SIP due to the Court's remand and vacatur of our 2005 SIP approval of the 2003 submission. We are proposing to approve the draft 2008 revisions and the unchanged 2003 submission provisions because they meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. For organizational ease, section A below provides a discussion of the changes submitted to IDAPA 58.01.01.600 through 616, which we will refer to as Idaho's general open burning rules. Section B below discusses IDAPA 58.01.01.617 through 623, which we will refer to as Idaho's crop residue burning rules. We will also discuss in Section B the provision addressing visible emissions at IDAPA 58.01.01.625.05 and a new statutory provision, Idaho House Bill 557, which authorizes the open burning of crop residue and the IDEQ's adoption of implementing rules. The EPA has also prepared a Technical Support Document
(TSD)with more detailed information about the SIP revisions Idaho has asked us to approve. The TSD is available for review as part of the docket for this action. A. General Open Burning Rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.600 through 616 Due to the Court's remand and vacatur of our 2005 SIP approval of the 2003 SIP revision request, our most recent approval of the general open burning rules in Idaho's SIP that remains in effect was published on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217) (2003 SIP approval). That 2003 SIP approval was not challenged by any party. Since then, the IDEQ has made a number of changes to its general open burning rules. IDAPA 58.01.01.600-616. These changes were submitted in both the 2003 SIP revision request and the 2008 draft SIP revision request, and include the following: Minor modifications of existing language, the addition of a provision related to emergency authority, and the deletion of a never-used provision relating to alternatives to open burning. Minor Modifications to Existing Language The IDEQ made minor modifications to the language in IDAPA 58.01.01.600-602, 606-610, 612-613, and 615-616. These modifications to existing language are either editorial revisions, clarifications of existing provisions, or process revisions. The TSD identifies each provision, indicates whether it was submitted in the 2003 or 2008 SIP revision requests, and describes how the modification compares to the existing federally approved SIP as reflected in the 2003 SIP approval. By the nature of these types of modifications, they have no substantive impact on rule requirements and, therefore, meet the requirements of the Act and are approvable. Emergency Authority Provision The IDEQ also revised IDAPA 58.01.01.603.02 to provide that “In accordance with Title 39, Chapter 1, Idaho Code, the Department [IDEQ] has the authority to require immediate abatement of open burning in cases of an emergency requiring immediate action to protect human health or safety.” This provision, submitted as part of the 2003 SIP revision request, reiterates the existing authority provided in Title 39, Chapter 1, Idaho Code (and approved in the unchallenged 2003 SIP approval) to require immediate abatement of air pollution in emergency cases and clarifies that the emergency authority may be used for open burning. Idaho Code section 39-112. Because the addition of this provision clarifies and does not change the IDEQ's emergency authority in the existing SIP to protect human health or safety, it is approvable. Alternatives to Open Burning. In the 2003 SIP revision request, the IDEQ also deleted IDAPA 58.01.01.604—Alternatives to Open Burning, from its rules. Under this provision, two years from the date an economical and reasonable alternative to a specific usage of open burning is approved by the Director of the IDEQ, that usage of open burning is no longer allowed. Under IDAPA section 58.01.01.604, the approval of alternatives is discretionary and to date has not been used. While the EPA continues to encourage alternatives to open burning, the removal of this provision has no substantive impact on existing federally-approved requirements that would have been affected had the IDEQ Director ever approved such an alternative. Therefore we propose to approve the removal of section 58.01.01.604 from the Idaho SIP. In light of the nature of the revisions discussed above to IDAPA 58.01.01.600-602, 606-610, 612-613, and 615-616 (editorial, process revisions, clarification of the emergency provision, and the deletion of a discretionary and never-used before provision), we are proposing to approve these revisions because they meet all of the requirements of the Clean Air Act. See the Technical Support Document for specific comparisons of these revisions to the existing federally approved SIP as reflected by the 2003 SIP approval. B. Crop Residue Disposal Rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.617 through 623, Provision Addressing Visible Emissions at IDAPA 58.01.01.625 and New Legislation The crop residue disposal rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.617 through 623 and the provision addressing visible emissions at IDAPA 58.01.01.625 and accompanying materials supporting these rules are contained in the 2008 draft SIP revision request. According to the 2008 draft SIP revision request, these rules were submitted as a result of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in *Safe Air for Everyone* v. *USEPA* , 475 F.3d 1096, amended 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir 2007) and of the subsequent efforts of stakeholders. The stakeholders negotiated an agreement after the Court's decision to ensure protection of the public health and the environment and that allows growers to burn crop residue when certain conditions are met. Below is a history of the 2008 draft SIP revision request, the stakeholder agreement points, our analysis of the resulting statute and administrative rules, and the basis for our proposed approval of these provisions in the 2008 SIP revision request. 1. Background The open burning of agricultural fields is a historic agricultural practice in Idaho. As early as 1970, Idaho adopted open burning rules that specifically included agricultural burning as a category of allowable burning. The EPA approved these provisions into the Idaho SIP on May 31, 1972, and re-approved them on July 28, 1982. 37 FR 10861 and 47 FR 32530. 1 A series of events, including the Idaho Legislature's enactment of the 1985 Smoke Management Act (House Bill 246, 41st Legislature, 1985), which specifically acknowledged crop residue burning and prohibited the IDEQ from regulating it, led to the subsequent submission of a SIP revision in the early 1990s that no longer included crop residue burning as an allowable form of open burning. The EPA approved this revision to Idaho's SIP on July 23, 1993. 58 FR 39445. (As further addressed below, it was this EPA SIP approval in 1993 that first rendered, albeit unintentionally, open burning of agricultural fields a prohibited act under the approved Idaho SIP, as interpreted by the 9th Circuit.) 1 Section 1153.08 of these rules specifically identifies agricultural burning as a category of allowable burning. In 1999, the Idaho Legislature repealed the 1985 Smoke Management Act and in its place enacted the Smoke Management and Crop Residue Disposal Act (House Bill 342, 55th legislature, 1999). This Act authorized ISDA to promulgate rules regarding crop residue disposal and removed the prohibition against the IDEQ from doing so. The IDEQ subsequently amended its rules to recognize the open burning of crop residue. This rule, IDAPA 58.01.01.617, was submitted in 2003 to the EPA as a SIP clarification and the EPA approved that rule in 2005. 70 FR 39658 (July 11, 2005). SAFE filed a petition for judicial review, asserting that the SIP previously prohibited crop residue burning and now allowed it as a result of the EPA's 2005 approval of the 2003 SIP revision request. SAFE claimed that the EPA incorrectly viewed the previously approved SIP as already allowing open burning of agricultural fields. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with SAFE's arguments, granted the petition for review, vacated the EPA's 2005 SIP approval of the 2003 SIP revision request, and remanded it back to the EPA to consider the amendment a change to the pre-existing SIP rather than a clarification. The Ninth Circuit determined that the pre-existing SIP did not allow the open burning of crop residue and that further analysis under Clean Air Act sections 110(l) and 193 by the EPA was required. The decision made clear that under the existing federally approved SIP, open burning of crop residue on state lands in Idaho was prohibited. Subsequent to the Ninth Circuit's decision, the parties to the lawsuit, and other key stakeholders, began discussions regarding the open burning of crop residue (crop residue burning) program and the SIP revision submittal components required to satisfy the Act. Central parties to these discussions included representatives from SAFE, IDEQ, ISDA, and numerous agricultural organizations and farmers who burn crop residue. EPA did not participate directly in the stakeholder discussions, but was kept informed of their progress. After several months of discussion, an independent mediator was hired by the State to assist in the negotiation of an agreement among the non-federal stakeholders. In December 2007, agreement points among the non-federal stakeholders were reached. The State summarizes the agreement in the 2008 draft SIP revision request as an agreement
(1)that DEQ would administer the crop residue burning program (in the past the ISDA administered the program),
(2)to model the program after the Nez Perce Tribe crop residue burning program, specifically to protect air quality to 75% of the NAAQS,
(3)to incorporate the transparency aspects of the Washington State Department of Ecology program,
(4)to examine the adequacy of the existing monitoring network,
(5)to build in cooperation with other smoke management regulators,
(6)to conduct monitoring and exposure studies if grant money is available, and
(7)to conduct an air quality analysis prior to authorizing the annual open burning of 20,000 acres or more of bluegrass. Legislation Subsequent to the December 2007 agreement among the non-federal stakeholders, House Bill 557 was drafted to reflect the agreement points. The bill was passed by the Idaho Legislature, signed by the Governor and became effective on March 7, 2008. House Bill 557 adds a new section, section 38-114, to the Environmental Protection and Health Act. This section establishes a crop residue program within the IDEQ. It specifically provides that the open burning of crop residue to develop physiological conditions conducive to increase crop yields, or control diseases, insects, pests or weed infestations, shall be an allowable form of open burning, such that it is expressly authorized as referenced in Section 52-108 Idaho Code, 2 so long as the open burning is conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section and the rules promulgated pursuant to this chapter. It also amends Idaho's Public Records Act to allow for the disclosure of information regarding property locations of fields to be burned, persons responsible for the burn, and acreage and crop type for crop residue to be burned. 2 Section 52-103 Idaho Code provides “Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.” Importantly, the Bill also requires any person desiring to burn crop residue to obtain prior approval from the IDEQ, and, further, provides that the IDEQ is prohibited from approving a burn if it determines that ambient air quality levels: “(a) [a]re exceeding, or are projected to exceed, seventy-five percent (75%) of the level of any national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) on any day, and these levels are projected to continue or recur over at least the next twenty-four
(24)hours; or
(b)[h]ave reached, or are forecasted to reach and persist at, eighty percent (80%) of the one
(1)hour action criteria for particulate matter pursuant to section 556 of IDAPA 58.01.01, rules for the control of air pollution in Idaho.” Idaho Code Section 39-114(3)(a). House Bill 557 also explains that IDEQ will make available to the public, prior to the burn, information regarding the date of the burn, location, acreage and crop type. Furthermore, the Bill requires the IDEQ to conduct additional air quality analysis if the agricultural community desires to burn more than 20,000 acres of bluegrass within the state. Additionally, the Bill requires a $2/acre fee be paid to IDEQ prior to burning. Negotiated Rulemaking After House Bill 557 was passed, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Board adopted rules implementing House Bill 557 and reflecting the December 2007 agreement relating to crop residue disposal. At the same time, a provision addressing visible emissions was added at IDAPA 58.01.01.625.05 providing that the visible emissions requirements in IDAPA 58.01.01.625 shall not apply to the open burning of crop residue. These crop residue disposal rules and the new provision addressing visible emissions were developed through Idaho's negotiated rulemaking process. 3 This process was open to the public and included representatives from the negotiation team. The rules and visible emissions provision became effective on April 2, 2008. A state public hearing is scheduled for May 2, 2008. 3 Idaho's negotiated rulemaking process is an informal process open to the public and intended to improve the substances of proposed rules by drawing upon shared information, expertise and technical abilities possessed by the affected persons; to arrive at a consensus on the content of the rule; to expedite formal rule-making; and to lessen the likelihood that affected persons will resist enforcement or challenge the rules in court. See Section 67-5220, Idaho Code and IDAPA 04.11.01.810 through 819. In summary, the negotiated rules provide for the open burning of crop residue through a *Permit by Rule* program at IDAPA 58.01.01.617 through 623 and address visible emissions requirements at IDAPA 58.01.01.625.05. These rule changes are discussed below. Description of the Crop Residue (Permit by Rule) Burning Program IDAPA 58.01.01.617 provides that the open burning of crop residue on fields where the crops were grown is an allowable form of open burning if conducted in accordance with provisions contained in IDAPA 58.01.01.618 through 623. Under these rules, no person shall conduct an open burn of crop residue without obtaining the applicable permit by rule. IDAPA 58.01.01.618 contains the general requirements for obtaining a permit by rule, IDAPA 58.01.01.619 and 620 contain the registration and fee requirements for obtaining a permit by rule, IDAPA 58.01.01.621 contains burn determination criteria and a Web site notification process, IDAPA 58.01.01.622 provides general provisions (covering such items as training requirements, reporting requirements, and certain limitations on burning), and IDAPA 58.01.01.623 provides requirements for public notification. In brief, under these requirements, a person desiring to burn crop residue must register at least thirty days in advance of the date of the proposed burn, pay a fee at least seven days prior to the burn, contact DEQ for initial approval at least 12 hours prior to the burn, obtain final approval from the IDEQ the morning of the burn, and submit a post-burn report to the IDEQ. In addition, all persons intending to dispose of crop residue through burning must abide by all of the general provisions in IDAPA 58.01.01.622. The burn criteria for the IDEQ to approve a request to burn are described in IDAPA 58.01.01.621. Importantly, before approving a permittee's request to burn, the IDEQ must determine that ambient air quality levels do not exceed seventy five percent of the level of any National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on any day and are not projected to exceed such level over the next 24 hours. In addition, the IDEQ must determine that ambient air quality levels have not reached, and are not forecasted to reach and persist at, eighty percent of the one hour action criteria for particulate matter under IDAPA 58.01.01.556. 4 Thus, IDEQ will not approve a burn if these levels are expected to be exceeded as a result of the burn. In determining whether to approve the burn, DEQ must consider the expected emissions from the proposed burn, the proximity of the proposed burn to other burns, the moisture content of the fuels, the acreage, crop type and other fuel characteristics, existing and expected meteorological conditions, the proximity of the proposed burn to institutions with sensitive populations, public roadways, and airports, and other relevant factors. IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01. The IDEQ must also notify the public as provided in IDAPA 58.01.01.623. 4 The current on hour action criteria under IDAPA 58.01.01.556 is an average of 80 úg/m 3 for PM <sup>2.5</sup> and an average of 385 úg/m 3 for PM <sup>10</sup> . The new rules include a number of general provisions that apply to all persons intending to dispose of crop residue through burning. For example, the rules allow burning to be conducted only on designated burn days, and provide that burning shall not be conducted on weekends, holidays or after sunset or before sunrise. Additionally, the person conducting the burn must have a portable communication device, like a cellular phone; must attend crop residue burning training; and must submit a post burn report to IDEQ. IDAPA 58.01.01.622.01. An Operating Guide to be developed by IDEQ will serve as the main crop residue burning Smoke Management Program implementation tool. The Operating Guide will incorporate the applicable agreement points in the December 2007 agreement, air quality rule requirements, elements of the Nez Perce smoke management program, elements of the Washington smoke management program, and elements specific to Idaho's program including specific meteorological, air quality, and burn parameters required for burn approval. More information about the Operating Guide can be found in Section 6.1.6 of the 2008 draft SIP revision request. The IDEQ has not submitted this Operating Guide as part of its 2008 SIP revision request, and the EPA is not relying on it, or its details, for purposes of proposing approval of the SIP. Further, the Operating Guide may not be read, or be changed, in a way that substantively modifies the terms that are approved into the SIP. Only by formally adopting under State law and submitting revised statutory and/or regulatory requirements to the EPA, may a State seek to revise its federally approved and enforceable SIP, and EPA approval of such submission is required before a SIP's enforceable requirements may be modified. Therefore, the EPA considers Idaho's Operating Guide, once it is developed, to not have any potential effect on the SIP requirements we are proposing to approve today. Provision Addressing Visible Emissions at IDAPA 58.01.01.625 IDAPA 58.01.01.625.05 contains a general 20% opacity visible emission limitation and provides that EPA Method 9 at 40 CFR Part 60 is generally the appropriate test method. In 2008, as part of the negotiated rulemaking, IDEQ added a new provision to IDAPA 58.01.01.625 to specify that section 625 “shall not apply to the open burning of crop residue.” Section 6.1.3 of the 2008 SIP revision request explains that, as in the Nez Perce Tribal Federal Implementation Plan, 40 CFR 49.124(c), and the previous Idaho Smoke Management and Crop Residue Disposal Act, the stakeholders also agreed in the negotiated rulemaking that the opacity standard in IDAPA 58.01.01.625 shall not apply to the open burning of crop residue. 2. Section 110(l) Requirements Under section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator may not approve a SIP revision “if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of [the Act].” To address this requirement, the EPA reviewed and analyzed air monitoring data from Federal Reference Method
(FRM)and Federal Equivalent Method
(FEM)monitors in Idaho's EPA-approved monitoring network and compared the data to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all pollutants. 5 Idaho's network, as it was most recently approved by the EPA on November 21, 2007, includes 25 FEM and FRM monitors throughout the state. Idaho also operates about a dozen other monitors that are not FEM or FRM monitors that support IDEQ's air quality forecasting and smoke management programs. More than half of the total monitors are PM <sup>2.5</sup> monitors. 5 The NAAQS pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur dioxide. Open burning of crop residue has been a common practice in many parts of Idaho for decades and continued through 2006, notwithstanding the fact of the Ninth Circuit's 2007 ruling that the EPA-approved SIP prohibited such burning. Consequently, the air quality monitoring data obtained in Idaho prior to 2007 would include the actual air quality impacts associated with crop residue burning that are detectable by Idaho's monitors. 6 Therefore, review and analysis of the monitoring data also reflects analysis of any impacts detected by the monitors resulting from crop residue burning. 6 Following the 9th Circuit's ruling, crop residue burning did not occur in Idaho in 2007 on fields under state jurisdiction. Specifically, our review focused on air quality data collected by Idaho's EPA-approved monitoring network and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System
(AQS)over the past 10 years (1997 to 2007). This ten year timeframe is consistent with the period the EPA uses for criteria air pollutant summary reports that are extracted routinely from AQS (e.g., AirData reports), and it is also the period specified for certain air quality planning requirements under the Clean Air Act. See section 175A of the Act. Based on our review of these monitoring data, there is no evidence from the monitors of a violation of the NAAQS as a result of the open burning of crop residue. We considered all of the NAAQS pollutants and reviewed the monitoring data for the entire state. The most relevant pollutants for this discussion are PM <sup>2.5</sup> , PM <sup>10</sup> , and ozone. PM <sup>2.5</sup> and ozone are relevant because the EPA's recent review of the NAAQS for these pollutants resulted in more stringent standards (71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 73 FR 16426 (March 27, 2008)) and monitoring data indicate that these new standards may be exceeded in some areas in Idaho. PM <sup>10</sup> is relevant because the only existing nonattainment areas in Idaho are for PM <sup>10</sup> . There are no nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide or lead. AQS data show the levels of these pollutants are well below the standards. PM 2.5 There are two areas in Idaho with design values 7 above the NAAQS for PM <sup>2.5</sup> . 8 These areas are the Pinehurst area and the Franklin County area. In December 2007, both areas were recommended by Idaho as PM <sup>2.5</sup> nonattainment areas for the 24 hour PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS. 7 A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given area relative to the level of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 8 PM <sup>2.5</sup> refers to particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers. The annual standard is 15 micrograms per cubic meter, based on the 3-year average of annual mean PM <sup>2.5</sup> concentrations. The 24-hour standard is 35 micrograms per cubic meter, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. The Pinehurst area historically experiences wintertime (November through February) stagnation events. Consistently, data show that past exceedances have occurred almost exclusively during the wintertime and not when the open burning of crop residue typically occurs (March and April for the spring crop burning season and mid-July through the end of October for the fall crop burning season). According to Idaho's December 2007 recommendation letter, the main emission sources contributing to PM <sup>2.5</sup> in the Pinehurst area are residential wood heating, vehicles, open burning of yard debris, and slash burning. Idaho attributed none of the exceedances of PM <sup>2.5</sup> to the burning of crop residue. The Franklin County area also experiences wintertime stagnation events, and the data show that past PM <sup>2.5</sup> exceedances have occurred in the wintertime; not when the open burning of crop residue typically occurs. Idaho's December 2007 recommendation letter identifies the main emission sources contributing to PM <sup>2.5</sup> in Franklin County as vehicle, residential wood heating, and agriculture (feedlot and dairy ammonia). Like for Pinehurst, Idaho attributed none of the PM <sup>2.5</sup> exceedances in Franklin County to the burning of crop residue. PM 10 For PM <sup>10</sup> , we reviewed air quality data for the only two nonattainment areas in Idaho under Idaho jurisdiction. 9 These are Pinehurst and Sandpoint, both of which are designated nonattainment areas for the PM <sup>10</sup> NAAQS. 10 Both have been meeting the PM <sup>10</sup> NAAQS for more than 10 years and have PM <sup>10</sup> design values well below the NAAQS. 11 Ozone 9 One other area, the Fort Hall nonattainment area (located on the Fort Hall Reservation), is also designated nonattainment for PM <sup>10</sup> . Recent data show that PM <sup>10</sup> air monitoring values for this area are also well below the NAAQS. Since the shutdown of the FMC facility in the Fort Hall nonattainment area in December 2001, PM <sup>10</sup> levels have been well below the standard, except for a few days when there were also high winds. 10 The 24 hour PM <sup>10</sup> NAAQS is 150 úg/m 3 . 11 Over the past 10 years, Sandpoint has had no exceedances of the PM <sup>10</sup> NAAQS and Pinehurst has had only one, on February 19, 1998. However, the Pinehurst exceedance did not result in a violation and was not likely the result of the open burning of crop residue because such burning does not typically occur during that time of year. Although AQS data show that all areas in Idaho are meeting the existing 8 hour NAAQS for ozone, the EPA recently revised and lowered the standard, effective May 27, 2008. 12 At the new level, our initial review of AQS data shows that the design value for one area, the Boise, Idaho area, may be above the new NAAQS based on 2005-2007 data. Further review shows that the highest values have been measured typically in the hottest summer months of July and August. Since crop residue burning has occurred historically in August, we can not rule out the possibility of precursors to ozone 13 from crop residue burning contributing to high ozone days. But as discussed below, the new crop residue disposal rules have safeguards that address the possibility of such contributions, and that would preclude crop residue burning on days when a NAAQS exceedance might occur. 12 The 8-hour ozone standard was lowered from 0.08 parts per million to 0.075 parts per million. States must make recommendations to EPA no later than March 2009 for areas to be designated attainment, nonattainment and unclassifiable. 13 Products of incomplete combustion include volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, both of which are precursors to ozone. In sum, the past ten years of air quality data show no monitored evidence that the burning of crop residue has led to a violation of the NAAQS. To the extent that the burning of crop residue may contribute to exceedances of the revised NAAQS for ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> , the provisions in IDAPA 58.01.01.617 through 623 of Idaho's new crop residue burning program adequately addresses those concerns by preventing crop residue burning on days when a NAAQS exceedance may occur. Specifically, IDAPA 58.01.01.621 prohibits burn approval if ambient air quality levels exceed seventy-five percent of the level of any NAAQS on any day or if those levels are projected to exceed such level over the next twenty-four hours. In addition, the rules specifically prohibit burn approval if the ambient air quality levels have reached or are forecasted to reach and persist at, eighty percent of the one hour action criteria for particulate matter. Thus, under these provisions, the burning of crop residue would simply not occur if air quality levels exceed the NAAQS or if burning could result in a NAAQS exceedance. In addition, pursuant to IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01 a. through i., the IDEQ may also consider a number of additional factors, in deciding whether to approve a particular burn request. The factors include consideration of the expected emissions from all burns proposed for the same date; the proximity of other burns as well as potential emission sources within the area to be affected by the proposed burn; the moisture content of the material to be burned, the acreage, crop type, and fuel characteristics, meteorological conditions, proximity to institutions with sensitive populations such as schools, hospitals and residential health care facilities; 14 proximity to public roadways or airports; and other factors relevant to preventing exceedances of the air quality concentrations in the IDAPA 58.01.01.621. Consideration of these factors will help ensure that the crop residue burning will not interfere with the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act. 14 The rule explicitly provides that the Department shall NOT authorize a burn if conditions are such that institutions with sensitive populations will be adversely impacted or when the plume is expected to impact such institutions. Idaho Code 39-108 provides DEQ with investigation, inspection, and enforcement authority over violations of Idaho Code 39-114 (the air quality rules) and a Permit by Rule issued pursuant to the Air Quality Rules. A notice of violation with a penalty of up to $19,000 per day per violation may be assessed. Idaho Code 39-108(30) and (5). Civil and criminal enforcement actions may be taken for violations pursuant to Idaho Code 39-109. Supporting Materials in the 2008 Draft SIP Revision In the 2008 draft SIP revision request, the IDEQ submitted additional documentation and analysis showing that past smoke management practices in Idaho did not contribute to NAAQS violations. The draft SIP revision request includes additional technical analysis, including analysis of air quality, meteorology, emissions inventory, and non-regulatory modeling to show that the crop residue burning activity in the State of Idaho is not causing nor significantly contributing to a violation of the NAAQS. The IDEQ also provided its rationale for the provision added at IDAPA 58.01.01.625.05 addressing visible emissions. It explains that, as in the FIP for the Nez Perce Reservation, 40 CFR 49.124(c), and the previous Smoke Management and Crop Residue Disposal Act, the stakeholders also agreed in the negotiated rulemaking that the opacity standard in IDAPA 58.01.01.625 shall not apply to the open burning of crop residue (IDAPA 58.01.01.625.05). We acknowledge that the Federal Air Rules for Reservations
(FARR)exclude open burning from the visible emissions requirements. 70 FR 18074 (April 8, 2005). The FARR established the basic air quality rules for all of the Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Thus, these requirements apply not only to the Nez Perce Indian Reservation, but to all Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Therefore, open burning on any of these reservations is not subject to the visible emission standards on any of these reservations. When promulgating the FARR, the EPA stated that “EPA is also proposing specific exemptions to the rule in a manner similar to the State and local agency rules in the docket. These exemptions include sources or activities for which compliance with the opacity rule would not be feasible or would impose unreasonable costs ( *e.g.* , open burning, agricultural activities, residential space heating, public roads, sweat lodges, non-commercial smoke houses).” (Technical Support Document for the FARR, Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0067, page 18.) Recognizing we have promulgated an exemption from the visible emissions standard for open burning in the past “in a manner similar to the State and local agency rules,” the EPA determines that the State's new provision regarding visible emissions is reasonable. In sum, based on our review of past air quality monitoring data for Idaho, the supporting material provided by the IDEQ, and the crop burning provisions at IDAPA 58.01.01.617 through 623, we conclude that the open burning revisions related to crop residue burning (IDAPA 58.01.01.617 through 623) and the provision addressing visible emissions at IDAPA 58.01.01.625.05, would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. 3. Section 193 Requirements Section 193 of the Act provides that no control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant, may be modified after such enactment in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted on November 15, 1990. Therefore, the question is whether the open burning revisions and the provision addressing visible emissions in the 2008 draft SIP revision request insure equivalent or greater emission reductions compared with the open burning requirements for crop residue disposal and the provisions addressing visible emissions in nonattainment areas reflected in the approved Idaho SIP before November 15, 1990. According to information from IDEQ, the burning of crop residue does not occur within the boundaries of either of Idaho's two nonattainment areas (Pinehurst and Sandpoint). Because section 193 applies only to requirements in effect as of November 15, 1990, in nonattainment areas and no burning of crop residue occurs in any of Idaho's nonattainment areas, we conclude that the requirements in section 193 are met. Within Idaho's nonattainment areas, exempting crop residue burning from the visible emissions standard has no effect on the emissions reductions achieved by the visible emissions requirements. Therefore, the SIP modification insures equivalent emissions reductions in those nonattainment areas. Moreover, specifically regarding allowing crop residue disposal burning as a lawful form of open burning, based on our review of the SIP in effect before November 15, 1990, and the 2008 draft SIP revision request, we have determined that the 2008 draft SIP revision insures equivalent or greater emission reductions than the pre-November 15, 1990, Idaho SIP. The SIP in effect in Idaho before November 15, 1990, allowed the open burning of crop residue. Specifically, Title 1, Chapter 1 of Idaho's Rules and Regulations for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho Manual provided “[t]he open burning of plant life grown on the premises in the course of any agricultural, forestry, or land clearing operation may be permitted when it can be shown that such burning is necessary and that no fire or traffic hazard will occur...” 15 The EPA approved these provisions on May 31, 1972, and re-approved them on July 28, 1982. 37 FR 10861 and 47 FR 32530. This SIP applied statewide and allowed open burning of crop residue if minimal conditions were met. Although the SIP provisions included conditions intended to minimize the effects of burning, the conditions were vague. For instance they required that the burning be necessary and that “no fire or traffic hazard will occur” (at section 1153.08) and to “make every reasonable effort to burn only when weather conditions are conducive to a good smoke dissipation.” (at section 1153.08(a)). These provisions were in effect in Idaho's federally-approved SIP as of November 15, 1990. The rule provisions that the Ninth Circuit determined prohibit the burning of crop residue were not approved into the federally-approved SIP until July 23, 1993. 58 FR 39445. 15 This language is found in section 1153.08 and reads in full: “The open burning of plant life grown on the premises in the course of any agricultural, forestry, or land clearing operation may be permitted when it can be shown that such burning is necessary and that no fire or traffic hazard will occur. Convenience of disposal is not of itself a valid necessity for burning. 1. It shall be the responsibility of any person conducting such burning to make every reasonable effort to burn only when weather conditions are conducive to a good smoke dissipation and only when an economical and reasonable alternate method of disposal is not available. 2. When such alternate method is made available, it shall be put into use within a reasonable time. 3. Any person conducting an agricultural, forestry, or land clearing burning operation similar to an operation carried out by a governmental agency shall follow the rules and procedures of the agency with regard to minimizing air pollution. 4. When such burning creates air pollution or a public nuisance, additional restrictions may be imposed to minimize the effect upon the environment. In contrast, the 2008 draft SIP revision request is more specific and contains numerous and explicit procedures and measures to limit emissions associated with crop residue burning. For example, prior to conducting a burn, a person must obtain a permit by rule as defined in IDAPA 58.01.01.618. Any person applying to burn crop residue must register annually and provide detailed and specific information to the IDEQ regarding a proposed burn. Additionally, prior to conducting the burn, a person must receive a specific approval from the IDEQ to conduct the burn and must confirm the approval on the morning of the burn. As discussed above, the IDEQ's approval of burn requests is tied to specific air quality levels below the NAAQS and burning is completely prohibited on certain days and at certain times. Other conditions require that special consideration be made for sensitive populations and are designed to ensure the public is notified and has ready access to burn call information. In light of these more specific and more stringent provisions, the EPA concludes that the approval of the 2008 draft SIP revision request will insure equivalent or greater emission reductions than did the Idaho SIP in effect on November 15, 1990. The IDEQ also provides discussion of whether the 2008 draft SIP revision request insures equivalent or greater emission reductions compared to Idaho's pre-November 15, 1990, federally-approved SIP. It points out that the SIP in place before 1990 required no air quality impact analysis and applied not only to crop residue grown in the field generated but to any plant life grown on any agricultural operation. It also points out that prior to 1990, Idaho's SIP authorized the broad practice of agricultural burning. It stated: “The open burning of plant life grown on the premises in the course of any agricultural, forestry or land clearing operating may be permitted when it can be shown that such burning is necessary and no fire or traffic hazard will occur. Convenience of disposal is not of itself a valid necessity for burning.” 37 FR 10842, 10861 (May 13, 1972). The IDEQ also explains that the crop residue burning program provided in the 2008 draft SIP revision request creates a stronger, more protective program than that in place prior to 1990. Moreover, it adds, the only two nonattainment areas in the state, Sandpoint and Pinehurst, in which crop residue disposal burning does not occur, experience high concentrations of particulate matter in winter months, not in the early fall months when crop residue burning mainly occurs in other areas. The IDEQ points to these considerations and the required implementation of other control measures for these areas, and concludes that the SIP revision will not in any way relax any other control requirement in effect in the Pinehurst or Sandpoint nonattainment areas. III. Scope of Proposed Action Idaho has not demonstrated authority to implement and enforce IDAPA Chapter 58 within ”Indian Country” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. 16 Therefore, the EPA proposes that this SIP approval not extend to ”Indian Country” in Idaho. See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall include enforceable emission limits), 110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate authority under State law to carry out SIP), and 172(c)(6) (nonattainment SIPs shall include enforceable emission limits). This is consistent with the EPA's previous approval of Idaho's PSD program, in which the EPA specifically disapproved the program for sources within Indian Reservations in Idaho because the State had not shown it had authority to regulate such sources. See 40 CFR 52.683(b). It is also consistent with the EPA's approval of Idaho's title V air operating permits program. See 61 FR 64622, 64623 (December 6, 1996) (interim approval does not extend to Indian Country); 66 FR 50574, 50575 (October 4, 2001) (full approval does not extend to Indian Country). 17 16 “Indian country” is defined under 18 U.S.C. 1151 as:
(1)All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the reservation,
(2)all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States, whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a State, and
(3)all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. Under this definition, EPA treats as reservations trust lands validly set aside for the use of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been formally designated as a reservation. In Idaho, Indian country includes, but is not limited to, the Coeur d'Alene Reservation, the Duck Valley Reservation, the Reservation of the Kootenai Tribe, the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, and the Nez Perce Reservation as described in the 1863 Nez Perce Treaty. 17 Since the CAA was amended in 1990, EPA has been clear in its approvals of State programs that the approved State program does not extend into Indian country. It is EPA's position that, absent an explicit finding of jurisdiction and approval in Indian country, State and local governments lack authority under the CAA over air pollution sources, and the owners or operators of air pollution sources, throughout Indian country. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ); • 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); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 21, 2008. Elin D. Miller, Regional Administrator, Region 10. 40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be 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 N—Idaho 2. In § 52.670, the table in paragraph
(c)is amended as follows: a. By revising entries 600 through 603. b. By revising entries 606 through 610. c. By revising entries 612 and 613. d. By revising entries 615 though 617. e. By adding in numerical order entries 618 though 623. f. By revising entry 625. § 52.670 Identification of plan.
(c)* * * EPA—Approved Idaho Regulations [Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) Chapter 58, Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho, Previously Codified at IDAPA Chapter 39 (Appendix A.3)] State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations 58.01.01—Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho * * * * * * * 600 Rules for Control of Open Burning 4/02/08 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 601 Fire Permits, Hazardous Materials and Liability 4/02/08 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 602 Nonpreemption of Other Jurisdictions 4/02/08 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 603 General Restrictions 4/02/08 3/21/03 5/1/94 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 606 Categories of Allowable Burning 4/02/08 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 607 Recreational and Warming Fires 3/21/03 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 608 Weed Control Fires 5/1/94 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 609 Training Fires 3/21/03 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 610 Industrial Flares 3/21/03 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. * * * * * * * 612 Landfill Disposal Site Fires 3/21/03 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 613 Orchard Fires 3/21/03 5/1/94 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. * * * * * * * 615 Dangerous Material Fires 3/21/03 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 616 Infectious Waste Burning 3/21/03 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 617 Crop Residue 4/02/08 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] 618 Permit By Rule 4/02/08 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] 619 Registration for Permit By Rule 4/02/08 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] 620 Registration Fee 4/02/08 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] 621 Burn Determination 4/02/08 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] 622 General Provisions 4/02/08 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] 623 Public Notification 4/02/08 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] 625 Visible Emissions 4/02/08 4/29/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] [FR Doc. E8-9269 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7774] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings. DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before July 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7774, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151, or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151 or.(e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent. *Administrative Procedure Act Statement.* This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and do not fall under the APA. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation** * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Taylor County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas Aucilla River At U.S. Highway 98 None +10 Unincorporated Areas of Taylor County. At the Taylor/Madison County boundary None +45 Pimple Creek Approximately 600 feet upstream of the confluence with Spring Creek +36 +37 City of Perry. Approximately 400 feet downstream of Cherry Street +42 +41 Pimple Creek East Branch Just upstream of Johnson Stripling Road +43 +44 City of Perry. Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of the confluence with Pimple Creek +44 +45 Rocky Creek At the confluence with Spring Street None +25 Unincorporated Areas of Taylor County. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 221 None +56 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Perry Maps are available for inspection at Perry City Hall, 224 South Jefferson Street, Perry, FL. Unincorporated Areas of Taylor County Maps are available for inspection at Taylor County Building/Planning Department, 201 East Green Street, Perry, FL. Alexander County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas Cotton Slough, interior drainage ponding Unincorporated Alexander County (north of Urbandale, IL) None +308 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Interior drainage ponding (Goose Pond Pumping Station) Unincorporated Alexander County (near Urbandale, IL) None +309 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Mississippi River One mile upstream of the confluence with the Ohio River +332 +331 City of Cairo, Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County, Village of East Cape Girardeau, Village of McClure, Village of Tamms, Village of Thebes. Six miles upstream of State Route 146 (River Mile 58) +361 +356 Pigeon Creek At the mouth of Horseshoe Lake +340 +336 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. At State Route 3 +343 +342 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Cairo Maps are available for inspection at Cairo City Hall, 1501 Washington Avenue, Cairo, IL 62914. Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County Maps are available for inspection at Alexander County, County Clerk's Office, 2000 Washington Avenue, Cairo, IL 62914. Village of East Cape Girardeau Maps are available for inspection at East Cape Girardeau Village Hall, 50 Brookwood, McClure, IL 62957. Village of McClure Maps are available for inspection at McClure Village Hall, 38204 Grapevine Trail, McClure, IL 62957. Village of Tamms Maps are available for inspection at Tamms Village Hall, 425 Front Street, Tamms, IL 62988. Village of Thebes Maps are available for inspection at Thebes Village Hall, 413 North 6th Street, Thebes, IL 62990. Genesee County, Michigan, and Incorporated Areas Armstrong Creek Downstream side of Francis Road +683 +682 Township of Flushing. Approximately 2,100 feet upstream of Stanley Road +705 +708 Township of Montrose. Copneconic Lake Entire shoreline of Copneconic Lake None +846 Township of Fenton. Fenwin Pond Entire shoreline of Fenwin Pond None +837 Township of Mundy. Lum Drain Downstream side of Moorish Road None +778 Township of Gaines. Upstream side of Elms Road None +783 Pierson Branch of Thread Creek Approximately 680 feet downstream of S Center Road None +766 City of Burton. Approximately 1,500 feet downstream of E Maple Avenue None +822 Shinanguag Lake Entire shoreline of Shinanguag Lake None +890 Township of Atlas. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Burton Maps are available for inspection at 4303 South Center Road, Burton, MI 48519. Township of Atlas Maps are available for inspection at 7386 Gale Road, Goodrich, MI 48439. Township of Fenton Maps are available for inspection at 12060 Mantawauka Drive, Fenton, MI 48430. Township of Flushing Maps are available for inspection at 6524 North Seymour Road, Flushing, MI 48433. Township of Gaines Maps are available for inspection at 9255 Grand Blanc Road, Gaines, MI 48436. Township of Montrose Maps are available for inspection at 139 South Saginaw Street, Montrose, MI 48457. Township of Mundy Maps are available for inspection at 3478 Mundy Avenue, Swartz Creek, MI 48473. Washtenaw County, Michigan, and Incorporated Areas Allen Creek Just downstream of Conrail Railroad +768 +769 City of Ann Arbor. Approximately 500 feet upstream of E Madison Street +819 +820 Allen Creek Diversion Just upstream of Miller Road None +795 City of Ann Arbor. Just downstream of Ann Arbor Railroad None +801 Letts Creek Confluence with North Fork Mill Creek None +890 Township of Lima. Just upstream of Pierce Road None +928 Mill Creek Mouth at Huron River None +838 Township of Scio. Just upstream of North Parker Road None +863 Township of Lima, Township of Webster, Village of Dexter. Millers Creek Just upstream of Geddes Road None +752 City of Ann Arbor. Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of Baxter Road None +883 Township of Ann Arbor. Millers Creek Diversion Just upstream of confluence with Millers Creek None +753 City of Ann Arbor. Just downstream of diversion from Millers Creek None +771 North Fork Mill Creek Approximately 800 feet downstream of Fletcher Road None +885 Village of Chelsea, Township of Lima. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Conway Road None +934 Township of Sylvan. North Fork Mill Creek Entire North Fork Mill Creek within this community. Approximately 800 feet downstream of Fletcher Road None +885 Township of Lima. Just downstream of McKinley Road None +891 Paint Creek Washtenaw County Boundary None +652 Township of Augusta. Just downstream of East Bemis Road None +692 Swift Drain Mouth at Huron River None +754 City of Ann Arbor. Just upstream of East Morgan Road None +831 Charter Township of Pittsfield, Township of Ann Arbor, Village of Chelsea. Traver Creek Mouth at Huron River +762 +763 City of Ann Arbor. Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of Warren Road (just upstream of SB U.S. 23) None +935 Township of Ann Arbor. Traver Creek Diversion At confluence with Traver Creek None +901 City of Ann Arbor. At diversion from Traver Creek None +907 Tributary To Paint Creek Approximately 2,400 feet downstream of Munger Road None +773 Charter Township of Pittsfield, Township of Ypsilanti. Just downstream of Merritt Road None +821 West Branch Paint Creek Just upstream of confluence with Paint Creek None +675 Township of Augusta. Just downstream of East Bemis Road None +698 West Park Miller Drain Just upstream of confluence with Allen Creek +799 +801 City of Ann Arbor. Just downstream of Wesley Avenue +850 +845 West Park Miller Drain South Branch Confluence with West Park Miller Drain +801 +806 City of Ann Arbor. Approximately 60 feet downstream of North Revena Boulevard +849 +851 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Charter Township of Pittsfield Maps are available for inspection at 6201 West Michigan Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48108. City of Ann Arbor Maps are available for inspection at 100 North Fifth Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48104. Township of Ann Arbor Maps are available for inspection at 3792 Pontiac Trail, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Township of Augusta Maps are available for inspection at 605 South Main, Whittaker, MI 48190. Township of Lima Maps are available for inspection at 11452 Jackson Road, Chelsea, MI 48118. Township of Scio Maps are available for inspection at 2355 West Stadium Boulevard, Ann Arbor, MI 48107. Township of Sylvan Maps are available for inspection at 18027 Old U.S. Highway 12, Chelsea, MI 48118. Township of Webster Maps are available for inspection at 5665 Webster Church Road, Dexter, MI 48130. Township of Ypsilanti Maps are available for inspection at 7200 South Huron River Drive, Ypsilanti, MI 48197. Village of Chelsea Maps are available for inspection at 104 East Middle Street, Chelsea, MI 48118. Village of Dexter Maps are available for inspection at 6880 Dexter-Pinckney Road, Dexter, MI 48130. Goliad County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas Maddox Branch Approximately 65 feet upstream of Fulcord Street None +142 City of Goliad. Approximately 1,550 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 183 +200 +199 San Antonio River Approximately 600 feet upstream of confluence with Maddox Branch None +142 City of Goliad. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of South San Patricio Street None +147 Southwest City Drain Approximately 950 feet downstream of Fannin Street +141 +147 City of Goliad. Approximately 150 feet upstream of West Oak Street +194 +199 Sparrow Branch Approximately 475 feet downstream of Hord Street None +146 City of Goliad. Approximately 825 feet upstream of Sunset Avenue +196 +199 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Goliad Maps are available for inspection at 152 West End Street, Goliad, TX 77963. Karnes County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas Escondido Creek Approximately 700 feet downstream of confluence with Nichols Creek +259 +258 City of Kenedy. Approximately 450 feet upstream of confluence with Panther Creek None +274 Marcelinas Creek. Approximately 730 feet upstream of confluence with Tributary 1 to Marcelinas Creek Watershed None +300 City of Falls City. Approximately 830 feet upstream of confluence with Tributary 8 to Marcelinas Creek Watershed None +307 Nichols Creek Approximately 265 ft downstream of S. 2nd Street +268 +269 City of Kenedy. Ojo de Agua Creek Approximately 1,050 feet downstream of farm to Market 81 None +262 Town of Runge. Approximately 860 feet upstream of confluence with Tributary 9 to Ojo de Agua Watershed None +287 San Antonio River Approximately 460 feet downstream of confluence with Marcelinas Creek None +300 City of Falls City. Approximately 1,440 feet downstream of confluence with Tributary 199 to Lower San Antonio River Watershed None +304 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Falls City Maps are available for inspection at 208 North Irvin Street, Falls City, TX 78113. City of Kenedy Maps are available for inspection at 303 West Main Street, Kenedy, TX 78119. Town of Runge Maps are available for inspection at 109 North Helena, Runge, TX 78151. Teton County, Wyoming, and Incorporated Areas Flat Creek Approximately 5,100 feet South of the intersection of Wilson Canyon Drive and Highway 89 *5,976 *5,974 Unincorporated Areas of Teton County. Approximately 1,350 feet downstream of High School Road *6,105 *6,107 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Teton County Maps are available for inspection at County Administration Building, 200 South Willow Street, Jackson, WY 83001. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: April 18, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-9260 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R1-ES-2008-0050; 1111 FY07 MO-B2] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Western Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios) as Threatened or Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the western sage-grouse ( *Centrocercus urophasianus phaios* ) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the western sage-grouse may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review to determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species. We will initiate a determination on critical habitat for this species if and when we initiate a listing action. DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that information be submitted on or before June 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2008-0050; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information received at *http://www.regulations.gov.* This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited section below for more details). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Project Manager, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, by mail (see ADDRESSES ), telephone (503-231-6179), or facsimile (503-231-6195). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TTD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information Solicited When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information on the western sage-grouse. We request any additional information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties on the status of the western sage-grouse, including:
(1)Information regarding the taxonomic validity of western sage-grouse as a subspecies of the greater sage-grouse (e.g., based on morphological, behavioral, geographic, genetic, or other diagnostic factors), either as petitioned or along another geographic boundary;
(2)Information regarding the significance, if any, of recent genetic studies on the taxonomic classification of the western sage-grouse, such as the conclusion of Benedict *et al.* (2003, p. 309) that studies of mitochondrial DNA do not support the subspecies delineation, or the potential significance, if any, of the distribution of the unique haplotypes or populations clusters identified by Oyler-McCance *et al.* , 2005;
(3)Information as to the identity and text of the document that the petitioner references in support of behavioral differences in sage-grouse and cites on page 7 of the petition as “US Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, p. 1 of attachment entitled “Sage Grouse”—(Candidate Conservation?).” We have been unable to determine what document the petitioner is referring to, and the petitioner has not responded to our requests to clarify the reference;
(4)Information regarding the historical and current population status, distribution, and trends of western sage-grouse; its biology and ecology; and habitat selection;
(5)Information on the effects of potential threat factors relevant to western sage-grouse that are the basis for a listing determination under Section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
(a)The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(c)disease or predation;
(d)the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
(e)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence; and
(6)Information on management programs for the conservation of the western sage-grouse. Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species shall be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” Based on the status review, we will issue the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. You may submit your information concerning this status review by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via *http://www.regulations.gov,* your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on *http://www.regulations.gov.* Information and materials we receive will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov,* or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). Background For more information on the biology, habitat, and range of the western sage-grouse, please refer to the “Species Information” section in our previous 90-day finding published in the **Federal Register** on February 7, 2003 (68 FR 6500). Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act
(Act)of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a status review of the species. We received a petition, dated January 24, 2002, from the Institute for Wildlife Protection, requesting that the western sage-grouse ( *Centrocercus urophasianus phaios* ), occurring from northern California through Oregon and Washington, as well as any western sage-grouse that still occur in parts of Idaho, be listed under the Act. The petitioner excluded the Mono Basin area population in California and northwest Nevada since they already had petitioned this population as a distinct population segment
(DPS)for emergency listing. The petitioner also requested that the Service include the Washington DPS in this petition, even though this DPS was already recognized by the Service as a candidate for listing under the Act, based on a 12-month petition finding in which we found that listing the DPS was warranted but precluded by other higher priority listing actions (66 FR 22984, May 7, 2001). The January 24, 2002, petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). Accompanying the petition was information related to the taxonomy, life history, demographics, movements, habitats, threats, and the past and present distribution of western sage-grouse. We began processing the petition October 30, 2002, and our finding was published on February 7, 2003 (68 FR 6500). We found that the petition did not present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, because there was insufficient evidence that the western sage-grouse is a valid subspecies or DPS, and therefore does not constitute a listable entity under the Act. On the same day our finding was published, we received a 60-day Notice of Intent
(NOI)to sue from the petition, alleging that our negative 90-day finding violated the Act. The petitioner filed a court complaint on June 6, 2003, challenging the merits of the 90-day finding. On August 10, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled in favor of the Service ( *Institute for Wildlife Protection* v. *Norton,* No. C03-1251P), and the petitioner filed an appeal on November 24, 2004. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum opinion and order on March 3, 2006, remanding the matter for a new 90-day finding. ( *Institute for Wildlife Protection* v. *Norton,* 174 Fed. Appx. 363.) The Court rejected the Service's conclusion that the petition did not present substantial information indicating that the western sage-grouse may be a valid subspecies, but upheld the Service's determination that the petition did not present substantial information indicating that the population may constitute a DPS. Finding In accordance with the remand, we have reconsidered the information presented in the petition. Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to the determination of whether the information meets the “substantial scientific and commercial information” threshold, which is interpreted in our regulations as “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14). Information we currently have raises significant questions about whether the western sage-grouse is a valid subspecies and thus a listable entity under the Act. Nevertheless, and particularly in light of some uncertainty regarding the potential significance of most recent genetic evidence regarding the validity of a western subspecies, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information, sufficient to meet the minimal “reasonable person” standard in our regulations for a 90-day finding as described above, indicating that listing the western sage-grouse as threatened or endangered may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a status review of the western sage-grouse to determine if listing it is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding the western sage-grouse. It is important to note that the “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding is in contrast to the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to a 12-month finding as to whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding is not a status assessment of the species and does not constitute a status review under the Act. Our final determination as to whether a petitioned action is warranted is not made until we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a positive 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will also be positive. The Service is already in the process of conducting a status review of the greater sage-grouse across the entire range of the species (73 FR 10218, February 26, 2008), and elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** we are publishing a notice that extends our request for information on that status review to June 27, 2008. In today's **Federal Register** we also are publishing a separate notice of a 90-day finding and initiation of a status review for the Mono Basin population of the greater sage-grouse. Consequently, at this time the Service has formally initiated three status reviews involving the greater sage-grouse, and the respective notices in today's **Federal Register** each request that information be submitted by June 27, 2008, for each status review. Information submitted for any one of these status reviews that is relevant to the others need not be submitted more than once. Because the status review of the greater sage-grouse that we initiated on February 26, 2008 (73 FR 10218) covers the entire range of the species, it encompasses the Mono Basin population of the greater sage-grouse and the western subspecies of the greater sage-grouse. It is our intention to address the taxonomy and status of the western sage-grouse, including relevant information received in response to this notice, within the rangewide status review of the greater sage-grouse. Further, because the three status reviews are somewhat interrelated, we anticipate that any interrelated aspects will be taken into account in our ultimate decisions. If we determine that listing the western sage-grouse is warranted, we intend to propose critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we prepare a proposed listing rule. References Cited A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request from the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Author The primary author of this notice is the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: April 18, 2008. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-9180 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R6-ES-2008-0022; 1111 FY07 MO-B2] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of Status Review for the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice; initiation of status review and solicitation of new information; extension of period for submitting information. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the extension of the period for submitting information that is pertinent to our status review of the greater sage-grouse ( *Centrocercus urophasianus* ). The extension will provide the public and Federal, State, and local agencies with an additional opportunity to submit information for the status review. Information previously submitted need not be resubmitted; it already has been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the status review. DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that information be submitted on or before June 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2008-0022; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information received on *http://www.regulations.gov* . This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited section below for more details). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A, Cheyenne, WY 82009; telephone 307-772-2374. People who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information Solicited To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best scientific and commercial information available, we are soliciting information concerning the status of the greater sage-grouse. Information submitted prior to January 12, 2005, will be considered and need not be resubmitted. New information submitted since the initiation of the current status review on February 26, 2008 (73 FR 10218) need not be resubmitted. We request information from the public, governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties on the status of the greater sage-grouse throughout its range, including:
(1)Information regarding the species' historical and current population status, distribution, and trends; its biology and ecology; and habitat selection.
(2)Information on the effects of potential threat factors that are the basis for a listing determination under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
(a)The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
(b)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(c)disease or predation;
(d)the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
(3)Information on management programs for the conservation of the greater sage-grouse. Please note that submissions merely stating support of or opposition to any potential decisions based on the status review without providing relevant information, although noted, will not be considered, because section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” We intend to use the status review as the basis for determining whether listing the species is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded. You may submit information concerning this status review by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via *http://www.regulations.gov* , your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on *http://www.regulations.gov* . Information and materials we receive will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov* , or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A, Cheyenne, WY 82009; telephone 307-772-2374. Background On February 26, 2008, we announced the initiation of a status review for the greater sage-grouse ( *Centrocercus urophasianus* ), and requested that information regarding the status of the greater sage-grouse be submitted by May 27, 2008 (73 FR 10218). We are extending that period by 30 days, until June 27, 2008, to allow the public ample opportunity to provide information relevant to this status review. Information previously submitted will be considered and need not be resubmitted. We will base our status review on the best scientific and commercial information available, including all such information received as a result of this notice. For more information on the biology, habitat, and range of the greater sage-grouse, please refer to our previous 12-month finding published in the **Federal Register** on January 12, 2005 (70 FR 2244). Elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** , we have published separate notices of 90-day petition findings and the initiation of status reviews for the Mono Basin population and the western subspecies of the greater sage-grouse ( *C. u. phaios* ). Consequently, at this time the Service has formally initiated three status reviews involving the greater sage-grouse, and the respective notices in today's **Federal Register** each request that information be submitted by June 27, 2008. Information submitted for any one of these status reviews that is relevant to the others need not be submitted more than once. Because the status review of the greater sage-grouse that we initiated on February 26, 2008 (73 FR 10218) covers the entire range of the species, it encompasses the Mono Basin population and the western subspecies of the greater sage-grouse. It is our intention to address the taxonomy and status of the Mono Basin area population and the western subspecies within the rangewide status review of the greater sage-grouse. Further, because the three status reviews are somewhat interrelated, we anticipate that any interrelated aspects will be taken into account in our ultimate decisions. Author The primary author of this notice is the staff of the Wyoming Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: April 18, 2008. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-9181 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R8-ES-2008-0043; 1111 FY07 MO-B2] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List the Mono Basin Area Population of the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on two petitions to list the Mono Basin area population of the greater sage-grouse ( *Centrocercus urophasianus* ) in the Bi-State area of California and Nevada as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing this population may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review to determine if listing the Mono Basin area population of greater sage-grouse is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this population of the species. We will initiate a determination on critical habitat for this species if and when we initiate a listing action. DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that information be submitted on or before June 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2008-0043; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information received on *http://www.regulations.gov* . This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited section below for more details). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, by mail (see ADDRESSES ), by telephone (775-861-6300), or by facsimile (775-861-6301). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information Solicited When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information concerning the status of the Mono Basin area population of the greater sage-grouse. We request information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties on the status of the Mono Basin area population of the greater sage-grouse, including:
(1)Information for the Mono Basin area population of greater sage-grouse regarding historical and current population status, distribution, and trends; biology and ecology; and habitat selection;
(2)Information on the effects of potential threat factors that are the basis for a listing determination under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
(a)The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
(b)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(c)disease or predation;
(d)the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence; or
(3)Information on management programs for the conservation of the Mono Basin area population of greater sage-grouse. Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. You may submit your information concerning this status review by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via *http://www.regulations.gov,* your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on *http://www.regulations.gov* . Information and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov,* or by appointment during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502-7147; telephone 775-861-6300. Background For more information on the biology, habitat, and range of the Mono Basin area population of greater sage-grouse, please refer to the “Species Information” section in our previous 90-day finding published in the **Federal Register** on December 19, 2006 (71 FR 76058). Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a status review of the species. On January 2, 2002, we received a petition dated December 28, 2001, from the Institute for Wildlife Protection requesting that the sage-grouse population occurring in the Mono Basin area of Mono County, California, and Lyon County, Nevada, be listed as an endangered distinct population segment
(DPS)under the Act. The petitioner referred to the sage-grouse population in the Mono Basin area as being part of the subspecies *C. u. phaios,* which also is known as the western sage-grouse. In other 90-day findings, we have concluded that the subspecies designations for greater sage-grouse are inappropriate given current taxonomic standards (68 FR 6500, February 7, 2003; 69 FR 933, January 7, 2004). However, in response to judicial direction on one of those 90-day findings, the Service is in the process of reconsidering the taxonomic validity of *C. u. phaios* to determine whether it is a listable entity under the Act. We have not included subspecies designations any further in this finding. The 2001 petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a March 20, 2002, letter to the petitioners, we responded that we had reviewed the petition and determined that an emergency listing was not necessary. On December 26, 2002, we published a 90-day finding in which we determined that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (67 FR 78811). Our 2002 finding was based on the lack of substantial information in the petition indicating that the Mono Basin area population of greater sage-grouse is a DPS under our DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), and thus we concluded it was not a listable entity (67 FR 78811). Our 2002 finding also included a determination that the petition did not present substantial information that the Mono Basin area population of greater sage-grouse was threatened with extinction (67 FR 78811). On November 15, 2005, we received a formal petition dated November 10, 2005, submitted by the Stanford Law School Environmental Law Clinic on behalf of the Sagebrush Sea Campaign, Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity, and Christians Caring for Creation, to list the Mono Basin area population as a threatened or endangered DPS of the greater sage-grouse under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a March 28, 2006, letter to the petitioners, we responded that we reviewed the petition and determined that emergency listing was not warranted. We also stated that due to court orders and settlement agreements for other listing and critical habitat actions that required nearly all of our listing and critical habitat funding for fiscal year 2006, we would not be able to further address the petition at that time. On April 17, 2006, we received a 60-day notice of intent letter from the Stanford Law School Environmental Law Clinic, dated April 14, 2006, notifying us that the petitioners intended to sue the Service for violating the Act's requirement to make a petition finding within 12 months after receiving a petition. On November 18, 2005, the Institute for Wildlife Protection and Dr. Steven G. Herman filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ( *Institute for Wildlife Protection v. Norton* , No. C05-1939 RSM) challenging the Service's 2002 finding that their petition did not present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. On April 11, 2006, we reached a stipulated settlement agreement with the plaintiffs under which we agreed to both evaluate the November 2005 petition and to reconsider the December 2001 petition. The settlement agreement required the Service to submit to the **Federal Register** a 90-day finding by December 8, 2006, and if substantial, to complete the 12-month finding by December 10, 2007. On December 19, 2006, we published a 90-day finding that these petitions did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted (71 FR 76058). In completing the 2006 finding, we also reviewed the December 2001 petition in the context of whether it provided additional information not discussed in the November 2005 petition. On June 4, 2007, we received a 60-day notice of intent letter from the Stanford Law School Environmental Law Clinic dated June 1, 2007, notifying us that the petitioners identified in the November 2005 petition intended to sue the Service in connection with the Service's 2006 not-substantial 90-day finding (2006 finding) to list the Mono Basin area population of greater sage-grouse as a DPS under the Act. On August 23, 2007, the November 2005 petitioners filed a Complaint challenging the Service's 2006 finding. Upon review of the Complaint, the Service determined that it would revisit its 2006 finding. The Service entered into a settlement agreement with the petitioners on February 25, 2008. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Service agreed to undertake a voluntary remand of the 2006 petition finding, and to submit for publication in the **Federal Register** a new 90-day finding by April 25, 2008. The agreement further stipulates that if the new 90-day finding is positive, the Service will undertake a status review of the Mono Basin population of the greater sage-grouse and submit for publication in the **Federal Register** a 12-month finding by April 24, 2009. This notice constitutes our new 90-day finding. Finding Based on our reconsideration of the information provided in the petitions, and in accordance with recent applicable court decisions pertaining to 90-day findings, we find that they present substantial scientific information indicating that listing the Mono Basin area population of greater sage-grouse may be warranted. Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition presents “substantial scientific and commercial information,” which is interpreted in our regulations as “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine if listing the population is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding the Mono Basin area population of greater sage-grouse. It is important to note that the “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding is in contrast to the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to a 12-month finding as to whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding is not a status assessment of the species and does not constitute a status review under the Act. Our final determination as to whether a petitioned action is warranted is not made until we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a positive 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a positive 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding also will be positive. The Service is already in the process of conducting a status review of the greater sage-grouse across the entire range of the species (February 26, 2008; 73 FR 10218), and elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** we are publishing a notice that extends our request for information on that status review to June 27, 2008. In today's **Federal Register** we are also publishing a separate notice of a 90-day finding and initiation of a status review for the western sage-grouse ( *C. u. phaios* ). Consequently, at this time the Service has formally initiated three status reviews involving the greater sage-grouse, and the respective notices in today's **Federal Register** each request that information be submitted by June 27, 2008, for each status review. Information submitted for any one of these status reviews that is relevant to the others need not be submitted more than once. Because the status review of the greater sage-grouse that we initiated on February 26, 2008 (73 FR 10218) covers the entire range of the species, it encompasses the Mono Basin population and the western subspecies of the greater sage-grouse. It is our intention to address the taxonomy and status of the Mono Basin area population, including information received in response to this notice, within the rangewide status review of the greater sage-grouse. Further, because the three status reviews are somewhat interrelated, we anticipate that any interrelated aspects will be taken into account in our ultimate decisions. If we determine that listing the Mono Basin area population of greater sage-grouse is warranted, we intend to propose critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we prepare a proposed listing rule. Author The primary author of this notice is the staff of the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: April 18, 2008. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-9185 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 080123074-8572-01] RIN 0648-AW31 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Scallop Dredge Exemption Areas; Addition of Monkfish Incidental Catch Trip Limits AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule, request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to modify the regulations implementing the Northeast
(NE)Multispecies Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)to create three Scallop Exemptions that are identical to the current scallop exemptions, except for the addition of an incidental monkfish catch limit. These new scallop exemptions would be restricted to vessels issued either a General Category Atlantic sea scallop permit or a limited access Atlantic sea scallop permit (when not fishing under a scallop days-at-sea
(DAS)limitation), when fishing for scallops with small dredge gear (combined width not to exceed 10.5 ft (3.2 m)). Vessels that land an incidental catch of monkfish within these new scallop exemptions would be required to possess a valid monkfish Incidental Catch permit. The intent of this action is to allow small scallop dredge vessels to land monkfish that they are currently discarding consistent with the bycatch reduction objectives of the FMP and National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern daylight time, on May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AW31, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* • Fax:
(978)281-9135, Attn: Timothy Cardiasmenos • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Please write on the envelope: Comments on the Addition of a Monkfish Incidental Catch Limit within the Existing Scallop Exemptions (RIN 0648-AW31). Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* , without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Cardiasmenos, Fishery Management Specialist,
(978)281-9204, FAX
(978)281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Current regulations, implemented under Framework Adjustment 9, and expanded under Amendment 7 to the FMP, contain a NE multispecies fishing mortality and bycatch reduction measure that is applied to the Gulf of Maine (GOM), Georges Bank (GB), and Southern New England
(SNE)Exemption Areas. This measure prohibits vessels from fishing in these areas unless they are fishing under a NE multispecies or a scallop DAS allocation, are fishing with exempted gear, are fishing under the Small Vessel Handgear (A or B) or Party/Charter permit restrictions, or are fishing in an exempted fishery. The procedure for adding, modifying, or deleting fisheries from the list of exempted fisheries is found in § 648.80. A fishery may be exempted by the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (RA), after consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), if the RA determines, based on available data or information, that the bycatch of regulated species is, or can be reduced to, on average, less than 5 percent per trip, by weight on board, and that such exemption will not jeopardize the fishing mortality objectives of the FMP. At present, there are three scallop exemptions for scallop dredge vessels when fishing under the scallop General Category permit, or under the limited access scallop permit when not fishing under a scallop DAS. They are referred to as: The GOM Scallop Dredge Exemption Area, established in Framework 21 (February 1997); the SNE Scallop Dredge Exemption Area, established in Amendment 13 (April 2004); and the Great South Channel
(GSC)Scallop Dredge Exemption Area, established by the authority of the RA (August 2006). On November 2, 2007, a request was submitted on behalf of the General Category scallop fleet to establish an incidental monkfish catch limit, of 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight per trip, consistent with the Monkfish FMP, within the three scallop exemptions. This rule proposes three new exemptions, identical to the existing scallop exemption areas, described at § 648.80(a)(11)(i)(A), (a)(18)(ii)(A), and (b)(11)(ii)(A), with the addition of a 50-lb (23-kg) tail weight or 166-lb (75-kg) whole weight incidental monkfish catch limit per trip, provided the fishery does not jeopardize the fishing mortality objectives of the FMP. The data analyzed for this action consists of observer data from both General Category and limited access scallop dredge trips within the GOM, GSC, and SNE scallop exemption areas from 2001 to 2007. A total of 85 General Category trips and 198 limited access trips were observed during that period. Bycatch rates were calculated on a trip-by-trip basis by adding up the total weight of NE multispecies, scallops (in-shell weight), and all other catch on each observed trip, and then calculating the percentage of the total catch represented by regulated NE multispecies. The percent bycatch of regulated NE multispecies in the exemption areas ranged from 0 to 10.33 percent in General Category trips (N=85), and 0 to 8.6 percent in limited access trips (N=198). The mean percent bycatch of regulated NE multispecies by weight of the total catch across all areas in the General Category and limited access fisheries was less than 1 percent. From a total of 85 observed General Category trips into the exemption areas, the mean percent bycatch was 0.97 percent of the total catch. From the 198 observed limited access scallop dredge trips into those same areas, the mean percent bycatch was estimated to be 0.93 percent of the total catch. Monkfish discards were analyzed within this same dataset. Monkfish discards within the current exemption areas ranged from 0 to 611 lb (0-277 kg) tail weight per trip in the General Category fishery (N=85). From a total of 85 General Category trips into the current exemption areas, the mean monkfish discard was 48.1 lb (22 kg) tail weight per trip, and the mean trip was 0.44 days (11 hr). The proposed level of monkfish incidental bycatch within the scallop exemption areas is 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight per trip. This level of monkfish fishing mortality from scallop dredge vessels is within the allowable limit specified under Framework 4 of the Monkfish FMP (October 22, 2007, i.e., 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight or 498 lb (226 kg) whole weight per trip). GSC Scallop Dredge Exemption Area From a total of 38 observed General Category trips into the current GSC Scallop Exemption, the mean monkfisk catch per trip was 28.98 lb (13 kg) tail weight, and only 1 trip discarded more than 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight. Monkfish bycatch ranged between 0-302.71 lb (0-137 kg) tail weight per trip. GOM Scallop Dredge Exemption Area From a total of 29 observed General Category trips into the GOM Scallop Exemption, the mean monkfish catch per trip was 40.6 lb (18 kg) tail weight, and only 3 trips discarded in excess of 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight. Monkfish bycatch ranged between 0-425 lb (0-193 kg) tail weight per trip. SNE Scallop Dredge Exemption Area From a total of 18 observed General Category trips into the SNE Scallop Exemption, the mean monkfish catch per trip was 100.5 lb (46 kg) tail weight, and only 3 trips discarded more than 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight. Monkfish bycatch ranged between 0-611 lb (277 kg) tail weight per trip. The observed level of monkfish discard within the current scallop exemptions, as detailed above, is consistent with the proposed monkfish incidental catch limits. This level of monkfish fishing mortality in the General Category scallop dredge fleet was previously analyzed within Framework 4 to the Monkfish FMP (October 22, 2007). Since the data indicate that the proposed monkfish incidental catch limit is currently being discarded, no change in fishing behavior is expected, and it is not anticipated that there will be an increase in regulated species bycatch. The proposed scallop exemptions, identical to the existing scallop exemptions with the addition of an incidental catch of monkfish, are therefore expected to meet both the bycatch and the fishing mortality requirements of the regulations. Proposed Measures GOM, SNE, and the GSC Scallop Dredge Exemption Areas Based on the analysis of available data, the bycatch of regulated species by scallop dredge vessels is less than, on average, 5 percent per trip, by weight on board, within the exemption areas and the monkfish bycatch is consistent with the incidental catch level analyzed within the Monkfish FMP. The data analysis shows that, on average, scallop dredge vessels are currently discarding 48.1 lb (22 kg) tail weight of monkfish per trip within the three exemption areas, a level consistent with the proposed level of monkfish incidental catch (50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight per trip). In addition, there are no data to suggest that modifying the present exemptions to accommodate a monkfish incidental catch at 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight per trip would cause a shift in effort towards monkfish or NE multispecies. Therefore, the RA has determined that a monkfish incidental catch of 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight per trip, within the GOM, SNE, and GSC Scallop Exemptions, meets the exemption requirements specified in § 648.80(a)(8), and would not be inconsistent with the monkfish fishing mortality goals of the Monkfish FMP. Therefore, this rule proposes to create three scallop exemptions (GOM, SNE, and GSC), identical to the existing scallop exemptions, with the addition of a 50-lb (23-kg) tail weight or 166-lb (75-kg) whole weight per trip monkfish incidental catch possession limit. These new scallop exemptions would be restricted to vessels issued either a General Category Atlantic sea scallop permit or a limited access sea scallop permit (when not fishing under a scallop DAS limitation), when fishing with small dredges (combined width not to exceed 10.5 ft (3.2 m)). Vessels that land an incidental catch of monkfish within these new scallop exemptions would be required to possess, and have onboard, a monkfish Incidental Catch permit. Classification NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not prepared, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, as it has been determined that this rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, as well as the objectives of and legal basis for this proposed rule is found in the preamble to this proposed rule. There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. This action proposes to create three scallop exemptions for General Category scallop vessels, or limited access scallop vessels not fishing on a DAS allocation, identical to the current scallop exemptions, with the addition of an incidental catch of monkfish. This action was categorically excluded under the National Environmental Policy Act, as an action that includes minor technical additions, corrections, or changes to an FMP. The economic impacts of the proposed action are expected to be minimal and positive. This action would allow the General Category scallop fleet, while fishing under a scallop exemption, to land up to 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight of monkfish per trip, in addition to scallops. This would allow the fleet to utilize these resources in a manner consistent with the bycatch and mortality objectives of the FMP. The proposed incidental catch of monkfish is small, and as such is expected to minimally increase revenues for scallop dredge vessels fishing under the General Category permit provisions. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 23, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons stated in the preamble 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.80, paragraphs (a)(8)(iv) introductory text, (a)(11)(i)(A), (a)(18)(ii)(A), and (b)(11)(ii)(A) are revised to read as follows: § 648.80 NE Multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of fishing.
(a)* * *
(8)* * *
(iv)Unless otherwise specified within the exempted fisheries authorized under this paragraph (a)(8), incidental catch is restricted, at a minimum, to the following:
(11)* * *
(i)* * *
(A)A vessel fishing in the GOM Scallop Dredge Fishery Exemption Area specified in this paragraph (a)(11) may not fish for, possess on board, or land any species of fish other than Atlantic sea scallops and up to 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight of monkfish per trip.
(18)* * *
(ii)* * *
(A)A vessel fishing in the Great South Channel Scallop Dredge Exemption Area specified in this paragraph (a)(18) may not fish for, possess on board, or land any species of fish other than Atlantic sea scallops and up to 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight of monkfish per trip.
(b)* * *
(11)* * *
(ii)* * *
(A)A vessel fishing in the SNE Scallop Dredge Exemption Area may not fish for, posses on board, or land any species of fish other than Atlantic sea scallops and up to 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight of monkfish per trip. [FR Doc. E8-9353 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 83 Tuesday, April 29, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 23, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Food and Nutrition Service *Title:* WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
(FMNP)Forms and Regulations. *OMB Control Number:* 0584-0447. *Summary of Collection:* The Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC)Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
(FMNP)is authorized by Public Law 108-265, enacted on June 30, 2004, which amends Section 17(m) of the Child Nutrition Act (42 U.S.C. 1786 (m)). The purpose of the FMNP is to provide resources to women, infants, and children who are nutritionally at risk, in the form of fresh, nutritious, unprepared foods (such as fruits and vegetables) from farmers' markets, and roadside stands at the option of the State; to expand the awareness and use of farmers' markets; and, to increase sales at such markets. The Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS)will collect information from each state that receives a grant under the FMNP program in conjunction with the preparation of annual financial and recipient reports. *Need and Use of the Information:* FNS will collect information from the state agency administering the FMNP to develop an annual financial report on the number and type of recipients served by both Federal and non-Federal benefits under the program. The information is necessary for reporting to Congress and for program planning purposes. *Description of Respondents:* State, Local, or Tribal Government; individuals or household; business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 6,476. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 20,221. Food and Nutrition Service *Title:* Food Stamp Program Repayment Demand and Program Disqualification. *OMB Control Number:* 0584-0492. *Summary of Collection:* Section 13(b) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 requires that State agencies pursue collection action against households that have been overissued benefits. To initiate collection action, State agencies must provide an affected household with written notification informing the overissued household of the claim and demanding repayment. *Need and Use of the Information:* State agency personnel will collect the information from individuals collecting food stamp benefits. The State agencies must maintain all records associated with this collection for a period of three years so that FNS can review documentation during compliance reviews and other audits. Without the information, FNS would not be able to correct accidental or fraudulent overpayment errors in the Food Stamp Program. *Description of Respondents:* State, Local, and Tribal Government; individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 53. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 135,393. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-9281 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Privacy Act of 1974; New System of Records AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA. ACTION: Notice of New System of Records; request for comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is proposing to add a new Privacy Act system of records to its inventory of records systems. This system is known as the National Recreation Reservation System
(NRRS)USDA/FS-55, and it will make it easier for interested individuals to make advance reservations for recreation opportunities on Federal lands. USDA invites public comment on this new records system. DATES: Comments must be received, in writing, on or before May 29, 2008. EFFECTIVE DATE: This system will be adopted without further notice on June 30, 2008, unless modified to respond to comments received from the public and published in a subsequent notice. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Forest Service Privacy Act Officer, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 0003, Washington, DC 20250-0003. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to *wo_foia@fs.fed.us* , or via facsimile to
(703)605-5104. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Ketelle, Assistant Director, Recreation, Heritage & Visitors, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mailstop 1125, Washington, DC 20250, at
(202)205-1348, or via e-mail to *mketelle@fs.fed.us* , or via facsimile to
(202)205-1145. Additional information concerning the National Recreation Reservation System may be obtained on the Internet at *http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/about-rec-fees.shtml* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), USDA is proposing to add a new system of records entitled the National Recreation Reservation System
(NRRS)USDA/FS-55 that will provide the public with a Web-based electronic forms system to make reservations. The NRRS will be managed by the U.S. Forest Service, an agency of USDA. NRRS will allow the U.S. Forest Service to electronically charge individual credit cards for use of National Forest lands. NRRS will verify who paid a recreation fee, monitor recreation fee payments, and the use of Government facilities, and appropriately schedule rentals of facilities. An estimated 2,000,000 individual records are expected to be collected in the system and stored on servers located in Ballston Spa, New York. A Federal contractor is currently responsible for managing the NRRS under the management, supervision, and authority of the U.S. Forest Service. The USDA Forest Service is the administrative agency for this system, but it may be used by other agencies that manage public lands. The USDA invites comments on all portions of this notice. Those who submit comments should be aware that all comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection. Individuals wishing to inspect comments should call the Forest Service Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Office at
(202)205-1542 to make arrangements. A report on the new system of records, required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) as implemented by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130, was sent to the Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate; the Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives; and the Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Dated: April 17, 2008. Edward T. Schafer, Secretary. System Name: National Recreation Reservation System,
(NRRS)USDA/FS-55. Security Classification: None. System Location: These records are collected in a Web-based system located on servers maintained by a Federal contractor in Ballston Spa, New York. Paper records for use with the miscellaneous recreation system are maintained at the Regional Offices, Forest Supervisors Offices, and District Ranger Offices. The addresses for the Regional Foresters and Forest Supervisors are listed in 36 CFR Part 200, Subpart A; and addresses for District Rangers are in the telephone directory of the applicable locality under the heading, United States Government, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Categories of Individuals covered by the system: Individuals covered by the system include members of the public who register online to receive information about the program or make advanced reservations for recreation campgrounds, activities, wilderness permits, tours, and ticketing on public lands that are managed by the United States Department of Agriculture (Forest Service); the United States Army Corps of Engineers; and the United States Department of the Interior, (National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Reclamation). Individuals covered by the system also include Federal concessionaires, contractors, and volunteers under supervision by Federal employees who are responsible for managing data specific to recreation site inventory. Categories of records in the system: The system consists of recreation inventory, reservation information, customers' names, addresses, and credit card information (for individuals securing reservations), previous booking data, and agency-specific information necessary to manage the program and maintain inventory data. Authority for maintenance of the system: The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, 16 U.S.C. 6801-6814. The Organic Act of 1897, as amended (FSM 1021.11a), instructs the Secretary of Agriculture to preserve and to regulate occupancy and use of the National Forests (16 U.S.C. 473-478, 479-482, 551). Prohibitions on the use of National Forest lands are contained in 16 U.S.C. 475; the Term Permit Act of 1915. (38 Stat. 1101, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 497); the Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (74 Stat. 215, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 528-531); the 1964 Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136); the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. (Pub. L. 89-665; 80 Stat. 915, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) Act of 1965, as amended (Pub. L. 93-303, June 7, 1974; 78 Stat. 897, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 460 *l*
(4)to 460 *l* (11m); 23 U.S.C. 120 (note), and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of August 10, 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312). Purpose(s): The purpose of this system of records is to allow individuals to make advance reservations for Federal recreation opportunities, which include recreation campgrounds and other recreation sites, various recreation activities, wilderness permits, tours, and ticketing for several Federal agencies managing public lands; and to enhance individual access to Government information and services regarding Federal recreation opportunities. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such use:
(1)U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA/FS) may share information about reservation, recreation, and revenue statistics with authorized individuals at participating agencies. These agencies include the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Department of the Interior (National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Reclamation) and their cooperators and contractors who are performing a service related to this system of records, and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity. Recipients shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, set out at 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
(2)USDA/FS may disclose information from this system of records to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, or local charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting a violation of law, or of enforcing or implementing a statute, rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, of any record within this system when information available indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
(3)USDA/FS may disclose information from this system of records to a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal, or to opposing counsel in a proceeding before any of the above, of any record within the system, which constitutes evidence in that proceeding, or which is sought in the course of discovery.
(4)USDA/FS may disclose information from this system of records to a congressional office from the record of an individual provided that individual gave the congressional office permission to inquire on his or her behalf.
(5)USDA/FS may disclose information from this system of records to the National Archives and Records Administration and to General Services Administration, which are disclosures authorized pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(6)USDA/FS may disclose information to contractors and other parties it engages to assist it in administering the program. Such contractors and other parties will be bound by the nondisclosure provisions of the Privacy Act.
(7)USDA/FS may disclose credit card information to process customer payments for reservations.
(8)USDA/FS may disclose information to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when
(a)The agency suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
(b)USDA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by USDA or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
(c)the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with USDA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies: None, with exception to disclose any breach of security as per Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard requirements and Federal and State laws. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Electronic information is stored in a database hosted on secure servers located in Ballston Spa, New York. Paper records are stored primarily in file folders. Retrieval: Data is retrieved electronically by name of individual, address, credit card number, reservation number and phone number. Paper records are maintained under each individual's name. Safeguards: Access to the records is available only by username and password and only for those individuals with appropriate system roles. All records containing personal information will be maintained in secured file cabinets and secured computer rooms and/or tape libraries that can be accessed only by authorized personnel. Access to electronic records is controlled through a system of computer access identification and authorizations utilizing passwords. Access to the data is controlled by database management system software. Any personal data transmitted over a network is encrypted. Retention and Disposal: Credit card information is purged 13 months after the departure date. Individually -identifiable information about a reservation will be retained after the date of the reservation, until expiration of the period for which a refund may be requested. All records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the appropriate General Records Schedules of the National Archives and Records Administration. System Managers(s) and Address: Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. 20250 Notification Procedures: Any individual may request information regarding this system of records or information as to whether the system contains records pertaining to him or her from the system manager listed above. The request should be in writing and should contain the name and address of the requester. Record Access Procedures: Use the same procedures as those prescribed in Notification Procedures. Contesting Record Procedures: Use same procedures as those prescribed in Notification Procedures. Record Source Categories: Personal information in this system will be provided by individual customers. The Inventory data will be provided by data stewards from the following Federal agencies: United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), and United States Department of the Interior (National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Reclamation). For trip planning, data will be provided by the following: United States Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), National Archives and Records Administration, United States Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Smithsonian Institution, United States Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration), and the Tennessee Valley Authority; with links to Travelocity and maps from Google. Exemption Claimed for the System: None. [FR Doc. E8-9325 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Land Management Planning Adjustment of Previously Initiated Land Management Plan Revisions for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and the Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands, in Colorado and Kansas AGENCY: The Pike and San Isabel National Forests and the Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands, USDA Forest Service. Authority: 36 CFR 219.14(b)(3). *Notice:* Resumption of planning and adjustment to the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule (2008 Planning Rule) for previously-initiated land management plan revisions; the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and the Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands. SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service is resuming preparation of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests land management plan (Forests Plan), and the Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands land management plan (Grasslands Plan) as directed by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Preparation of these two plans, which will replace the single 1984 land and resource management plan (as amended) (1984 Plan) for all four units, was halted when the 2005 Planning Rule was enjoined. A new planning rule (36 CFR 219) was implemented on April 21, 2008, allowing the planning processes to be resumed. DATES: Resumption is effective upon publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barb Masinton, 719-553-1475. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Responsible Official (Forest Supervisor) for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and the Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands will resume the previously-initiated land management plan
(plan)revisions under the requirements of the 2008 Planning Rule. The plan revisions will be conducted in accordance with all Forest Service directives applicable to the 2008 Planning Rule. All four units (the Pike and the San Isabel National Forests, and the Cimarron and the Comanche National Grasslands) fall under the 1984 Plan. As part of the revision process, the Responsible Official is preparing two separate plans. The revision of the 1984 Plan was initiated iii 1999 under the 1982 Planning Rule, a process that was transitioned to the 2005 Planning Rule on May 26, 2005 ( **Federal Register** Notice Vol. 70(101), p. 30411). The first of the two plans to be released is the Grasslands Plan. Several public meetings were conducted to provide opportunities for interested parties to collaborate on the development of the Grasslands Plan. A proposed (draft) plan was available for a 90-day public comment period from December 28, 2005 through April 3, 2006, and a pre decisional version was available in March 2007. An objection period was underway when the 2005 Planning Rule was enjoined. The planning process for the second of the two plans, the Forests Plan, was also underway when the 2005 Planning Rule was enjoined; a proposed plan was not yet available for public review. On March 30, 2007, the federal district court for the Northern District of California enjoined the Forest Service from implementing and using the 2005 Planning Rule until the agency provided notice of the rulemaking and a comment period and conducted an assessment of the rule's effects on the environment and completed consultation under the Endangered Species Act. Plan revisions of both the Forests Plan and the Grasslands Plan were suspended in response to the injunction. On April 21, 2008, the Forest Service adopted a new planning rule-the 2008 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219 (2008)). The 2008 Planning Rule explicitly allows the resumption of plan revisions that followed the requirements of the 2005 Planning Rule (36 CFR part 219 (2005)) based on a finding that the revision process conforms to the 2008 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219. 14(b)(3)(ii)). Based on the discussions above, I find that the planning actions taken before April 21, 2008 conform to the planning requirements of the 2008 Planning Rule and the plan revision processes undertaken to date for each plan may resume. The public will continue to be invited to collaborate during the resumed development of each revised plan. For information about the revision of these plans, documents associated with both revision efforts, including schedules, see: *http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/projects/forest_revisionlindex.shtml* Dated: April 23, 2008. Robert J. Leaverton, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-9311 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-ES-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Rosemont Copper Project, Coronado National Forest, Pima County, AZ AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: On March 13, 2008, the USDA Forest Service, Coronado National Forest, published a Notice of Intent
(NOI)to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS)for the Rosemont Copper Project (73 **Federal Register** 13527). This revised NOI advises the public of a change in the duration of the period during which the Forest Service will accept comments on the scope of the Rosemont Copper Project EIS. It also provides the locations for three public hearings at which oral testimony will be taken, along with written comments. All other information given in the original NOT will remain the same until further notice is given. Public hearing dates and locations are as follows: • May 12, 2008 in Elgin, Arizona. • June 7, 2008 in Sahuarita, Arizona. • June 30, 2008 in Tucson, Arizona. DATES: The NOI published on March 13, 2008, advises the public that written and oral comments concerning the scope of the ETS analysis must be received by the Forest Service within 30 days following the date of publication of the NOI in the **Federal Register** . This duration of the scoping period has been extended by the Forest Service from 30 days to 120 days. Thus, the scoping period for the EIS will conclude on July 14, 2008. All written and oral public comments must be received by that date to be given full consideration during the EIS analysis. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this notice, please contact Ms. Beverley A. Everson, Team Leader, at
(520)388-8300. Dated: April 23, 2008. Jeanine A. Derby, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-9307 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Designation for the Maryland, New Jersey, and New York Areas AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are announcing designation of the following organizations to provide official services under the United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (USGSA): Maryland Department of Agriculture (Maryland); and D. R. Schaal Agency, Inc. (Schaal). DATES: Effective June 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: USDA, GIPSA, Karen Guagliardo, Chief, Review Branch, Compliance Division, STOP 3604, Room 1647-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3604. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Guagliardo at 202-720-7312, e-mail *Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov* . *Read Applications:* All applications will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the December 5, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 68555), we requested applications for designation to provide official services in the unassigned geographic area of Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. Applications were due by January 4, 2008. There were four applicants for designation to provide official services: • Maryland Department of Agriculture (Maryland) applied for Maryland. Maryland is not currently designated. • D. R. Schaal Agency, Inc. (Schaal) applied for New Jersey and New York. • Kankakee Grain Inspection, Inc. (Kankakee) applied for Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. • Mid-Iowa Grain Inspection, Inc. (Mid-Iowa) applied for Maryland, New Jersey and New York. In the February 15, 2008, **Federal Register** (73 FR 8851), we requested comments on the applications for designation to provide official services in Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. Comments were due by March 17, 2008. GIPSA received no comments. We evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in section 7(f)(l) of USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)) and determined that Maryland and Schaal are best able to provide official services in the geographic areas specified in the December 5, 2007, **Federal Register** , for which they applied. Maryland is designated for the entire State of Maryland, except those export port locations served by GIPSA, effective June 1, 2008, and terminating June 30, 2010. Effective June 1, 2008, Schaal's present geographic area is amended to include the entire States of New Jersey and New York, except those export port locations served by GIPSA. Schaal's current designation to provide official services terminates September 30, 2010. Interested persons may obtain official services by calling the telephone numbers listed below. Official agency Headquarters location and telephone Designation start-end Maryland Annapolis, MD 410-841-5769 6/1/2008-6/30/2010 Schaal Belmond, IA 641-444-3122 6/1/2008-9/30/2010 Additional Location: Albert Lea, MN Section 7(f)(1) of the USGSA, authorizes GIPSA's Administrator to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)(1)). Section 7(g)(1) of USGSA provides that designations of official agencies will terminate not later than three years and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of USGSA. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87k. James E. Link, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E8-9324 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting—May 13, 2008—6:30 p.m. In connection with its investigation into the cause of a November 22, 2006, explosion and fire at the CAI/Arnel manufacturing facility in Danvers, Massachusetts, the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
(CSB)announces that it will convene a public meeting on May 13, 2008, starting at 6:30 p.m. in the North Shore ballroom at the Sheraton Ferncroft Resort, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923. At the meeting CSB staff will present to the Board the results of their investigation into this incident. After the presentation by the CSB investigators there will be presentations by witnesses discussing changes in local and state safety oversight that have been proposed since the November 22, 2006, accident at CAI/Arnel. This will be followed by a public comment period prior to a Board vote on the report. On November 22, 2006, at about 2:45 a.m., a violent explosion at the CAI/Arnel manufacturing facility rocked the town of Danvers, MA. The explosion and subsequent fire destroyed the facility, heavily damaged dozens of nearby homes and businesses, and shattered windows as far away as one mile. At least 10 residents required hospital treatment for cuts and bruises. More than 16 homes and three businesses were damaged beyond repair. Dozens of boats at the nearby marina were heavily damaged by blast overpressure and debris strikes. Local authorities ordered the evacuation of more than 300 residents within a half-mile of the facility. Many residents could not return for many months while they waited for their houses to be rebuilt or repaired. Seventeen months after the explosion, six homes had yet to be reoccupied as repairs were not completed. Following the conclusion of the public comment period, the Board will consider whether to approve the final report and recommendations. All staff presentations are preliminary and are intended solely to allow the Board to consider in a public forum the issues and factors involved in this case. No factual analyses, conclusions or findings presented by staff should be considered final. Only after the Board has considered the final staff presentation, listened to the witnesses and the public comments, and approved the staff report will there be an approved final record of this incident. The meeting will be open to the public. Please notify CSB if a translator or interpreter is needed, at least 5 business days prior to the public meeting. For more information, please contact the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board at
(202)261-7600, or visit our Web site at: *http://www.csb.gov* . Christopher W. Warner, General Counsel. [FR Doc. 08-1200 Filed 4-25-08; 3:33pm]
Connectionstraces to 52
Traces to 52 documents
U.S. Code
64 references not yet in our index
  • 50 CFR 648
  • 50 CFR 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(C)
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 14 CFR 71
  • 5 CFR 1320.11
  • 18 CFR 35
  • 18 CFR 154
  • 18 CFR 341
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 18 CFR 131
  • 18 CFR 157
  • 18 CFR 250
  • 18 CFR 281
  • 18 CFR 284
  • 18 CFR 300
  • 18 CFR 344
  • 18 CFR 346
  • 18 CFR 347
  • 18 CFR 348
  • 18 CFR 375
  • 18 CFR 385
  • 16 USC 791a-825r
  • 42 USC 7101-7352
  • 15 USC 717-717w
  • 42 USC 7102-7352
  • 16 USC 2601-2645
  • 43 USC 1331-1356
  • 43 USC 485-485k
  • 49 USC 1-27
  • 42 U.S. 7101
  • 5 USC 551-557
  • 16 USC 791-825r
  • 15 USC 717-717z
  • 16 USC 791a-825v
  • 34 CFR 200
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 475 F.3d 1096
  • 488 F.3d 1088
  • 40 CFR 51
  • 40 CFR 60
+ 24 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Temporary rule; reduction of landing limit
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 1801
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
C.F.R.§ 71.1
C.F.R.§ 375.302
C.F.R.§ 35.9
SCOTUS42 U.S. 7101
F. App'x475 F.3d 1096
F. App'x488 F.3d 1088
Cites 116 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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