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 · 2008-07-18 · PROPOSED RULES · Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Pistachios Grown in California; Hearing on Proposed Amendment of Marketing Order (No. 983), 41298-41302 08-1445 Raisins Produced From Grapes · Unknown

Unknown. Interim rule with request for comments

61,851 words·~281 min read·/register/2008/07/18/08-1445

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-07-18.xml --- 73 139 Friday, July 18, 2008 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Pistachios Grown in California; Hearing on Proposed Amendment of Marketing Order (No. 983), 41298-41302 08-1445 Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown In California; Use of Estimated Trade Demand to Compute Volume Regulation Percentages, 41302-41305 08-1447 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Rural Utilities Service Alcohol Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau RULES Classification of Brewed Products as “Beer” Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and as “Malt Beverages” Under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 41259-41261 E8-16413 Army Army Department See Engineers Corps NOTICES Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of a U.S.
Government-Owned Patent, 41335 E8-16457 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 41335-41339 E8-16415 E8-16416 Blind Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors for the National Center for Public Health Informatics, 41358 E8-16449 Safety and Occupational Health Study Section; Charter Renewal, 41358 E8-16450 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program:
Proposed Changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective, Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and CY 2009 Payment Rates, 42253-42255 E8-15539 Children Children and Families Administration See Refugee Resettlement Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41358-41360 E8-15897 E8-15898 Civil Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41314 08-1451 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Regattas and Marine Parades: Great Lakes Annual Marine Events, 41261-41264 E8-16397 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41364-41367 E8-16393 E8-16420 Commerce Commerce Department See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41315 E8-16434 E8-16435 Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 41313-41314 E8-16490 E8-16491 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Privacy Act;
Systems of Records, 41402-41414 E8-16462 Defense Defense Department See Army Department See Engineers Corps NOTICES Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees; Renewal, 41330 E8-16412 Meetings: Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors, 41330-41331 E8-16414 Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing, 41331 E8-16418 Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, 41331-41333 E8-16417 Missile Defense Advisory Committee, 41333-41334 E8-16410 Privacy Act;
Systems of Records, 41334-41335 E8-16419 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, E8-16426 41344-41347 E8-16427 E8-16429 E8-16430 National Math Panel Forum, 41347-41349 E8-16423 Election Election Assistance Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41349 08-1449 Engineers Engineers Corps RULES United States Marine Corps Restricted Area and Danger Zone: Neuse River and Tributaries, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC, 41264-41265 E8-16454 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements;
Availability, etc.: Natomas Levee Improvement Program Phase 3 Landside Improvements Project, Sacramento, CA, 41339-41340 E8-16445 Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project, Los Angeles, CA, 41340-41341 E8-16458 Potential Multipurpose Projects for Ecosystem Restoration, etc.; Johnson Creek, Arlington, Tarrant County, TX, 41341-41342 E8-16446 Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee; Solicitation of Applications for Stakeholder Representative Members, 41342-41344 E8-16455 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans:
Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements for Marine Vessel and Barge Loading, 41268-41271 E8-16272 Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for the Northumberland County Area, E8-16273 41271-41277 E8-16274 E8-16276 Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan: Pesticide Element; Ventura County, 41277-41283 E8-16388 Tolerance Exemption: Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-) butoxymethylethoxy) methylethoxyl] ether, 41283-41286 E8-16317 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements;
Availability, etc. Comments Availability, 41349-41350 E8-16472 Weekly receipt, 41351 E8-16473 Executive Executive Office of the President See National Drug Control Policy Office See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class E Airspace: Black River Falls, WI, 41255 E8-15960 Lexington, OK, 41254-41255 E8-15959 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Removal of Class E Airspace: Roanoke Rapids, NC, 41255-41256 E8-16181 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives:
Cessna Aircraft Company 150 Series Airplanes, 41305-41307 E8-16542 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities: E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, 41286-41296 E8-16260 PROPOSED RULES Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities: E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, 41307-41311 E8-16270 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41351-41355 E8-16264 E8-16539 Meetings: Broadband and the Digital Future; En Banc Hearing, 41355 E8-16611 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41355 08-1450 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks, 41236-41237 E8-16481 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge, Hyde County, NC, 41371-41373 E8-16424 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41360-41361 E8-16447 Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 540.575: Fish Fresh and Frozen Adulteration Involving Decomposition (CPG 7108.05); Withdrawal, 41361 E8-16456 Draft Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 540.370: Fish and Fishery Products Decomposition; Availability, 41361-41362 E8-16453 Meetings: Animal Models for the Treatment of Acute Radiation Syndrome, 41362 E8-16461 Rapid Methods for Detecting Mycoplasma Contamination in the Manufacture of Vaccines, Including Pandemic Influenza Vaccines, and Other Biological Products, 41362-41363 E8-16459 Small Entity Compliance Guides:
Food Labeling; Nutrient Content Claims; Definition for High Potency and Definition of Antioxidant, 41363-41364 E8-16448 MISSING FOR: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Foreign-Trade Zone: Jacksonville, FL; Correction/Clarification, 41315 E8-16498 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration See Refugee Resettlement Office NOTICES Decision to Evaluate a Petition to Designate a Class of Employees to be Included in the Special Exposure Cohort:
Linde Ceramics Plant, Tonawanda, NY, 41355 E8-16464 Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort, E8-16465 E8-16466 41356-41357 E8-16467 E8-16468 Findings of Scientific Misconduct, 41357-41358 E8-16357 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Transportation Security Administration See U.S. Customs and Border Protection See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 41369-41371 E8-16135 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service See Reclamation Bureau IRS Internal Revenue Service RULES Source Rules Involving U.S.
Possessions and Other Conforming Changes; Correction, 41259 E8-16305 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India, 41315-41316 E8-16497 Final Results of Sunset Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order: Lawn and Garden Steel Fence Posts from the People's Republic of China, 41316-41317 E8-16495 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations:
Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and products containing same, 41381-41382 E8-16479 U.S.-China Trade; Implications of U.S.-Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Trends et al., 41382 E8-16480 Justice Justice Department NOTICES Consent Decrees: Larry Delatte, 41382 E8-16391 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Coal Exploration License, WY, 41373 E8-16069 Filing of Plats of Survey: Nebraska, 41373 E8-16422 Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Kanab Field Office, UT, 41374 E8-16359 Temporary Road/Area Closures: Piute Fire, Kern County, CA, 41375 E8-16492 National Drug National Drug Control Policy Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41382-41384 E8-16433 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Denial of Applications for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Dorel Juvenile Group [Cosco] (DJG), 41397-41399 E8-16431 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries in the Western Pacific:
Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish; Permit and Reporting Requirements in the Main Hawaiian Islands, 41296-41297 E8-16488 NOTICES Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 41317-41318 E8-16436 Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Port of Anchorage Marine Terminal Redevelopment Project, Anchorage, AK, 41318-41330 E8-16489 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Intent to Repatriate a Cultural Item: Intermountain Region, Santa Fe, NM, 41375-41376 E8-16470 Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items:
Intermountain Region, Santa Fe, NM, E8-16469 41376-41379 E8-16471 E8-16484 E8-16486 Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Juan Island National Historical Park, Friday Harbor, WA, et al., 41379-41380 E8-16482 Inventory Completions: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Juan Island National Historical Park, Friday Harbor, WA , et al., 41380-41381 E8-16463 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41384 08-1446 National Office of National Drug Control Policy See National Drug Control Policy Office Personnel Personnel Management Office RULES Programs for Specific Positions and Examinations (Miscellaneous), 41235-41236 E8-16487 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings:
Hazardous Materials; Meeting Future Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Challenges, 41399-41401 E8-16503 Postal Postal Regulatory Commission RULES Administrative Practice and Procedure; Postal Service, 41265-41268 E8-16031 Presidential Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Former Liberian Regime of Charles Taylor; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of July 16, 2008), 42253-42256 08-1452 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau PROPOSED RULES Use of Bureau of Reclamation Land, Facilities, and Waterbodies, 42236-42252 E8-16496 Refugee Refugee Resettlement Office NOTICES Noncompetitive Urgent Single Source Unaccompanied Alien Children Trauma Initiative, 41364 E8-16573 RUS Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements;
Availability, etc.: Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., 41312-41313 E8-16493 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., 41384-41386 E8-16401 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 41386-41388 E8-16460 International Securities Exchange, 41389-41390 E8-16404 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 41388-41389 E8-16402 National Securities Clearing Corp., 41390-41392 E8-16400 NYSE Arca, Inc., 41392-41394 E8-16421 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 41394-41395 E8-16403 SBA Small Business Administration RULES Small Business Size Standards:
Inflation Adjustment to Size Standards, Business Loan Program, and Disaster Assistance Loan Program, 41237-41254 E8-16148 NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Missouri, 41395 E8-16451 Wisconsin, 41396 E8-16452 State State Department RULES Board of Appellate Review; Review of Loss of Nationality, 41256-41258 E8-16247 International Traffic in Arms Regulations; Renewal of Registration, 41258-41259 E8-16537 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Tentatively Approved Finance Transactions:
Delivery Acquisition, Inc. et al., 41401-41402 E8-16409 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Actions Taken at June 12, 2008 Meeting, 41396-41397 E8-16540 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board Transportation Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41367-41368 E8-16543 Treasury Treasury Department See Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau See Comptroller of the Currency See Internal Revenue Service Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Meetings: Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of Customs and Border Protection and Related Homeland Security Functions, 41368-41369 E8-16538 Immigration U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41369 E8-16474 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 42253-42255 E8-15539 Part III Interior Department, Reclamation Bureau, 42236-42252 E8-16496 Part IV Executive Office of the President, Presidental Documents, 42253-42256 08-1452 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 73 139 Friday, July 18, 2008 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 930 RIN 3206-AL67 Programs for Specific Positions and Examinations (Miscellaneous) AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management. ACTION:
Interim rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is issuing an interim rule suspending the requirement set forth in 5 CFR 930.204(b) that requires *incumbent* administrative law judges (“ALJs”) to “possess a professional license to practice law and be authorized to practice law.” DATES: Effective July 18, 2008. Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send, deliver, or fax written comments to: Ms. Angela Bailey, Deputy Associate Director for Talent and Capacity Policy, U.S.
Office of Personnel Management, Room 6551, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-9700; e-mail: *employ@opm.gov;* fax:
(202)606-2329. Comments may also be sent through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: *http://www.regulations.gov.* All submissions received through the Portal must include the agency name and docket number or Regulation Identifier Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda Watson by telephone at
(202)606-0830; by fax at
(202)606-2329; by TTY at
(202)418-3134; or by e-mail at *linda.watson@opm.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is issuing an interim rule suspending the requirement set forth in 5 CFR 930.204(b) that requires *incumbent* administrative law judges (“ALJs”) to “possess a professional license to practice law and be authorized to practice law.” This provision requires ALJs to maintain “active status,” (or “judicial status” in States that prohibit sitting judges from maintaining “active status” to practice law), or to be in “good standing” where the licensing authority considers “good standing” as having a current license to practice law. This licensure requirement set forth in section 930.204(b) henceforth will not apply to incumbent administrative law judges. ALJ *applicants* are unaffected by this suspension, and the requirement that applicants possess a professional license to practice law and be authorized to practice law continues to apply. We remain convinced that active licensure at the time of application and appointment is vital as an indicator that the applicant presenting him or herself for assessment and possible appointment has been subject to rigorous ethical requirements right up to the point of appointment. We have reconsidered comments received during the notice and comment period, however, about the burdens imposed by the active licensure requirement, as it applies to incumbents, the potential differences between the ethical requirements that pertain to an advocate and those requirements that pertain to someone asked to adjudicate cases impartially, and the variations in what States require as to lawyers serving as ALJs. We intend once again to solicit comments on this point in a new rulemaking. In the interim, we seek to prevent any adverse impact on incumbents while we engage in this process by suspending the current requirement as to incumbents. Waiver of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Delay in Effective Date Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(1), we deem it appropriate to waive the 30-day waiting period and make this regulation effective immediately because this is “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction” set forth in the regulation that is being revised. Further, pursuant to *5 U.S.C. 553(b)*
(B)and (d)(3), we find that good cause exists to waive the general notice of proposed rulemaking. Because we understand that some incumbents have raised concerns that coming into compliance with bar requirements in section 930.204(b) or continuing legal education requirements of bar membership will impose a burden or hardship on them, we are suspending the requirement in order to alleviate those concerns while we consider its efficacy, as well as comments addressing whether active bar status is necessary to ensure good conduct among incumbent administrative law judges. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Review This interim rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act I certify that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (including small businesses, small organizational units, and small governmental jurisdictions) because they would affect only some Federal agencies and employees. List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 930 Administrative practice and procedure, Computer technology, Government employees, Motor vehicles. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 930 as follows: PART 930—PROGRAMS FOR SPECIFIC POSITIONS AND EXAMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS) 1. The authority for subpart B of 930 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1104(a), 1302(a), 1305, 3105, 3301, 3304, 3323(b), 3344, 4301(2)(D), 5372, 7521, and E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 219 2. Revise paragraph
(b)of § 930.204 to read as follows:
(b)*Licensure.*
(1)At the time of application and any new appointment and while serving as an administrative law judge, the individual must possess a professional license to practice law and be authorized to practice law under the laws of a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territorial court established under the United States Constitution. Judicial status is acceptable in lieu of “active” status in States that prohibit sitting judges from maintaining “active” status to practice law. Being in “good standing” is also acceptable in lieu of “active” status in States where the licensing authority considers “good standing” as having a current license to practice law.
(2)The requirements contained in paragraph (b)(1) are suspended until further notice with respect to incumbents serving as administrative law judges. [FR Doc. E8-16487 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 229 [Regulation CC; Docket No. R-1323] Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment. SUMMARY: The Board of Governors (Board) is amending appendix A of Regulation CC to delete the reference to the Windsor Locks office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and to reassign the Federal Reserve routing symbols currently listed under that office to the head office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. These amendments reflect the restructuring of check-processing operations within the Federal Reserve System. DATES: The final rule will become effective on September 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey S. H. Yeganeh, Financial Services Manager (202/728-5801), or Joseph P. Baressi, Financial Services Project Leader (202/452-3959), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems; or Sophia H. Allison, Senior Counsel (202/452-3565), Legal Division. For users of Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf
(TDD)only, contact 202/263-4869. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulation CC establishes the maximum period a depositary bank may wait between receiving a deposit and making the deposited funds available for withdrawal. 1 A depositary bank generally must provide faster availability for funds deposited by a “local check” than by a “nonlocal check.” A check is considered local if it is payable by or at or through a bank located in the same Federal Reserve check-processing region as the depositary bank. 1 For purposes of Regulation CC, the term “bank” refers to any depository institution, including commercial banks, savings institutions, and credit unions. Appendix A to Regulation CC contains a routing number guide that assists banks in identifying local and nonlocal banks and thereby determining the maximum permissible hold periods for most deposited checks. The appendix includes a list of each Federal Reserve check-processing office and the first four digits of the routing number, known as the Federal Reserve routing symbol, of each bank that is served by that office for check-processing purposes. Banks whose Federal Reserve routing symbols are grouped under the same office are in the same check-processing region and thus are local to one another. On September 20, 2008, the Reserve Banks will transfer the check-processing operations of the Windsor Locks office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston to the head office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. As a result of this change, some checks that are drawn on and deposited at banks located in the Windsor Locks and Philadelphia check-processing regions and that currently are nonlocal checks will become local checks subject to faster availability schedules. To assist banks in identifying local and nonlocal checks and making funds availability decisions, the Board is amending the lists of routing symbols in appendix A associated with the Federal Reserve Banks of Boston and Philadelphia to reflect the transfer of check-processing operations from the Windsor Locks office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston to the head office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. To coincide with the effective date of the underlying check-processing changes, the amendments to appendix A are effective September 20, 2008. The Board is providing notice of the amendments at this time to give affected banks ample time to make any needed processing changes. Early notice also will enable affected banks to amend their availability schedules and related disclosures if necessary and provide their customers with notice of these changes. 2 2 Section 229.18(e) of Regulation CC requires that banks notify account holders who are consumers within 30 days after implementing a change that improves the availability of funds. Administrative Procedure Act The Board has not followed the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice and public participation in connection with the adoption of the final rule. The revisions to appendix A are technical in nature and are required by the statutory and regulatory definitions of “check-processing region.” Because there is no substantive change on which to seek public input, the Board has determined that the § 553(b) notice and comment procedures are unnecessary. In addition, the underlying consolidation of Federal Reserve Bank check-processing offices involves a matter relating to agency management, which is exempt from notice and comment procedures. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board has reviewed the final rule under authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The technical amendment to appendix A of Regulation CC will delete the reference to the Windsor Locks office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and reassign the routing symbols listed under that office to the head office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. The depository institutions that are located in the affected check-processing regions and that include the routing numbers in their disclosure statements would be required to notify customers of the resulting change in availability under § 229.18(e). However, all paperwork collection procedures associated with Regulation CC already are in place, and the Board accordingly anticipates that no additional burden will be imposed as a result of this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 229 Banks, Banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority and Issuance For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR part 229 to read as follows: PART 229—AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND COLLECTION OF CHECKS (REGULATION CC) 1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 4001-4010, 12 U.S.C. 5001-5018. 2. In appendix A to part 229, introductory paragraph C is revised and the First and Third Federal Reserve District routing symbol lists are amended by removing the headings and listings for the First Federal Reserve District and revising the listings for the Third Federal Reserve District. The revisions read as follows: Appendix A to Part 229—Routing Number Guide to Next-Day Availability Checks and Local Checks C. Each Federal Reserve check-processing office is listed below, followed by the Federal Reserve routing symbols of the banks that are located within the check-processing region served by that office. Because some check-processing regions cross Federal Reserve District lines, there are some cases in which banks in different Federal Reserve Districts are located in the same check-processing region and therefore considered local to each other. For example, banks in Fairfield County, Connecticut are located in the Second District and have Second District routing symbols (0211 or 2211), but the head office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia processes the checks of these banks. Thus, as indicated below, checks drawn on banks with 0211 or 2211 routing numbers would be local for banks served by the head office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Third Federal Reserve District [Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia] Head Office 0110 1 2110 0111 2111 0112 2112 0113 2113 0114 2114 0115 2115 0116 2116 0117 2117 0118 2118 0119 2119 0210 2210 0211 2211 0212 2212 0213 2213 0214 2214 0215 2215 0216 2216 0219 2219 0260 2260 0280 2280 0310 2310 0311 2311 0312 2312 0313 2313 0319 2319 0360 2360 1 The first two digits identify the bank's Federal Reserve District. For example, 01 identifies the First Federal Reserve District (Boston), and l2 identifies the Twelfth District (San Francisco). Adding 2 to the first digit denotes a thrift institution. For example, 21 identifies a thrift in the First District, and 32 denotes a thrift in the Twelfth District. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Secretary of the Board under delegated authority, July 15, 2008. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-16481 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Parts 121 and 123 RIN 3245-AF41 Small Business Size Standards: Inflation Adjustment to Size Standards, Business Loan Program, and Disaster Assistance Loan Program AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule finalizes the U.S. Small Business Administration's
(SBA)December 6, 2005 interim final rule that amended monetary-based small business size standards for inflation. This rule adds an 8.7 percent increase to the inflation-adjusted size standards of the December 2005 interim final rule. This accounts for the inflation that has occurred since then. This rule also adopts the interim final rule's two-step process for determining eligibility for SBA's Business Loan and Economic Injury Disaster Loan
(EIDL)Programs. Furthermore, the rule adopts the revised date that SBA uses to determine size status for purposes of EIDL applications for businesses located in declared disaster areas as a result of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective on August 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Jordan, Office of Size Standards,
(202)205-6618 or *sizestandards@sba.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Inflation Adjustment On December 6, 2005, SBA increased by 8.7% most of its monetary-based small business size standards ( *e.g.* , receipts, net income, net worth, and financial assets) for the effects of inflation that had occurred since the time of the previous adjustment in February 2002 (70 FR 72577). Since then, the U.S. economy has experienced additional inflation, due in part to significant increases in the price of crude oil. Because of the rapid rate of increasing inflation and the important policy objective of maintaining the value of size standards in inflation-adjusted terms, SBA is further adjusting the size standards implemented in the 2005 interim final rule. In all, this rule increases size standards since February 2002 by 18.2 percent, that is, by an additional 8.7 percent over the 8.7 percent increase in the 2005 interim final rule (1.087 × 1.087 = 1.182, or 18.2 percent). This additional increase ensures that size standards are up-to-date for determining small business status and restores the eligibility of businesses that may have lost their small business status due solely to price level increases rather than from increases in business activity. The December 6, 2005 interim final rule increased SBA's most common size standard for the retail trade and services industries (referred to as the “nonmanufacturer anchor size standard”) from $6.0 million in average annual receipts to $6.5 million. This rule further increases the nonmanufacturer anchor size standard to $7.0 million. This rule also increases other monetary-based size standards proportionately. For example, the interim final rule increased the size standard for Computer Systems Design Services (NAICS 541512) from $21 million to $23 million. This rule increases that industry's size standard to $25.0 million. The revisions adopted by this final rule demonstrate that SBA must stay abreast of changes in the economy to ensure that size standards are established at appropriate levels. To meet that objective, SBA is conducting a comprehensive review of all of its small business size standards over a 2-year period. This review will consist of a series of proposed rules beginning in 2008 examining industries within a specific NAICS Industry Sector. SBA expects that, as a result of this comprehensive review, it will propose in the future additional revisions to certain size standards based on its evaluation of industry data. How SBA Adjusts Small Business Size Standards for Inflation For purposes of this final rule, SBA uses the same methodology as used in the 2005 interim final rule, but applies the most current inflation statistics available. The methodology is described below: 1. *Select a measure of inflation.* SBA uses the chain-type price index for the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a broad measure of inflation for the economy as a whole. The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), publishes this index quarterly in its National Income and Product Accounts publications (Table 1.1.4, Line 1). 2. *Select base period.* For this rule, SBA selects the third quarter of 2001 as the base period—the end period used for the February 2002 adjustment. Since this is a final rule to the interim final rule, it is more accurate to use the same starting period as for the December 2005 adjustment than the end period of the interim final rule in order to make correct rounding adjustments. The chain-type price index for the GDP for the third quarter of 2001 was 102.690. 3. *Select end period.* SBA selects the first quarter of 2008 as the end period for this inflation adjustment because it is the latest available quarterly data that BEA has published. The chain type price index for GDP then stood at 121.363. 4. *Calculate the total rate of inflation.* Based on the price indexes, inflation increased 18.2 percent from the base to the end per iods ((121.363 ÷ 102.690) − 1.00) × 100 percent = 18.2 percent). 5. *Apply the adjustment to the monetary-based size standards.* Multiply the size standards in effect prior to the interim final rule by 1.182, and round to the closest $0.5 million. Special Situations Regarding Inflation Adjustment 1. *Small Business Investment Company
(SBIC)Program:* Certain monetary-based size standards are not changed in this rule. Specifically, the size standards for agricultural industries and for “smaller enterprises” under the SBIC Program are set by statute and, therefore, cannot be changed through rulemaking. As with the 2005 interim final rule, SBA has elected not to change the SBIC Program's small business alternate net worth and net income size standards. SBA increased the alternate net worth and net income size standards for the SBIC Program in 1994 threefold. Although inflation has increased since that time, SBA continues to believe that the SBIC size standard levels are sufficient to accomplish its program objectives. SBA received no comments on these size standards. Therefore, SBA is allowing the existing size standards to remain in place for the SBIC Program because no further increase is necessary at this time. 2. *Size Standards Adjusted Between 2002-2005:* As stated in the 2005 interim final rule, the Agency has changed a number of monetary-based size standards since the February 2002 inflation adjustment as a result of an in-depth review of industry characteristics. SBA is applying the full inflation adjustment percent to those monetary-based size standards as well. When SBA establishes or revises a size standard, it does so in relation to other existing size standards to ensure that industries with similar characteristics have similar size standards. To provide a smaller inflation adjustment due to the shorter time period for the calculation, while technically precise, would be inconsistent with the size standards decision-making process, and would in essence nullify part of the industry specific adjustments made between 2002-2005 period. 3. *Size Standards Adjusted After 2005:* Since the time of the interim final rule SBA revised the size standard for the Security Guards and Patrol Services industry (NAICS 561612) from $11.5 million in average annual receipts to $17 million. This revision was based on an in-depth review of the economic characteristics of businesses in that industry (71 FR 37490, June 30, 2006). SBA had proposed $15.5 million (70 FR 68368, November 10, 2005), but adjusted the proposed size standard in the June 30, 2006, final rule to account for the December 6, 2005, inflation adjustment. As with that final rule, this inflation final rule will adjust the Security Guards and Patrol Services industry size standard to account for the additional inflation. Applying 18.2 percent inflation to the $15.5 million size standard proposed in 2005 results in a new size standard of $18.5 million ($15,500,000 x 1.182 = $18,321,000, rounded to the nearest $500,000 increment, or $18,500,000). 4. *Program-Based Size Standards:* Most SBA programs apply size standards established for industries defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). SBA has also established size standards on a program basis rather than an industry basis. These size standards are adjusted in the same manner as the industry-based size standards (except for the SBIC Program as discussed above). Table 1 lists the program-based size standards and the changes adopted by this rule. Table 1.—Program Size Standards Program CFR citation Size standard in millions of dollars Base period size standard Measurement Inflation-adjusted size standard 504 Program 13 CFR 121.301(b) $7.0 2.5 Net Worth; Net Income $8.5 3.0 Surety Bond Guarantee Assistance 13 CFR 121.301(d) 6.0 Average Annual Receipts 7.0 Sales of Government Property Other Than Manufacturing (which uses employee-based size standards) 13 CFR 121.502 6.0 Average Annual Receipts 7.0 Stockpile Purchases 13 CFR 121.512 48.5 Average Annual Receipts 57.5 Summary of Public Comments on the December 6, 2005 Interim Final Rule The December 6, 2005, interim final rule requested comments from the public, and SBA received 11 comments. Two of the commenters discussed issues unrelated to increasing size standards for inflation. The other nine commenters supported the increase. Three commenters, while they supported the increase, also indicated that the increase was not sufficient for a number of industries. One suggested that SBA use a different inflation index instead of the chain type price index for GDP. The commenter believes that this price index understates inflation. Alternatively, the commenter recommended that SBA increase size standards based on the degree to which employee compensation has increased. The two other commenters also contended that other factors, such as health benefit costs and costs unique to the waste collection industry, have caused their industries to experience higher rates of inflation than measured by the chain type price index for GDP. SBA recognizes that inflation may not affect every industry equally at the same time. SBA's small business size standards apply to a wide variety of Federal Government programs and to businesses engaged in multiple industries. Therefore, SBA must use a broad measure of inflation for the entire U.S. economy to determine the most appropriate rate of inflation by which to adjust all of its monetary-based size standards. Over the past several years, Federal statistical agencies, such as the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, have developed new price indexes that may be more suitable for adjusting size standards for industries with monetary-based size standard. SBA will give consideration to the viability of those alternative inflation indexes in the future. SBA also believes that industry specific circumstances should be evaluated through an in-depth industry review. As mentioned above, SBA is conducting a comprehensive size standards review over the next 2 years. In doing so, above average inflationary pressures within an industry are likely to be captured. As in previous size standards adjustments, the public will have an opportunity to comment and provide SBA with probative data demonstrating the need for an additional adjustment. Determining Size Eligibility for SBA Business Loans and Economic Injury Disaster Loans SBA is adopting, without change, the revised two-step process for determining small business eligibility under its Business Loan and EIDL Programs established in the interim final rule. This provision determines size eligibility by the following steps: 1. Determine the primary industry and size of the applicant alone ( *i.e.* , without affiliates). a. If the applicant alone does not meet the size standard for its industry, it is ineligible. b. If the applicant alone meets the size standard for its industry, and if it has affiliates, then this triggers the second step. 2. Determine the primary industry and size of the applicant and all of its affiliates. If the applicant, together with its affiliates, does not exceed either
(1)the size standard for the applicant's primary industry or
(2)the size standard for the primary industry of the applicant and its affiliates combined, whichever is the higher, the applicant is eligible. SBA's experience with the two-step process for the financial related programs has demonstrated that it remedies the problems encountered with the previous regulation of determining small business eligibility by applying only the size standard applicable to the primary industry of the applicant. Furthermore, SBA received no public comments opposing this change or recommending a different approach. Determining the Size Status of Businesses Affected by the Hurricanes on the Date SBA Accepts EIDL Applications From Those Businesses SBA is also adopting as final the revision of the 2005 interim final rule pertaining to the date when size status is determined for purposes of EIDL applications submitted by businesses located in disaster areas declared as a result of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma (2005 Hurricanes). Current regulations at 13 CFR § 123.300(b) require an applicant for an EIDL loan to be small as of the date the disaster commenced, as set forth in the disaster declaration. For purposes of EIDL applications in response to the 2005 Hurricanes, however, SBA had changed the date on which SBA determines size status of those businesses to “the date SBA accepts the application for processing.” This amendment has provided access to SBA's EIDL Program for business that would have been otherwise ineligible based on the size standards in effect at the time of 2005 Hurricanes but eligible under the inflation adjusted size standards that took effect within several months after these disasters. SBA received only one comment on this provision, which fully supported this change. Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 12988, and 13132, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35) The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. A general discussion of the need for this regulatory action and its potential costs and benefits follows. 1. Is there a need for the regulatory action? SBA's statutory mission is to aid and assist small businesses through a variety of financial, procurement, business development, and advocacy programs. To assist effectively the intended beneficiaries of these programs, SBA must establish distinct definitions of which businesses are deemed small businesses. The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a))
(Act)delegates to the SBA Administrator the responsibility for establishing small business definitions. The Act also requires that small business definitions vary to reflect industry differences. The supplementary information to this final rule explains the approach SBA follows when adjusting size standards for inflation. Based on the rise in the general level of prices, SBA believes that an inflation adjustment to size standards is needed to reflect small businesses in industries with monetary-based size standards. 2. What are the potential benefits and costs of this regulatory action? The benefits of increasing size standards to a more appropriate level will accrue to three groups:
(1)Businesses that gain or regain small business status from the higher size standards and use small business assistance programs;
(2)growing small businesses that may exceed the existing size standards in the near future; and
(3)Federal agencies that award contracts under procurement programs that require small business status. The most significant benefit to businesses obtaining small business status because of this rule is eligibility for Federal small business assistance programs. Approximately 10,400 firms will gain small business status and become eligible for these programs, and for most cases regain their small business status. We note that the interim final rule estimated 11,600 affected businesses. This rule estimates the number of businesses affected by the additional increase to the size standards and essentially comprises a sub-group of the 11,600 businesses since the real value of the size standards has decreased since the time of the interim final rule. That is, many of the businesses gaining small business status as a result of the interim final rule have over time lost small business status because of the additional inflation since December 2005. These businesses account for 0.8 percent of total sales in the adjusted industries. They will benefit from SBA's financial assistance programs, economic injury disaster loans and from Federal procurement programs for small businesses. These include 8(a) firms, small disadvantaged businesses, small businesses located in Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZone), women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SBVO SBCs). Also, on Federal contracts awarded through full and open competition, they can benefit after application of the HUBZone or small disadvantaged business price evaluation preference. These programs assist small businesses to become more knowledgeable, stable and competitive business. SBA estimates that approximately $550 million in Federal prime contracts could be awarded to businesses becoming re-designated as small businesses under this rule. In fiscal years 2005-2006 (the latest fiscal year data available), small businesses averaged $46.8 billion per year out of $184.9 billion in Federal prime contracts in industries with monetary-based size standards. This estimate assumes that half of the re-defined small businesses participate in Federal contracting and they could obtain the same proportion of their industry share (one-half of 0.8 percent) of the remaining large business Federal contract awards (($184.9 billion − $46.8 billion = $138.8 billion) × 0.004 = $0.552 billion). SBA views the additional amount of projected contract activity as the potential amount of transfer from non-small to re-designated small businesses. This does not represent the creation of new contracting activity by the Federal Government, merely a possible transfer or reallocation to different sized businesses. Under the SBA's 7(a) Guaranteed Loan Program, SBA estimates that approximately $73 million in new Federal loan guarantees could be made to these re-defined small businesses. In fiscal year 2007, small businesses in industries with monetary-based size standards received $12.1 billion in loan guarantees under the 7(a) loan program. Most of the re-defined small businesses have 50 or more employees. SBA guaranteed 937 loans worth $413 million to small businesses with 50 or more employees. Based on the Census Bureau data, only about 1.6 percent of businesses within the size range of the re-defined small businesses participate in the 7(a) loan program. Assuming this level of participation, 166 additional loans could be guaranteed to the re-defined small businesses (10,400 × 0.016 = 166). The value of these loans is estimated by multiplying the average size loan to small businesses with 50 or more employees, which is $441,000, by the number of additional loans ($441,000 × 166 = $73,206,000). The re-defined small businesses will also benefit from SBA's EIDL Program. Because this program is contingent on the occurrence and severity of disasters, SBA cannot make a meaningful estimate of benefits to victims of future disasters. To the extent that up to 10,400 additional firms could become active in Federal small business programs, this may entail some additional administrative costs to the Federal Government. There will be more businesses eligible to enroll in the Central Contractor Registration
(CCR)and to be verified for listing in the CCR's Dynamic Small Business Search database. There likely will be more bidders on Federal procurement opportunities reserved for small businesses. Among businesses in this group seeking SBA assistance, there could be some additional costs associated with compliance and verification of small business status and protests of small business status. These costs are likely to generate minimal incremental administrative costs because processes are in place to handle these administrative requirements. The costs to the Federal Government may be higher on some Federal contracts. With a greater number of businesses defined as small, Federal agencies may be required or choose to set aside more contracts for competition among small businesses rather than using full and open competition. The movement from unrestricted to set-aside contracting is likely to result in competition among fewer bidders. In addition, higher costs may result if additional full and open contracts are awarded to HUBZone businesses because of a price evaluation preference. However, any additional costs associated with fewer bidders would likely be minor since, as a matter of policy, procurements are required or may be set aside for small businesses or reserved for the 8(a), SDVO, or HUBZone Programs only if awards are expected to be made at fair and reasonable prices. Moreover, with a small amount of estimated lending to the re-defined small businesses as discussed above, it is unlikely that currently-defined small businesses will be denied SBA financial assistance due to an increased pool of eligible small businesses. These additional loan guarantees estimated at $73 million will have little impact on the overall availability of loans for SBA's 7(a) Business Loan Program, which amounted to more than $20 billion in fiscal year 2007. The revision to the current monetary-based size standard is consistent with SBA's statutory mandate to assist small businesses. This regulatory action promotes the Administration's objectives. One of SBA's goals in support of the Administration's objectives is to help individual small businesses succeed through access to capital and credit, government contracts, and management and technical assistance. Reviewing and modifying size standards where appropriate, including periodic inflation adjustments, ensures that intended beneficiaries have access to small business programs designed to assist them. Size standards do not interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their government functions. In a few cases, state and local governments have voluntarily adopted SBA's size standards for their programs to eliminate the need to establish an administrative mechanism to develop their own size standards. Executive Order 12988 For purposes of Executive Order 12988, SBA has drafted this rule, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the standards set forth in section 3 of that Order. Executive Order 13132 This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibility among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, SBA determines that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. Paperwork Reduction Act SBA has determined that this rule does not impose any new information collection requirements from SBA that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), this rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Immediately below, SBA sets forth a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA). The FRFA addresses the reasons for promulgating the rule; the objectives of this rule; SBA's descriptions and estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply; the projected reporting record-keeping and other compliance requirements of the rule; the relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the rule; and alternatives considered by SBA. 1. What is the reason for this action? As discussed in the supplemental information, the purpose of this rule is to restore the small business eligibility of businesses that have grown above the size standard due to inflation rather than due to increased business activity. A review of the latest inflation indexes indicates that inflation has increased a sufficient amount to warrant an increase to the current monetary-based size standards. 2. What are the objectives and legal basis for the rule? The revision to the monetary-based size standards for inflation more appropriately defines the size of businesses. This rule merely restores small business eligibility in real terms. Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) gives SBA the authority to establish and change size standards. Within its administrative discretion, SBA implemented a policy in its regulations to review the effect of inflation on size standards at least once every five years (13 CFR 121.102(c)) and make any changes as appropriate. As discussed in the supplementary information, inflation has increases at a sufficient level since the time of the interim final rule to warrant a further adjustment to size standards at this time rather than to re-assess the impact of inflation on size standards 5 years after the time of the interim final rule. 3. What are SBA's description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply? The rule will apply to all businesses seeking benefits or preferences under Federal Government programs. These new size standards allow more businesses to be eligible for these programs. These programs are primarily in Federal Government procurement, such as small business set-asides, 8(a), SDB, HUBZone, and SDVO SBCs. SBA anticipates that about 10,400 additional businesses could be eligible to participate in Federal Government programs. This could increase competition among the current pool of small business concerns. However, it will also allow those businesses, now above the current size standards because of inflation and that can compete only on free and open procurements, to return to competing with other small businesses. 4. Summary of significant issues raised by the public in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the December 6, 2005 Interim Final Rule The public raised no significant issues in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the December 6, 2005 interim final rule. There were 11 commenters to the interim final rule, two of whom did not comment on the issues raised. The other nine commenters supported the rule. SBA has summarized the comments above in the supplemental information. 5. Will this rule impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on small business entities? This rule does not impose any new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35. A new size standard does not impose any additional reporting, recordkeeping or compliance requirements on small entities. Increasing size standards expands access to SBA programs that assist small businesses, but does not impose a regulatory burden because small business size standards neither regulate nor control business behavior. Section 212 of Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121) requires an agency to publish one or more “small entity compliance guides” to assist small entities in complying with its rules. Although there are no new compliance requirements associated with small business size standards, there may be some small businesses not acquainted with small business size standards and their application to Federal procurement and other Federal Government programs. Therefore, SBA has published both its “Small Business Size Regulations” and its “Guide to Size Standards” to provide this assistance. Both of these are available on SBA's Web site at *http://www.sba.gov/size* by selecting on the right hand side of the page “Size Regulations” and “Guide to Size Standards.” 6. What are the relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule? This rule does not overlap with other Federal rules that use SBA's size standards to define a small business. Under Section 3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(c), unless specifically authorized by statute, Federal agencies must use SBA's size standards to define a small business. In 1995, SBA published in the **Federal Register** a list of statutory and regulatory size standards that identified the application of SBA's size standards as well as other size standards used by Federal agencies (60 FR 57988-57991, dated November 24, 1995). SBA is not aware of any Federal rule that would duplicate or conflict with establishing size standards. Other Federal agencies also may use SBA size standards for a variety of regulatory and program purposes. If such a case exists where an SBA size standard is not appropriate, an agency may establish its own size standards with the approval of the SBA Administrator (see 13 CFR 121.902-903). For purposes of a regulatory flexibility analysis, agencies must consult with SBA's Office of Advocacy when developing size standards for its programs. (13 CFR 121.903(c)). 7. What alternatives did SBA consider? Because all relevant comments supported increasing size standards for inflation, SBA's only other consideration was whether to adopt the size standards presented in the interim final rule with no further increase for the inflation. However, SBA believes that the additional 7.7 percent inflation that has occurred since the time of the interim final rule sufficiently effects the real value of the size standards to warrant applying an additional increase at this time. Otherwise, the benefits achieved by the December 6, 2005 adjustment would essentially be lost and not restored in a timely manner. List of Subjects 13 CFR Part 121 Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Government property, Grant programs—business, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses. 13 CFR Part 123 Disaster assistance, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small Businesses, Terrorism. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR Parts 121 and 123 as follows: PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 636(b), 637(a), 644, 657(a), 657(f), and 662(5); and Pub. L. 105-135, Sec. 401, *et seq.* , 111 Stat, 2592. 2. Amend the table in § 121.201 as follows: A. Revise entries 112310, 113110, and 113210; B. Revise Subsector 115; C. Revise entries 213112 through 213115; D. Revise entries 221310, 221320, and 221330; E. Revise Sector 23; F. Revise Sector 44-45; G. Revise entries 481211, 481212, and 481219; H. Revise Subsectors 484 and 485; I. Revise entries 486210 and 486990; J. Revise Subsectors 487, 488, and 491; K. Revise entry 492210; L. Revise Subsector 493; M. Revise entries 511210 through 512290; N. Revise Subsector 515; O. Revise entries 517410 and 517919; P. Revise Subsector 518; Q. Revise entries 519110, 519120, and 519190; R. Revise Subsector 522 and 523; S. Revise entries 524113 through 524114, and 524127 through 524298; T. Revise Subsectors 525, 531, 532 and 533; U. Revise entries 541110 through 541690; V. Revise entries 541720 through 541990; W. Revise Sectors 55, 56, 61, 62, 71, 72, and 81; and, X. Revise footnotes 9 and 15. § 121.201 What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes? Small Business Size Standards by NAICS Industry NAICS codes NAICS U.S. industry title Size standards in millions of dollars Size standards in number of employees Sector 11—Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting * * * * * * * Subsector 112—Animal Production * * * * * * * 112310 Chicken Egg Production $12.5 * * * * * * * Subsector 113—Forestry and Logging 113110 Timber Tract Operations $7.0 113210 Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products $7.0 * * * * * * * Subsector 114—Fishing, Hunting and Trapping 114111 Finfish Fishing $4.0 114112 Shellfish Fishing $4.0 114119 Other Marine Fishing $4.0 114210 Hunting and Trapping $4.0 Subsector 115—Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry 115111 Cotton Ginning $7.0 115112 Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating $7.0 115113 Crop Harvesting, Primarily by Machine $7.0 115114 Postharvest Crop Activities (except Cotton Ginning) $7.0 115115 Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders $7.0 115116 Farm Management Services $7.0 115210 Support Activities for Animal Production $7.0 115310 Support Activities for Forestry $7.0 Except, Forest Fire Suppression 17 17 $17.5 Except, Fuels Management Services 17 17 $17.5 Sector 21—Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction * * * * * * * Subsector 213—Support Activities for Mining * * * * * * * 213112 Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations $7.0 213113 Support Activities for Coal Mining $7.0 213114 Support Activities for Metal Mining $7.0 213115 Support Activities for Nonmetallic Minerals (except Fuels) $7.0 Sector 22—Utilities Subsector 221—Utilities * * * * * * * 221310 Water Supply and Irrigation Systems $7.0 221320 Sewage Treatment Facilities $7.0 221330 Steam and Air-Conditioning Supply $12.5 Sector 23—Construction Subsector 236—Construction of Buildings 236115 New Single-Family Housing Construction (except Operative Builders) $33.5 236116 New Multifamily Housing Construction (except Operative Builders) $33.5 236117 New Housing Operative Builders $33.5 236118 Residential Remodelers $33.5 236210 Industrial Building Construction $33.5 236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction $33.5 Subsector 237—Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction $33.5 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction $33.5 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction $33.5 237210 Land Subdivision $7.0 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction $33.5 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction $33.5 Except, Dredging and Surface Cleanup Activities 2 2 $20.0 Subsector 238—Specialty Trade Contractors 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors $14.0 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors $14.0 238130 Framing Contractors $14.0 238140 Masonry Contractors $14.0 238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors $14.0 238160 Roofing Contractors $14.0 238170 Siding Contractors $14.0 238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors $14.0 238210 Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contractors $14.0 238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors $14.0 238290 Other Building Equipment Contractors $14.0 238310 Drywall and Insulation Contractors $14.0 238320 Painting and Wall Covering Contractors $14.0 238330 Flooring Contractors $14.0 238340 Tile and Terrazzo Contractors $14.0 238350 Finish Carpentry Contractors $14.0 238390 Other Building Finishing Contractors $14.0 238910 Site Preparation Contractors $14.0 238990 All Other Specialty Trade Contractors $14.0 Except, Building and Property Specialty Trade Services 13 13 $14.0 * * * * * * * Sector 44-45—Retail Trade (Not applicable to Government procurement of supplies. The nonmanufacturer size standard of 500 employees shall be used for purposes of Government procurement of supplies.) Subsector 441—Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 441110 New Car Dealers $29.0 441120 Used Car Dealers $23.0 441210 Recreational Vehicle Dealers $7.0 441221 Motorcycle, ATV, and Personal Watercraft Dealers $7.0 441222 Boat Dealers $7.0 441229 All Other Motor Vehicle Dealers $7.0 Except, Aircraft Dealers, Retail $10.0 441310 Automotive Parts and Accessories Stores $7.0 441320 Tire Dealers $7.0 Subsector 442—Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 442110 Furniture Stores $7.0 442210 Floor Covering Stores $7.0 442291 Window Treatment Stores $7.0 442299 All Other Home Furnishings Stores $7.0 Subsector 443—Electronics and Appliance Stores 443111 Household Appliance Stores $9.0 443112 Radio, Television and Other Electronics Stores $9.0 443120 Computer and Software Stores $9.0 443130 Camera and Photographic Supplies Stores $7.0 Subsector 444—Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers 444110 Home Centers $7.0 444120 Paint and Wallpaper Stores $7.0 444130 Hardware Stores $7.0 444190 Other Building Material Dealers $7.0 444210 Outdoor Power Equipment Stores $7.0 444220 Nursery and Garden Centers $7.0 Subsector 445—Food and Beverage Stores 445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores $27.0 445120 Convenience Stores $27.0 445210 Meat Markets $7.0 445220 Fish and Seafood Markets $7.0 445230 Fruit and Vegetable Markets $7.0 445291 Baked Goods Stores $7.0 445292 Confectionery and Nut Stores $7.0 445299 All Other Specialty Food Stores $7.0 445310 Beer, Wine and Liquor Stores $7.0 Subsector 446—Health and Personal Care Stores 446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores $7.0 446120 Cosmetics, Beauty Supplies and Perfume Stores $7.0 446130 Optical Goods Stores $7.0 446191 Food (Health) Supplement Stores $7.0 446199 All Other Health and Personal Care Stores $7.0 Subsector 447—Gasoline Stations 447110 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores $27.0 447190 Other Gasoline Stations $9.0 Subsector 448—Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 448110 Men's Clothing Stores $9.0 448120 Women's Clothing Stores $9.0 448130 Children's and Infants' Clothing Stores $7.0 448140 Family Clothing Stores $9.0 448150 Clothing Accessories Stores $7.0 448190 Other Clothing Stores $7.0 448210 Shoe Stores $9.0 448310 Jewelry Stores $7.0 448320 Luggage and Leather Goods Stores $7.0 Subsector 451—Sporting Good, Hobby, Book and Music Stores 451110 Sporting Goods Stores $7.0 451120 Hobby, Toy and Game Stores $7.0 451130 Sewing, Needlework and Piece Goods Stores $7.0 451140 Musical Instrument and Supplies Stores $7.0 451211 Book Stores $7.0 451212 News Dealers and Newsstands $7.0 451220 Prerecorded Tape, Compact Disc and Record Stores $7.0 Subsector 452—General Merchandise Stores 452111 Department Stores (except Discount Department Stores) $27.0 452112 Discount Department Stores $27.0 452910 Warehouse Clubs and Superstores $27.0 452990 All Other General Merchandise Stores $11.0 Subsector 453—Miscellaneous Store Retailers 453110 Florists $7.0 453210 Office Supplies and Stationery Stores $7.0 453220 Gift, Novelty and Souvenir Stores $7.0 453310 Used Merchandise Stores $7.0 453910 Pet and Pet Supplies Stores $7.0 453920 Art Dealers $7.0 453930 Manufactured (Mobile) Home Dealers $13.0 453991 Tobacco Stores $7.0 453998 All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers (except Tobacco Stores) $7.0 Subsector 454—Nonstore Retailers 454111 Electronic Shopping $25.0 454112 Electronic Auctions $25.0 454113 Mail-Order Houses $25.0 454210 Vending Machine Operators $7.0 454311 Heating Oil Dealers $12.5 454312 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Bottled Gas) Dealers $7.0 454319 Other Fuel Dealers $7.0 454390 Other Direct Selling Establishments $7.0 Sector 48-49—Transportation and Warehousing Subsector 481—Air Transportation * * * * * * * 481211 Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation 1,500 Except, Offshore Marine Air Transportation Services $28.0 481212 Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation 1,500 Except, Offshore Marine Air Transportation Services $28.0 481219 Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation $7.0 * * * * * * * Subsector 484—Truck Transportation 484110 General Freight Trucking, Local $25.5 484121 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Truckload $25.5 484122 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Less Than Truckload $25.5 484210 Used Household and Office Goods Moving $25.5 484220 Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Local $25.5 484230 Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Long-Distance $25.5 Subsector 485—Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation 485111 Mixed Mode Transit Systems $7.0 485112 Commuter Rail Systems $7.0 485113 Bus and Motor Vehicle Transit Systems $7.0 485119 Other Urban Transit Systems $7.0 485210 Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation $7.0 485310 Taxi Service $7.0 485320 Limousine Service $7.0 485410 School and Employee Bus Transportation $7.0 485510 Charter Bus Industry $7.0 485991 Special Needs Transportation $7.0 485999 All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation $7.0 Subsector 486—Pipeline Transportation * * * * * * * 486210 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas $7.0 * * * * * * * 486990 All Other Pipeline Transportation $34.5 Subsector 487—Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation 487110 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Land $7.0 487210 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water $7.0 487990 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Other $7.0 Subsector 488—Support Activities for Transportation 488111 Air Traffic Control $7.0 488119 Other Airport Operations $7.0 488190 Other Support Activities for Air Transportation $7.0 488210 Support Activities for Rail Transportation $7.0 488310 Port and Harbor Operations $25.5 488320 Marine Cargo Handling $25.5 488330 Navigational Services to Shipping $7.0 488390 Other Support Activities for Water Transportation $7.0 488410 Motor Vehicle Towing $7.0 488490 Other Support Activities for Road Transportation $7.0 488510 Freight Transportation Arrangement 10 10 $7.0 Except, Non-Vessel Owning Common Carriers and Household Goods Forwarders $25.5 488991 Packing and Crating $25.5 488999 All Other Support Activities for Transportation $7.0 Subsector 491—Postal Service 491110 Postal Service $7.0 Subsector 492—Couriers and Messengers * * * * * * * 492210 Local Messengers and Local Delivery $25.5 Subsector 493—Warehousing and Storage 493110 General Warehousing and Storage $25.5 493120 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage $25.5 493130 Farm Product Warehousing and Storage $25.5 493190 Other Warehousing and Storage $25.5 Sector 51—Information Subsector 511—Publishing Industries (except Internet) * * * * * * * 511210 Software Publishers $25.0 Subsector 512—Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries 512110 Motion Picture and Video Production $29.5 512120 Motion Picture and Video Distribution $29.5 512131 Motion Picture Theaters (except Drive-Ins) $7.0 512132 Drive-In Motion Picture Theaters $7.0 512191 Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services $29.5 512199 Other Motion Picture and Video Industries $7.0 512210 Record Production $7.0 * * * * * * * 512240 Sound Recording Studios $7.0 512290 Other Sound Recording Industries $7.0 Subsector 515—Broadcasting (except Internet) 515111 Radio Networks $7.0 515112 Radio Stations $7.0 515120 Television Broadcasting $14.0 515210 Cable and Other Subscription Programming $15.0 Subsector 517—Telecommunications * * * * * * * 517410 Satellite Telecommunications $15.0 * * * * * * * 517919 All Other Telecommunications $25.0 Subsector 518—Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services 518210 Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services $25.0 Subsector 519—Other Information Services 519110 News Syndicates $7.0 519120 Libraries and Archives $7.0 * * * * * * * 519190 All Other Information Services $7.0 Sector 52—Finance and Insurance Subsector 522—Credit Intermediation and Related Activities 522110 Commercial Banking 8 8 $175 million in assets 522120 Savings Institutions 8 8 $175 million in assets 522130 Credit Unions 8 8 $175 million in assets 522190 Other Depository Credit Intermediation 8 8 $175 million in assets 522210 Credit Card Issuing 8 8 $175 million in assets 522220 Sales Financing $7.0 522291 Consumer Lending $7.0 522292 Real Estate Credit $7.0 522293 International Trade Financing 8 8 $175 million in assets 522294 Secondary Market Financing $7.0 522298 All Other Non-Depository Credit Intermediation $7.0 522310 Mortgage and Nonmortgage Loan Brokers $7.0 522320 Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and Clearing House Activities $7.0 522390 Other Activities Related to Credit Intermediation $7.0 Subsector 523—Securities, Commodity Contracts, and Other Financial Investments and Related Activities 523110 Investment Banking and Securities Dealing $7.0 523120 Securities Brokerage $7.0 523130 Commodity Contracts Dealing $7.0 523140 Commodity Contracts Brokerage $7.0 523210 Securities and Commodity Exchanges $7.0 523910 Miscellaneous Intermediation $7.0 523920 Portfolio Management $7.0 523930 Investment Advice $7.0 523991 Trust, Fiduciary and Custody Activities $7.0 523999 Miscellaneous Financial Investment Activities $7.0 Subsector 524—Insurance Carriers and Related Activities 524113 Direct Life Insurance Carriers $7.0 524114 Direct Health and Medical Insurance Carriers $7.0 * * * * * * * 524127 Direct Title Insurance Carriers $7.0 524128 Other Direct Insurance (except Life, Health and Medical) Carriers $7.0 524130 Reinsurance Carriers $7.0 524210 Insurance Agencies and Brokerages $7.0 524291 Claims Adjusting $7.0 524292 Third Party Administration of Insurance and Pension Funds $7.0 524298 All Other Insurance Related Activities $7.0 Subsector 525—Funds, Trusts and Other Financial Vehicles 525110 Pension Funds $7.0 525120 Health and Welfare Funds $7.0 525190 Other Insurance Funds $7.0 525910 Open-End Investment Funds $7.0 525920 Trusts, Estates, and Agency Accounts $7.0 525930 Real Estate Investment Trusts $7.0 525990 Other Financial Vehicles $7.0 Sector 53—Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Subsector 531—Real Estate 531110 Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings $7.0 531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Miniwarehouses) $7.0 531130 Lessors of Miniwarehouses and Self Storage Units $25.5 531190 Lessors of Other Real Estate Property $7.0 Except, Leasing of Building Space to Federal Government by Owners 9 9 $20.5 531210 Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers 10 10 $2.0 531311 Residential Property Managers $2.0 531312 Nonresidential Property Managers $2.0 531320 Offices of Real Estate Appraisers $2.0 531390 Other Activities Related to Real Estate $2.0 Subsector 532—Rental and Leasing Services 532111 Passenger Car Rental $25.5 532112 Passenger Car Leasing $25.5 532120 Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV (Recreational Vehicle) Rental and Leasing $25.5 532210 Consumer Electronics and Appliances Rental $7.0 532220 Formal Wear and Costume Rental $7.0 532230 Video Tape and Disc Rental $7.0 532291 Home Health Equipment Rental $7.0 532292 Recreational Goods Rental $7.0 532299 All Other Consumer Goods Rental $7.0 532310 General Rental Centers $7.0 532411 Commercial Air, Rail, and Water Transportation Equipment Rental and Leasing $7.0 532412 Construction, Mining and Forestry Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing $7.0 532420 Office Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing $25.0 532490 Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing $7.0 Subsector 533—Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works) 533110 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works) $7.0 Sector 54—Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Subsector 541—Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 541110 Offices of Lawyers $7.0 541191 Title Abstract and Settlement Offices $7.0 541199 All Other Legal Services $7.0 541211 Offices of Certified Public Accountants $8.5 541213 Tax Preparation Services $7.0 541214 Payroll Services $8.5 541219 Other Accounting Services $8.5 541310 Architectural Services $4.5 541320 Landscape Architectural Services $7.0 541330 Engineering Services $4.5 Except, Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons $27.0 Except, Contracts and Subcontracts for Engineering Services Awarded Under the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 $27.0 Except, Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture $18.5 541340 Drafting Services $7.0 Except, Map Drafting $4.5 541350 Building Inspection Services $7.0 541360 Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services $4.5 541370 Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services $4.5 541380 Testing Laboratories $12.0 541410 Interior Design Services $7.0 541420 Industrial Design Services $7.0 541430 Graphic Design Services $7.0 541490 Other Specialized Design Services $7.0 541511 Custom Computer Programming Services $25.0 541512 Computer Systems Design Services $25.0 541513 Computer Facilities Management Services $25.0 541519 Other Computer Related Services $25.0 Except, Information Technology Value Added Resellers 18 18 150 541611 Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services $7.0 541612 Human Resources Consulting Services $7.0 541613 Marketing Consulting Services $7.0 541614 Process, Physical Distribution and Logistics Consulting Services $7.0 541618 Other Management Consulting Services $7.0 541620 Environmental Consulting Services $7.0 541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services $7.0 * * * * * * * 541720 Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities $7.0 541810 Advertising Agencies 10 10 $7.0 541820 Public Relations Agencies $7.0 541830 Media Buying Agencies $7.0 541840 Media Representatives $7.0 541850 Display Advertising $7.0 541860 Direct Mail Advertising $7.0 541870 Advertising Material Distribution Services $7.0 541890 Other Services Related to Advertising $7.0 541910 Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling $7.0 541921 Photography Studios, Portrait $7.0 541922 Commercial Photography $7.0 541930 Translation and Interpretation Services $7.0 541940 Veterinary Services $7.0 541990 All Other Professional, Scientific and Technical Services $7.0 Sector 55—Management of Companies and Enterprises Subsector 551—Management of Companies and Enterprises 551111 Offices of Bank Holding Companies $7.0 551112 Offices of Other Holding Companies $7.0 Sector 56—Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services Subsector 561—Administrative and Support Services 561110 Office Administrative Services $7.0 561210 Facilities Support Services 12 12 $35.5 561311 Employment Placement Agencies $7.0 561312 Executive Search Services $7.0 561320 Temporary Help Services $13.5 561330 Professional Employer Organizations $13.5 561410 Document Preparation Services $7.0 561421 Telephone Answering Services $7.0 561422 Telemarketing Bureaus and Other Contact Centers $7.0 561431 Private Mail Centers $7.0 561439 Other Business Service Centers (including Copy Shops) $7.0 561440 Collection Agencies $7.0 561450 Credit Bureaus $7.0 561491 Repossession Services $7.0 561492 Court Reporting and Stenotype Services $7.0 561499 All Other Business Support Services $7.0 561510 Travel Agencies 10 10 $3.5 561520 Tour Operators 10 10 $7.0 561591 Convention and Visitors Bureaus $7.0 561599 All Other Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services $7.0 561611 Investigation Services $12.5 561612 Security Guards and Patrol Services $18.5 561613 Armored Car Services $12.5 561621 Security Systems Services (except Locksmiths) $12.5 561622 Locksmiths $7.0 561710 Exterminating and Pest Control Services $7.0 561720 Janitorial Services $16.5 561730 Landscaping Services $7.0 561740 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Services $4.5 561790 Other Services to Buildings and Dwellings $7.0 561910 Packaging and Labeling Services $7.0 561920 Convention and Trade Show Organizers 10 10 $7.0 561990 All Other Support Services $7.0 Subsector 562—Waste Management and Remediation Services 562111 Solid Waste Collection $12.5 562112 Hazardous Waste Collection $12.5 562119 Other Waste Collection $12.5 562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal $12.5 562212 Solid Waste Landfill $12.5 562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators $12.5 562219 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal $12.5 562910 Remediation Services $14.0 Except, Environmental Remediation Services 14 14 500 562920 Materials Recovery Facilities $12.5 562991 Septic Tank and Related Services $7.0 562998 All Other Miscellaneous Waste Management Services $7.0 Sector 61—Educational Services Subsector 611—Educational Services 611110 Elementary and Secondary Schools $7.0 611210 Junior Colleges $7.0 611310 Colleges, Universities and Professional Schools $7.0 611410 Business and Secretarial Schools $7.0 611420 Computer Training $7.0 611430 Professional and Management Development Training $7.0 611511 Cosmetology and Barber Schools $7.0 611512 Flight Training $25.5 611513 Apprenticeship Training $7.0 611519 Other Technical and Trade Schools $7.0 Except, Job Corps Centers 16 16 $35.5 611610 Fine Arts Schools $7.0 611620 Sports and Recreation Instruction $7.0 611630 Language Schools $7.0 611691 Exam Preparation and Tutoring $7.0 611692 Automobile Driving Schools $7.0 611699 All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction $7.0 611710 Educational Support Services $7.0 Sector 62—Health Care and Social Assistance Subsector 621—Ambulatory Health Care Services 621111 Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) $10.0 621112 Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists $10.0 621210 Offices of Dentists $7.0 621310 Offices of Chiropractors $7.0 621320 Offices of Optometrists $7.0 621330 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians) $7.0 621340 Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists and Audiologists $7.0 621391 Offices of Podiatrists $7.0 621399 Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners $7.0 621410 Family Planning Centers $10.0 621420 Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers $10.0 621491 HMO Medical Centers $10.0 621492 Kidney Dialysis Centers $34.5 621493 Freestanding Ambulatory Surgical and Emergency Centers $10.0 621498 All Other Outpatient Care Centers $10.0 621511 Medical Laboratories $13.5 621512 Diagnostic Imaging Centers $13.5 621610 Home Health Care Services $13.5 621910 Ambulance Services $7.0 621991 Blood and Organ Banks $10.0 621999 All Other Miscellaneous Ambulatory Health Care Services $10.0 Subsector 622—Hospitals 622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals $34.5 622210 Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals $34.5 622310 Specialty (except Psychiatric and Substance Abuse) Hospitals $34.5 Subsector 623—Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 623110 Nursing Care Facilities $13.5 623210 Residential Mental Retardation Facilities $10.0 623220 Residential Mental Health and Substance Abuse Facilities $7.0 623311 Continuing Care Retirement Communities $13.5 623312 Homes for the Elderly $7.0 623990 Other Residential Care Facilities $7.0 Subsector 624—Social Assistance 624110 Child and Youth Services $7.0 624120 Services for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities $7.0 624190 Other Individual and Family Services $7.0 624210 Community Food Services $7.0 624221 Temporary Shelters $7.0 624229 Other Community Housing Services $7.0 624230 Emergency and Other Relief Services $7.0 624310 Vocational Rehabilitation Services $7.0 624410 Child Day Care Services $7.0 Sector 71—Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Subsector 711—Performing Arts, Spectator Sports and Related Industries 711110 Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters $7.0 711120 Dance Companies $7.0 711130 Musical Groups and Artists $7.0 711190 Other Performing Arts Companies $7.0 711211 Sports Teams and Clubs $7.0 711212 Race Tracks $7.0 711219 Other Spectator Sports $7.0 711310 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports and Similar Events with Facilities $7.0 711320 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports and Similar Events without Facilities $7.0 711410 Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers and Other Public Figures $7.0 711510 Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers $7.0 Subsector 712—Museums, Historical Sites and Similar Institutions 712110 Museums $7.0 712120 Historical Sites $7.0 712130 Zoos and Botanical Gardens $7.0 712190 Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions $7.0 Subsector 713—Amusement, Gambling and Recreation Industries 713110 Amusement and Theme Parks $7.0 713120 Amusement Arcades $7.0 713210 Casinos (except Casino Hotels) $7.0 713290 Other Gambling Industries $7.0 713910 Golf Courses and Country Clubs $7.0 713920 Skiing Facilities $7.0 713930 Marinas $7.0 713940 Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers $7.0 713950 Bowling Centers $7.0 713990 All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries $7.0 Sector 72—Accommodation and Food Services Subsector 721—Accommodation 721110 Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels $7.0 721120 Casino Hotels $7.0 721191 Bed and Breakfast Inns $7.0 721199 All Other Traveler Accommodation $7.0 721211 RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and Campgrounds $7.0 721214 Recreational and Vacation Camps (except Campgrounds) $7.0 721310 Rooming and Boarding Houses $7.0 Subsector 722—Food Services and Drinking Places 722110 Full-Service Restaurants $7.0 722211 Limited-Service Restaurants $7.0 722212 Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets $7.0 722213 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars $7.0 722310 Food Service Contractors $20.5 722320 Caterers $7.0 722330 Mobile Food Services $7.0 722410 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) $7.0 Sector 81—Other Services (Except Public Administration) Subsector 811—Repair and Maintenance 811111 General Automotive Repair $7.0 811112 Automotive Exhaust System Repair $7.0 811113 Automotive Transmission Repair $7.0 811118 Other Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance $7.0 811121 Automotive Body, Paint and Interior Repair and Maintenance $7.0 811122 Automotive Glass Replacement Shops $7.0 811191 Automotive Oil Change and Lubrication Shops $7.0 811192 Car Washes $7.0 811198 All Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance $7.0 811211 Consumer Electronics Repair and Maintenance $7.0 811212 Computer and Office Machine Repair and Maintenance $25.0 811213 Communication Equipment Repair and Maintenance $7.0 811219 Other Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance $7.0 811310 Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance $7.0 811411 Home and Garden Equipment Repair and Maintenance $7.0 811412 Appliance Repair and Maintenance $7.0 811420 Reupholstery and Furniture Repair $7.0 811430 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair $7.0 811490 Other Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance $7.0 Subsector 812—Personal and Laundry Services 812111 Barber Shops $7.0 812112 Beauty Salons $7.0 812113 Nail Salons $7.0 812191 Diet and Weight Reducing Centers $7.0 812199 Other Personal Care Services $7.0 812210 Funeral Homes and Funeral Services $7.0 812220 Cemeteries and Crematories $7.0 812310 Coin-Operated Laundries and Drycleaners $7.0 812320 Drycleaning and Laundry Services (except Coin-Operated) $4.5 812331 Linen Supply $14.0 812332 Industrial Launderers $14.0 812910 Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services $7.0 812921 Photo Finishing Laboratories (except One-Hour) $7.0 812922 One-Hour Photo Finishing $7.0 812930 Parking Lots and Garages $7.0 812990 All Other Personal Services $7.0 Subsector 813—Religious, Grantmaking, Civic, Professional and Similar Organizations 813110 Religious Organizations $7.0 813211 Grantmaking Foundations $7.0 813212 Voluntary Health Organizations $7.0 813219 Other Grantmaking and Giving Services $7.0 813311 Human Rights Organizations $7.0 813312 Environment, Conservation and Wildlife Organizations $7.0 813319 Other Social Advocacy Organizations $7.0 813410 Civic and Social Organizations $7.0 813910 Business Associations $7.0 813920 Professional Organizations $7.0 813930 Labor Unions and Similar Labor Organizations $7.0 813940 Political Organizations $7.0 813990 Other Similar Organizations (except Business, Professional, Labor, and Political Organizations) $7.0 Footnotes 2. *NAICS code 237990—Dredging:* To be considered small for purposes of Government procurement, a firm must perform at least 40 percent of the volume dredged with its own equipment or equipment owned by another small dredging concern. 8. *NAICS Codes 522110, 522120, 522130, 522190, 522210* and *522293* —A financial institution's assets are determined by averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly financial statements for the preceding year. “Assets” for the purposes of this size standard means the assets defined according to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council 034 call report form. 9. *NAICS code 531190—Leasing of building space to the Federal Government by Owners:* For Government procurement, a size standard of $20.5 million in gross receipts applies to the owners of building space leased to the Federal Government. The standard does not apply to an agent. 10. *NAICS codes 488510 (part), 531210, 541810, 561510, 561520* and *561920* —As measured by total revenues, but excluding funds received in trust for an unaffiliated third party, such as bookings or sales subject to commissions. The commissions received are included as revenue. *12. NAICS 561210—Facilities Support Services:*
(a)If one or more activities of Facilities Support Services as defined in paragraph
(b)(below in this footnote) can be identified with a specific industry and that industry accounts for 50% or more of the value of an entire procurement, then the proper classification of the procurement is that of the specific industry, not Facilities Support Services.
(b)“Facilities Support Services” requires the performance of three or more separate activities in the areas of services or specialty trade contractors industries. If services are performed, these service activities must each be in a separate NAICS industry. If the procurement requires the use of specialty trade contractors (plumbing, painting, plastering, carpentry, etc.), all such specialty trade contractors activities are considered a single activity and classified as “Building and Property Specialty Trade Services.” Since “Building and Property Specialty Trade Services” is only one activity, two additional activities of separate NAICS industries are required for a procurement to be classified as “Facilities Support Services.” 13. *NAICS code 238990—Building and Property Specialty Trade Services:* If a procurement requires the use of multiple specialty trade contractors (i.e., plumbing, painting, plastering, carpentry, etc.), and no specialty trade accounts for 50% or more of the value of the procurement, all such specialty trade contractors activities are considered a single activity and classified as Building and Property Specialty Trade Services. *14. NAICS 562910* —Environmental Remediation Services:
(a)For SBA assistance as a small business concern in the industry of Environmental Remediation Services, other than for Government procurement, a concern must be engaged primarily in furnishing a range of services for the remediation of a contaminated environment to an acceptable condition including, but not limited to, preliminary assessment, site inspection, testing, remedial investigation, feasibility studies, remedial design, containment, remedial action, removal of contaminated materials, storage of contaminated materials and security and site closeouts. If one of such activities accounts for 50 percent or more of a concern's total revenues, employees, or other related factors, the concern's primary industry is that of the particular industry and not the Environmental Remediation Services Industry.
(b)For purposes of classifying a Government procurement as Environmental Remediation Services, the general purpose of the procurement must be to restore or directly support the restoration of a contaminated environment (such as preliminary assessment, site inspection, testing, remedial investigation, feasibility studies, remedial design, remediation services, containment, removal of contaminated materials or security and site closeouts), although the general purpose of the procurement need not necessarily include remedial actions. Also, the procurement must be composed of activities in three or more separate industries with separate NAICS codes or, in some instances (e.g., engineering), smaller sub-components of NAICS codes with separate and distinct size standards. These activities may include, but are not limited to, separate activities in industries such as: Heavy Construction; Special Trade Contractors; Engineering Services; Architectural Services; Management Consulting Services; Hazardous and Other Waster Collection; Remediation Services; Testing Laboratories; and Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences. If any activity in the procurement can be identified with a separate NAICS code, or component of a code with a separate distinct size standard, and that industry accounts for 50 percent or more of the value of the entire procurement, then the proper size standard is the one for that particular industry, and not the Environmental Remediation Service size standard. 15. *Subsector 483—Water Transportation—Offshore Marine Services:* The applicable size standard shall be $28.0 million for firms furnishing specific transportation services to concerns engaged in offshore oil and/or natural gas exploration, drilling production, or marine research; such services encompass passenger and freight transportation, anchor handling, and related logistical services to and from the work site or at sea. 16. *NAICS code 611519—Job Corps Centers.* For classifying a Federal procurement, the purpose of the solicitation must be for the management and operation of a U.S. Department of Labor Job Corps Center. The activities involved include admissions activities, life skills training, educational activities, comprehensive career preparation activities, career development activities, career transition activities, as well as the management and support functions and services needed to operate and maintain the facility. For SBA assistance as a small business concern, other than for Federal Government procurements, a concern must be primarily engaged in providing the services to operate and maintain Federal Job Corps Centers. 17. *NAICS code 115310—Support Activities for Forestry* —Forest Fire Suppression and Fuels Management Services are two components of Support Activities for Forestry. Forest Fire Suppression includes establishments which provide services to fight forest fires. These firms usually have fire-fighting crews and equipment. Fuels Management Services firms provide services to clear land of hazardous materials that would fuel forest fires. The treatments used by these firms may include prescribed fire, mechanical removal, establishing fuel breaks, thinning, pruning, and piling. 18. *NAICS code 541519* —An Information Technology Value Added Reseller provides a total solution to information technology acquisitions by providing multi-vendor hardware and software along with significant services. Significant value added services consist of, but are not limited to, configuration consulting and design, systems integration, installation of multi-vendor computer equipment, customization of hardware or software, training, product technical support, maintenance, and end user support. For purposes of Government procurement, an information technology procurement classified under this industry category must consist of at least 15% and not more than 50% of value added services as measured by the total price less the cost of information technology hardware, computer software, and profit. If the contract consists of less than 15% of value added services, then it must be classified under a NAICS manufacturing industry. If the contract consists of more than 50% of value added services, then it must be classified under the NAICS industry that best describes the predominate service of the procurement. To qualify as an Information Technology Value Added Reseller for purposes of SBA assistance, other than for Government procurement, a concern must be primarily engaged in providing information technology equipment and computer software and provide value added services which account for at least 15% of its receipts but not more than 50% of its receipts. 3. Amend § 121.301 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(2), and (d)(1) to read as follows: § 121.301 What size standards are applicable to financial assistance programs?
(a)For Business Loans and Disaster Loans (other than physical disaster loans), an applicant business concern must satisfy two criteria:
(1)The size of the applicant alone (without affiliates) must not exceed the size standard designated for the industry in which the applicant is primarily engaged; and
(2)The size of the applicant combined with its affiliates must not exceed the size standard designated for either the primary industry of the applicant alone or the primary industry of the applicant and its affiliates, which ever is higher. These size standards are set forth in § 121.201.
(b)* * *
(2)Including its affiliates, tangible net worth not in excess of $8.5 million, and average net income after Federal income taxes (excluding any carry-over losses) for the preceding two completed fiscal years not in excess of $3.0 million. If the applicant is not required by law to pay Federal income taxes at the enterprise level, but is required to pass income through to its shareholders, partners, beneficiaries, or other equitable owners, the applicant's “net income after Federal income taxes” will be its net income reduced by an amount computed as follows:
(d)* * *
(1)Any construction (general or special trade) concern or concern performing a contract for services is small if, together with its affiliates, its average annual receipts do not exceed $7.0 million, except as provided in § 121.301(d)(3). 4. Amend § 121.302 by revising paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 121.302 When does SBA determine the size status of an applicant?
(c)For disaster loan assistance (other than physical disaster loans), size status is determined as of the date the disaster commenced, as set forth in the Disaster Declaration. For economic injury disaster loan assistance under disaster declarations for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, size status is determined as of the date SBA accepts the application for processing, and for applications submitted before December 6, 2005, whether denied because of size status or pending, such applications shall be deemed resubmitted on December 6, 2005. For pre-disaster mitigation loans, size status is determined as of the date SBA accepts a complete Pre-Disaster Mitigation Small Business Loan Application for processing. Refer to § 123.408 of this chapter to find out what SBA considers to be a complete Pre-Disaster Mitigation Small Business Loan Application. 5. Amend § 121.502 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: § 121.502 What size standards are applicable to programs for sales and leases of Government property?
(a)* * *
(2)A concern not primarily engaged in manufacturing is small for sales or leases of Government property if it has annual receipts not exceeding $7.0 million. 6. Amend § 121.512 by revising paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 121.512 What is the size standard for stockpile purchases?
(b)Its annual receipts, together with its affiliates, do not exceed $57.5 million. PART 123—DISASTER LOAN PROGRAM 7. The authority citation of part 123 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), 636(b), 636(c); Pub. L. 102-395, 106 Stat. 1828, 1864; and Pub. L. 103-75, 107 Stat. 739; and Pub. L. 106-50, 113 Stat. 245. 8. Amend § 123.300 by revising paragraph
(b)to read as follow: § 123.300 Is my business eligible to apply for an economic injury disaster loan?
(b)Economic injury disaster loans are available only if you were a small business (as defined in part 121 of this chapter) when the declared disaster commenced (except disaster declarations for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, for which size status is determined as of the date SBA accepts the application for processing, and for applications submitted before December 6, 2005, whether denied because of size status or pending, such applications shall be deemed resubmitted on December 6, 2005), you and your affiliates and principle owners (20% or more ownership interest) have used all reasonably available funds, and you are unable to obtain credit elsewhere (see § 123.104). Dated: July 3, 2008. Jovita Carranza, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-16148 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0003; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-1] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lexington, OK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule; removal. SUMMARY: A direct final rule, published in the **Federal Register** April 16, 2008 (73 FR 20526) Docket No. FAA-2008-0003, adding additional Class E airspace at Lexington, OK is being removed. Although the rule became effective April 10, 2008, charting of this airspace was never completed. A new rulemaking will be forthcoming with an effective date that coincides with the new charting date. DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC July 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Mallett, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0530; telephone number
(817)222-4949. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On April 16, 2008, the FAA published a direct final rule; confirmation of effective date, correction, in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 20526) Docket No. FAA-2008-0003, amending the existing Class E airspace at Muldrow Army Heliport, Lexington, OK. No comments were received therefore the rule became effective on the date specified, April 10, 2008. It was then determined that the airspace had not been charted. Therefore, the FAA is removing this action from the **Federal Register** publication system and will issue a new rulemaking with a new effective date to coincide with the charting date. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). Removal of the Rule Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-1, as published in the **Federal Register** on April 16, 2008 (73 FR 20526), is hereby removed. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on July 1, 2008. Donald R. Smith, Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-15959 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0024; Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-4] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Black River Falls, WI AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule; removal. SUMMARY: A direct final rule, published in the **Federal Register** April 2, 2008 (73 FR 17888) docket No. FAA-2008-0024, adding additional Class E airspace at Black River Falls, WI is being removed. Although the rule became effective June 5, 2008, charting of this airspace was never completed. A new rulemaking will be forthcoming with an effective date that coincides with the new charting date. DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC July 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Mallett, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0530; telephone number
(817)222-4949. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On April 2, 2008, the FAA published a direct final rule; request for comments, in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 17888) Docket No. FAA-2008-0024, amending the existing Class E airspace at Black River Falls Area Airport, Black River Falls, WI. No comments were received therefore the rule became effective on the date specified, June 5, 2008. It was then determined that the airspace had not been charted. Therefore, the FAA is removing this action from the **Federal Register** publication system and will issue a new rulemaking with a new effective date to coincide with the charting date. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). Removal of the Rule Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-4, as published in the **Federal Register** on April 2, 2008 (73 FR 17888), is hereby removed. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on July 1, 2008. Donald R. Smith, Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-15960 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0307; Airspace Docket 08-AEA-18] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Removal of Class E Airspace; Roanoke Rapids, NC AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Halifax-Northampton Regional Airport, (IXA), Roanoke Rapids, NC and removes Class E airspace at Halifax County Airport, Roanoke Rapids, NC, (RZZ). The operating status of the airport will include Instrument Flight Rule
(IFR)operations. This action will enhance the safety and airspace management of Halifax-Northampton Regional Airport. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 25, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone
(404)305-5610. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On April 8, 2008, the FAA proposed to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Roanoke Rapids, NC, (73 FR 19020). This action provides adequate Class E airspace for Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR)operations at the new Halifax-Northampton Regional Airport (IXA), and will remove Class E airspace for the Halifax County Airport (RZZ). Area Navigation
(RNAV)Global Positioning System
(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) Runways
(RWYs)02-20 have been developed for Halifax-Northampton Regional Airport. As a result, controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level
(AGL)is needed to contain the SIAP and for IFR operations at Halifax-Northampton Regional Airport. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in Paragraph 6005 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 Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received. The Rule This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Roanoke Rapids, NC, to provide controlled airspace required to support the Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR)operations at Halifax-Northampton Regional Airport
(IXA)and to remove the Class E airspace supporting Halifax County Airport (RZZ), as the airspace supporting RZZ is no longer required. 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. It, therefore,
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA NC E5 Roanoke Rapids, NC [REMOVE] Halifax County Airport, NC AEA NC E5 Roanoke Rapids, NC [NEW] Halifax-Northampton Regional Airport, NC (Lat. 36°19′47″ N., long. 77°38′07″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Halifax-Northampton Regional Airport. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 19, 2008. Mark D. Ward, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. E8-16181 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Parts 7 and 50 [Public Notice 6298] RIN 1400-AC49 Board of Appellate Review; Review of Loss of Nationality AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Interim final rule. SUMMARY: This interim final rule eliminates the Department's Board of Appellate Review (L/BAR), which had been authorized to review certain Department determinations, in particular those related to loss of citizenship and passport denials. Because L/BAR's jurisdiction has been superseded or made obsolete for several years, and in large part replaced by review of loss of citizenship and passport matters by the Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, this rule eliminates L/BAR and authorizes on a discretionary basis an alternative, less cumbersome review of loss of nationality determinations by the Bureau of Consular Affairs. DATES: The rule is effective on July 18, 2008. *Comment Date:* The Department will accept written comments from the public through September 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the following methods (no duplicates please): • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp* (follow the instructions for submitting comments): • *Electronically:* *Comments.22.CFR.part7.update@state.gov* . Attachments must be in Microsoft Word. • *Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions):* Comments by mail should be addressed to: Director, Office of Policy Review and InterAgency Liaison, Overseas Citizens Services, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20037, fax
(202)736-9111. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monica A. Gaw, Office of Policy Review and InterAgency Liaison, Overseas Citizens Services, who may be reached at
(202)736-9110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elimination of Board of Appellate Review (L/BAR) The Board of Appellate Review, which is part of the Office of the Legal Adviser for administrative purposes and thus referred to by the acronym “L/BAR,” was established to provide a mechanism for appeal of certain administrative decisions of the Department of State. However, as described below, its jurisdiction has been superseded or made obsolete for several years, replaced in large part by review of loss of citizenship and passport matters by the Bureau of Consular Affairs. This rule accordingly reflects current departmental practice and organization related to review of loss of citizenship. As a result of consolidations through subsequent regulations, 22 CFR 7.3 currently provides that L/BAR is responsible for appeals from:
(1)Administrative decisions of loss of nationality or expatriation;
(2)administrative decisions denying, revoking, restricting or invalidating a passport under certain provisions;
(3)final decisions of contracting officers not otherwise provided for in the Department's contract appeal regulations;
(4)administrative determinations under 22 CFR 64.1(a) denying assistance to U.S. nationals who do not comply with the Fair Labor Standards in 22 CFR 61.2; and,
(5)administrative decisions in such other cases and under such terms of reference as the Secretary authorizes. Amendments to Federal statutes and regulations other than 22 CFR part 7 have significantly narrowed L/BAR authorities, and thus very few or no appeals are brought to it. Although 22 CFR 7.3(b) gave L/BAR jurisdiction over certain passport denial, revocation, and restriction cases, subsequent changes to 22 CFR part 51 superseded that provision, most recently revisions effective February 1, 2008 to 22 CFR 51.70-51.74 (formerly 22 CFR 51.80 *et seq.* ), 72 **Federal Register** 222 (November 19, 2007), p. 64939. With respect to § 7.3(a), persons determined to have lost U.S. nationality typically seek reconsideration from the Bureau of Consular Affairs, which provides for a less cumbersome and more timely procedure. Moreover, the Consular Affairs Bureau will consider a request for such review without time limitation, while L/BAR sets a one-year time limit for appeals. Very few of those who appeal do so within one year. Consequently, the number of appeals to L/BAR in recent years has dramatically diminished. Respecting 22 CFR 7.3(c), L/BAR no longer has jurisdiction over any appeals from final decisions of contracting officers, as its authority over such appeals has been terminated (see 41 U.S.C. 607 and the Department's Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR part 633). As for § 7.3(d), L/BAR's jurisdiction over denials of assistance in cases involving failures to comply with Fair Labor Standards has long been outdated, because the sanctions implemented by those standards are no longer in force and the regulations implementing them in 22 CFR have been superseded. Finally, the Secretary has not conferred jurisdiction on L/BAR to hear appeals of any other Department administrative decisions, as provided for in 22 CFR 7.3(e). Because its jurisdiction is obsolete or has been eliminated, and its theoretical functions exercised by other bodies or offices, there is no longer a need for L/BAR. Accordingly, this regulation eliminates the current regulations in part 7 of 22 CFR (reserving part 7) and with it L/BAR. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), does not require notice and public comment of “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” This rule pertains to agency organization, management, and practice for expatriation review and is being published as an interim final rule. The Department remains interested, however, in receiving for consideration any views from the public with respect to the rule, and is therefore requesting public comment by the due date noted above. Appeals From Determinations of Loss of Nationality The elimination of L/BAR means there will no longer be a formal administrative appeal of loss-of-nationality determinations by the Department. Revisions to 22 CFR 50.51 delete references to an appeal to L/BAR. Importantly, the Department expects to continue its current discretionary practice of reviewing prior findings of loss of nationality at the request of an affected individual who believes the finding should be reversed in light of subsequent legal developments (for example, an intervening Supreme Court decision) or when substantial new facts become available relevant to involuntariness or absence of intent at the time of the expatriating act. The revisions to 22 CFR 50.51 codify this discretionary practice, which is now partially codified in 22 CFR 7.2(b). In addition, the Bureau of Consular Affairs has modified its procedures for such reviews to provide that each case submitted for reconsideration will be examined by an officer who was not involved in the original determination using specified criteria. Revisions to 22 CFR 50.51 also clarify that requesting reconsideration by the Department of a finding of loss of nationality is neither a mandatory procedure prior to resort to judicial processes nor a formal “procedure for administrative appeal” for purposes of section 358 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1501). Accordingly, the issuance of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality constitutes the “final administrative determination” and “final administrative denial” for purposes of INA §§ 358 and 360 (8 U.S.C. 1501 & 1503), respectively. This means that the five-year statute of limitations for bringing an action in federal court under INA § 360 (8 U.S.C. 1503) to overturn a determination of loss of nationality begins to run when the Certificate of Loss of Nationality is issued. The Department imposes no time limit for requesting its discretionary reconsideration by the Bureau of Consular Affairs of a finding of loss, and as such this review is not intended to serve as a formal “appeal procedure” that may affect the running of the statutory statute of limitations contained in 8 U.S.C. 1503. Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act The Department is publishing this rule as an interim final rule, with 60 days for post-promulgation public comments, in accordance with the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) for matters relating to agency management or personnel. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business Since this action is exempt from the notice and comment procedures contained in 5 U.S.C. 553, and no other statute mandates such procedures, no analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) is required. However, these changes to the regulations are hereby certified as not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and Executive Order 13272, section 3(b). The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This interim final rule is not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 64, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing or adopting any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Review The Department of State has reviewed this interim final rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of the regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider the rule to be a significant regulatory action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* , Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for most collections of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulation. The Department of State has determined that this rule does not require new collection of information for purposes of the PRA. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 7 Board of Appellate Review. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 50 Citizenship, Nationality, Loss of Nationality. Accordingly, under the authority of 22 U.S.C. 2651a, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends 22 CFR chapter I as follows: PART 7—[REMOVED AND RESERVED] 1. Part 7 is removed and reserved. PART 50—NATIONALITY PROCEDURES—[AMENDED] 2. The authority citation for part 50 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 8 U.S.C. 1104 and 1401 through 1504. 3. Revise § 50.51 to read as follows: § 50.51 Review of finding of loss of nationality.
(a)There are no prescribed “procedures for administrative appeal” of issuance of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality for purposes of § 358 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1501) and no mandatory administrative review procedure prior to resort to judicial processes under § 360 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1503). Nevertheless, the Department may in its discretion review determinations of loss of nationality at any time after approval of issuance of the Certificate of Loss of Nationality to ensure consistency with governing law (see INA §§ 349 and 356, 8 U.S.C. 1481 and 1488). Such reconsideration may be initiated at the request of the person concerned or another person determined in accordance with guidance issued by the Department to have a legitimate interest.
(b)The primary grounds on which the Department will consider reversing a finding of loss of nationality and vacating a Certificate of Loss of Nationality are:
(1)The law under which the finding of loss was made has been held unconstitutional; or
(2)A major change in the interpretation of the law of expatriation is made as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision; or
(3)A major change in the interpretation of the law of expatriation is made by the Department, or is made by a court or another agency and adopted by the Department; and/or
(4)The person presents substantial new evidence, not previously considered, of involuntariness or absence of intent at the time of the expatriating act.
(c)When the Department reverses a finding of loss of nationality, the person concerned shall be considered not to have lost U.S. nationality as of the time the expatriating act was committed, and the Certificate of Loss of Nationality shall be vacated.
(d)Requesting the Department to reverse a finding of loss of nationality and vacate a Certificate of Loss of Nationality is not a prescribed “procedure for administrative appeal” for purposes of § 358 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1501). The Department's decision in response to such a request is not a prescribed “procedure for administrative appeal” for purposes of § 358 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1501). The issuance of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality by the Department is a “final administrative determination” and “final administrative denial” for purposes of §§ 358 and 360 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1501 and 1503), respectively. Dated: July 9, 2008. Janice L. Jacobs, Assistant Secretary of State, Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-16247 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 122 [Public Notice 6300] RIN 1400-AC50 Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Renewal of Registration AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations
(ITAR)by revising the validity period for registration and by limiting the time frame in which a registration may be renewed. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective on July 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Slygh, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State,
(202)663-2830 or FAX
(202)261-8199; E-mail *DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov,* ATTN: Regulatory Change, ITAR Part 122. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls
(DDTC)is revising 22 CFR 122.3 to limit the registration period to one year, instead of up to two years for both new registrants and for those renewing their registration. Registrants will be required to submit renewal packages no more than 60 days prior to their current expiration date. Regulatory Analysis and Notices *Administrative Procedure Act:* This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, is not subject to the procedures contained in 5 U.S.C. 553 and 554. *Regulatory Flexibility Act:* Because this rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth in sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). *Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995:* This amendment does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. *Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996:* This amendment has not been found to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. *Executive Orders 12372 and 13132:* This amendment will not have substantial effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this amendment does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Executive Order 12372, regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities, does not apply to this amendment. *Executive Order 12866:* This amendment is exempt from the review under Executive Order 12866, but has been reviewed internally by the Department of State to ensure consistency with the purposes thereof. *Executive Order 12988:* The Department of State has reviewed the proposed regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden. *Paperwork Reduction Act:* This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 122 Arms and munitions, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter M, Part 122 is amended as follows: PART 122—REGISTRATION OF MANUFACTURERS AND EXPORTERS 1. The authority citation for Part 122 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 2 and 38, Public Law 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778); E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311, 1977 Comp. p. 79, 22 U.S.C. 2651a. 2. Section 122.3 is amended by revising paragraphs
(a)and
(b)to read as follows: § 122.3 Registration fees.
(a)A person who is required to register may do so for a period of 1 year upon submission of a completed Form DS-2032, transmittal letter and payment of $1,750.
(b)*Expiration of registration.* A registrant must submit its request for registration renewal at least 30 days but no earlier than 60 days prior to the expiration date. Dated: July 3, 2008. John C. Rood, Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-16537 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4701-25-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9391] RIN 1545-BF85 Source Rules Involving U.S. Possessions and Other Conforming Changes; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD 9391) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 (73 FR 19350) providing rules under section 937(b) of the Internal Revenue Code for determining whether income is derived from sources within a U.S. possession or territory specified in section 937(a)(1) (generally referred to in this preamble as a “territory”) and whether income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within a territory. DATES: This correction is effective July 18, 2008, and is applicable on April 9, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. David Varley,
(202)622-7790 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final regulations and removal of temporary regulations that are the subjects of this document are under sections 1, 170A, 861, 871, 876, 881, 884, 901, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 937, 957, 1402, 6012, 6038, 6046, 6688, and 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final regulations (TD 9391) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. List of Subject in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Correction of Publication Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read, in part, as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * § 1.881-5T [Removed] **Par. 2.** Section 1.881-5T is removed. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-16305 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Parts 7, 16, and 25 [TTB Ruling 2008-3] Classification of Brewed Products as “Beer” Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and as “Malt Beverages” Under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Ruling on the classification of brewed products. SUMMARY: This document reproduces a ruling issued by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau on July 7, 2008, to clarify that that certain brewed products classified as “beer” under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 do not meet the definition of a “malt beverage” under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. DATES: The ruling was effective on July 7, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ramona Hupp, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, NW., Room 200-East, Washington, DC 20220; telephone
(202)927-2166. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 7, 2008, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)issued TTB Ruling 2008-3 to clarify that certain brewed products classified as “beer” under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 do not meet the definition of a “malt beverage” under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. We made this ruling available through the TTB Web site on July 8, 2008. This ruling is reproduced below: TTB Ruling 2008-3 Classification of Brewed Products as “Beer” Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and as “Malt Beverages” Under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act In recent months, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)has received inquiries from brewers regarding the labeling standards that apply to beers produced from substitutes for malted barley, such as rice or corn. We also have fielded questions from brewers and importers regarding the appropriate labeling of beers that are made without hops. This ruling explains the statutory criteria for classification of products as “beer” and “malt beverages” under the applicable laws and regulations. Laws and Regulations Federal Alcohol Administration Act Sections 105(e) and
(f)of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e) and (f), vest broad authority in the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations with respect to the labeling and advertising of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages that are introduced into interstate or foreign commerce or imported into the United States. Section 105(e) also provides that no person may bottle, or remove from customs custody in bottles, distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages unless he has obtained a certificate of label approval issued in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Regulations that implement the provisions of §§ 105(e) and (f), as they relate to malt beverages, are set forth in part 7 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 7), Labeling and Advertising of Malt Beverages. In the case of malt beverages, the labeling provisions of the FAA Act apply only if the laws of the State into which the malt beverages are shipped impose similar requirements. Section 117(a)(7) of the FAA Act (27 U.S.C. 211(a)(7)) defines the term “malt beverage” as “a beverage made by the alcoholic fermentation of an infusion or decoction, or combination of both, in potable brewing water, of malted barley with hops, or their parts, or their products, and with or without other malted cereals, and with or without the addition of unmalted or prepared cereals, other carbohydrates or products prepared therefrom, and with or without the addition of carbon dioxide, and with or without other wholesome products suitable for human food consumption.” The same definition appears in the TTB regulations at 27 CFR 7.10. Internal Revenue Code of 1986 Chapter 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(IRC)sets forth excise tax collection and related provisions pertaining to distilled spirits, wines, and beer; these provisions and the regulations promulgated thereunder are also administered by TTB. Within Chapter 51 of the IRC, section 5051 (26 U.S.C. 5051) imposes a tax on all beer brewed or produced, and removed for consumption or sale, within the United States, or imported into the United States. Section 5412 of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5412) provides that beer may be removed from the brewery for consumption or sale only in hogsheads, packages, and similar containers, marked, branded, or labeled in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury may by regulation require. Regulations that implement the Chapter 51 provisions pertaining to beer are set forth in part 25 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 25) and include, in § 25.142 (27 CFR 25.142), label requirements for beer in bottles. Section 5052(a) of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5052(a)) defines the term “beer,” for purposes of Chapter 51, as “beer, ale, porter, stout, and other similar fermented beverages (including sake or similar products) of any name or description containing one-half of 1 percent or more of alcohol by volume, brewed or produced from malt, wholly or in part, or from any substitute therefor.” The same definition appears in the TTB regulations at 27 CFR 25.11. In addition, with reference to what may be a substitute for malt, § 25.15(a) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 25.15(a)) states that “[o]nly rice, grain of any kind, bran, glucose, sugar, and molasses are substitutes for malt.” “Beer” versus “Malt Beverage” As indicated above, the definition of a “beer” under the IRC differs from the definition of a “malt beverage” under the FAA Act in several significant respects. First, the IRC does not require beer to be fermented from malted barley; instead, a beer may be brewed or produced from malt or “from any substitute therefor.” Second, the IRC does not require the use of hops in the production of beer. Third, the definition of “beer” in the IRC provides that the product must contain one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume, whereas there is no minimum alcohol content for a “malt beverage” under the FAA Act. Accordingly, a fermented beverage that is brewed from a substitute for malt (such as rice or corn) but without any malted barley may constitute a “beer” under the IRC but does not fall within the definition of a “ malt beverage” under the FAA Act. Similarly, a fermented beverage that is not brewed with hops may fall within the IRC definition of “beer” but also falls outside of the definition of a “malt beverage” under the FAA Act. It should be noted that sake and similar products are included within the definition of “beer” under the IRC. *See* 26 U.S.C. 5052(a). However, sake is also included within the definition of a wine under the FAA Act, which, among other things, covers only wines with an alcohol content of at least seven percent alcohol by volume. *See* 27 U.S.C. 211(a)(6). Thus, sake and similar products with an alcohol content of at least seven percent alcohol by volume are subject to the labeling and other requirements of the FAA Act. TTB Jurisdiction Over These Products Beers (other than saké and similar products) that do not conform to the definition of a “malt beverage” in the FAA Act are outside the scope of the FAA Act and, therefore, are not subject to the labeling, advertising, and other provisions of the TTB regulations promulgated under the FAA Act. This means, among other things, that brewers and importers of such products are not required to obtain a certificate of label approval for these beers. Brewery products that are not malt beverages under the FAA Act but that conform to the IRC definition of “beer” are still subject to all applicable requirements of the IRC and part 25 of the TTB regulations, including the labeling of bottles (§ 25.142) and the approval of formulas (27 CFR 25.55). Furthermore, all alcohol beverages containing not less than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume and intended for human consumption are subject to the Government health warning statement requirements of the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 (the ABLA, codified at 27 U.S.C. 213 through 219 and 219a) and the ABLA implementing regulations in part 16 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 16). In cases where a brewery product (other than saké and similar products) fails to meet the definition of a “malt beverage” under the FAA Act, the product will be subject to ingredient and other labeling requirements administered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As reflected in the 1987 Memorandum of Understanding between FDA and TTB's predecessor agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), TTB is responsible for the promulgation and enforcement of regulations with respect to the labeling of distilled spirits, wines, and malt beverages pursuant to the FAA Act. Importantly, however, in cases where an alcohol beverage is not covered by the labeling provisions of the FAA Act, the product is subject to ingredient and other labeling requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the implementing regulations that are administered by FDA. Required Quantities of Malted Barley and Hops to Qualify as a Malt Beverage Under the FAA Act TTB and its predecessor agency have previously provided guidance on the minimum quantities of malted barley and hops required to be used in the production of malt beverages. In 1994, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(ATF)issued ATF Compliance Matters 94-1, which provided that beers fermented from at least 25 percent malted barley (calculated as the percentage of malt, by weight, compared to the total dry weight of all ingredients contributing fermentable extract to the base product) and made with at least 7 1/2 pounds of hops (or the equivalent thereof in hop extracts or hop oils) per 100 barrels were “malt beverages” under the FAA Act. Because neither the FAA Act nor the implementing regulations in 27 CFR part 7 prescribe minimum standards for the amount of malted barley used in the production of a malt beverage, we are now reconsidering this guidance. Pending a decision on whether to engage in rulemaking on this issue, TTB will continue to address inquiries from brewers regarding the classification of fermented beverages that contain hops and malted barley, but are made from less than 25 percent malted barley or less than 7 1/2 pounds of hops per 100 barrels. For example, we recently determined that a neutral malt beer base containing a much lower amount of malted barley (one percent of the total dry weight of all ingredients contributing fermentable extract to the product) conformed to the definition of a “malt beverage.” Brewers and importers should contact the Assistant Director, Advertising, Labeling and Formulation Division, if they have a question as to whether a particular product falls within the definition of a “malt beverage” and therefore is subject to the certificate of label approval and other requirements under the FAA Act. TTB Holding *Held,* in order for a brewery product to fall within the definition of a “malt beverage” under the FAA Act, it must be a fermented beverage made from both malted barley and hops, or their parts, or their products. A fermented beverage that qualifies as a “beer” under the IRC (other than saké or similar products) but that is made without both malted barley and hops is not subject to the requirements of the FAA Act. Dated: July 7, 2008. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Dated: July 14, 2008. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-16413 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [USCG-2008-0220] RIN 1625-AA00 Regattas and Marine Parades; Great Lakes Annual Marine Events AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending special local regulations for annual regattas and marine parades in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone. This rule is intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after regattas or marine parades. This rule will establish restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in a specified area immediately prior to, during, and immediately after regattas or marine parades. DATES: This rule is effective July 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2008-0220 and are available online at *www.regulations.gov* . This material is also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Detroit, 110 Mt. Elliot Ave., Detroit, MI 48207 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call CDR Joseph Snowden, Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit at
(313)568-9580. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202)366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On April 25, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled Regattas and Marine Parades; Great Lakes Annual Marine Events, in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 22303). We received 0 letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety and security of the spectators and participants during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This rule will remove the specific entries from table 1 found in 33 CFR 100.901, Great Lakes annual marine events that apply to regattas and marine parades in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone and list each regatta or marine parade as a subpart. This rule will also add several regattas and marine parades not previously listed in 33 CFR Part 100 and remove several events that no longer occur annually or are not regattas or marine parades. Discussion of Comments and Changes No comments were received and no changes were made to this rule. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard's use of these special local regulations will be periodic in nature, of short duration, and designed to minimize the impact on navigable waters. These special local regulations will only be enforced immediately before and during the time the marine events are occurring. Furthermore, these special local regulations have been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted through portions of the waterways not affected by the special local regulations. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of these special local regulations. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the areas designated as special local regulations in paragraphs
(4)through
(13)during the dates and times the special local regulations are being enforced. These special local regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The special local regulations in this rule would be in effect for short periods of time, and only once per year; and the special local regulations have been designed to allow traffic to pass safely around the zone whenever possible and vessels will be allowed to pass through the zones with the permission of the Captain of the Port. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. We did not receive any comments for this section. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. We did not receive any comments for this section. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. We did not receive any comments for this section. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. We did not receive any comments for this section. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. We did not receive any comments for this section. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (35)(h) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a regulated area for marine events, therefore paragraph (35)(h) of the Instruction applies. A final environmental analysis checklist and a final categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. Amend § 100.901 by removing the entry “Group Detroit, MI” from Table 1 and adding paragraph
(f)to read as follows: § 100.901 Great Lakes annual marine events.
(f)Patrol Commander means a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to monitor a regatta area, permit entry into the regatta area, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within the regatta area, and take other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port. § 100.902 [Removed and Reserved] 4. Remove and reserve § 100.902. 5. Add § 100.911 to read as follows: § 100.911 Bay City Airshow, Bay City, MI.
(a)*Regulated Area* . A regulated area is established to include all waters of the Saginaw River bound on the south by a line extending from a point of land on the western shore at position 43°32.2′ N; 083°53.3′ W, east to a point of land on the eastern shore located at position 43°32.2′ N; 083°53.2′ W, and bounded on the north by a line extending from a point of land on the western shore at position 43°33.4′ N; 083°54.5′ W, east to a point of land on the eastern shore located at position 43°33.4′ N; 083°54.3′ W. (NAD 83). This area is south of Middle Ground Island near Clements Municipal Airport.
(b)*Special Local Regulations* . The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)*Enforcement Period:* Two days during the second week in August. The exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually. 6. Add § 100.912 to read as follows: § 100.912 Detroit Bell Isle Grand Prix, Detroit, MI.
(a)*Regulated Area* . A regulated area is established to include all waters of the Detroit River near Belle Isle, bounded by a line extending from a point of land on the southern shore of Belle Isle located at position 42°20′00″ N; 082°59′45″ W, to 50 yards offshore at position 42°19′57″; 082°59′ 43″, and continuing at a distance of 50 yards around the western end of Belle Isle to the Belle Isle Bridge, maintaining a constant distance of 50 yards from the shoreline and terminating at position 42°20′28″; 082°59′43″ on the northern side of Belle Isle, adjacent to a point on land at position 42°20′24″ N; 082°59′48″ W (NAD 83). This area wraps around the downstream end of Belle Isle.
(b)*Special Local Regulations* . The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)*Enforcement Period:* The last weekend in August. The exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually. 7. Add § 100.913 to read as follows: § 100.913 ACORA Garwood Classic Offshore Race, Algonac, MI.
(a)*Regulated Area* . A regulated area is established to include all waters of St. Clair River's North Channel, Algonac, Michigan, bounded by a north/south line beginning at a point of land adjacent to Allen Boats, Algonac, MI (position 42°37′05″ N, 082°33′34″ W) extending to a point of land on Harsens Island (position 42°36′49″ N, 082°33′34″ W) extending east along the shoreline of Harsens Island to north/south line beginning at position 42°37′16″ N, 082°31′11″ W (approx. 500 ft west of the Russell Island buoy) extending north to a point at position 42°37′28″ N, 082°31′11″ W (approx. 300 ft offshore from the Russell Boat Club), then west along the shoreline of Algonac, MI stopping at the point of origin. (NAD 83).
(b)*Special Local Regulations* . The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)*Enforcement Period:* The first weekend in August. The exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually. 8. Add § 100.914 to read as follows: § 100.914 Trenton Rotary Roar on the River, Trenton, MI.
(a)*Regulated Area* . A regulated area is established to include all waters of the Detroit River, Trenton, Michigan, bounded by an east/west line beginning at a point of land at the northern end of Elizabeth Park in Trenton, MI, located at position 42°8.2′ N; 083°10.6′ W, extending east to a point near the center of the Trenton Channel located at position 42°8.2′ N; 083°10.4′ W, extending south along a north/south line to a point at the Grosse Ile Parkway Bridge located at position 42°7.7′ N; 083°10.5′ W, extending west along a line bordering the Grosse Ile Parkway Bridge to a point on land located at position 42°7.7′ N; 083°10.7′ W, and along the shoreline to the point of origin. (NAD 83). This area is in the Trenton Channel between Trenton and Grosse Isle, MI.
(b)*Special Local Regulations* . The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)*Enforcement Period:* The third week in July. The exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually. 9. Add § 100.915 to read as follows: § 100.915 St. Clair River Classic Offshore Race, St. Clair, MI.
(a)*Regulated Area* . A regulated area is established to include all waters of the St. Clair River, St. Clair, Michigan, bounded by latitude 42°52′00″ N to the north; latitude 42°49′00″ N to the south; the shoreline of the St. Clair River on the west; and the international boundary line on the east (NAD 83).
(b)*Special Local Regulations* . The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)*Enforcement Period:* The last week in July. The exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually. 10. Add § 100.916 to read as follows: § 100.916 Chris Craft Silver Cup Races, Algonac, MI.
(a)*Regulated Area* . A regulated area is established to include all waters of the St. Clair River, North Channel, Algonac, Michigan, bounded on the north by a line starting at the northern end of Russel Island at position 42°37.0′ N; 082°31.4′ W extending across the channel to Algonac to a point at position 42°37.4′ N; 082°31.5′ W, and bounded on the south by a line starting north of Grande Point Cut on Russel Island at position 42°36.3′ N; 082°32.5′ W extending across the channel to Algonac to a point at position 42°36.5′ N; 082°32.6′ W. (NAD 83).
(b)*Special Local Regulations* . The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)*Enforcement Period:* The third week in August. The exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually. 11. Add § 100.917 to read as follows: § 100.917 The Old Club Cannonade, Harsens Island, MI.
(a)*Regulated Area* . A regulated area is established to include all waters of Lake St. Clair in an area bound by the coordinates starting at the cannon firing position located at 42°32.5′ N; 082°40.1′ W extending west to the Old Channel Light located at position 42°32.5′ N; 082°41.6′ W angling northeast to position 42°33.5′ N; 082°40.6′ W then angling southeast to the point of origin creating a triangle shaped safety zone. (NAD 83). This area is near the southern end of Harsens Island in Muscamoot Bay.
(b)*Special Local Regulations* . The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)*Enforcement Period:* The third week in October. The exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually. 12. Add § 100.918 to read as follows: § 100.918 Detroit APBA Gold Cup, Detroit, MI.
(a)*Regulated Area* . A regulated area is established to include all waters of the Detroit River, Belle Isle, Michigan, bound on the west by the Belle Isle Bridge (position 42°20′20″ N, 083°00′00″ W to 42°20′24″ N, 083°59′45″ W), and on the east by a north-south line drawn through Waterworks Intake Crib Light (Light List Number 8350; position 42°21′06″ N, 082°58′00″ W) (NAD 83).
(b)*Special Local Regulations* . The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)*Enforcement Period:* The first or second week in June. The exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually. 13. Add § 100.919 to read as follows: § 100.919 International Bay City River Roar, Bay City, MI.
(a)*Regulated Area* . A regulated area is established to include all waters of the Saginaw River bounded on the north by the Liberty Bridge, located at 43°36.3′ N, 083°53.4′ W, and bounded on the south by the Veterans Memorial Bridge, located at 43°35.8′ N, 083°53.6′ W. (NAD 83).
(b)*Special Local Regulations* . The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)*Enforcement Period:* The third or fourth week in June. The exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually. 14. Add § 100.920 to read as follows: § 100.920 Tug Across the River, Detroit, MI.
(a)*Regulated Area* . A regulated area is established to include all waters of the Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan, bounded on the south by the International boundary, on the west by 083°03′ W, on the east by 083°02′ W, and on the north by the U.S. shoreline (DATUM: NAD 83). This position is located on the Detroit River in front of Hart Plaza, Detroit, MI.
(b)*Special Local Regulations* . The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c)*Enforcement Period:* The third or fourth week in June. The exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually.
(d)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the regulated area shall contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Dated: July 1, 2008. F.M. Midgette, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit. [FR Doc. E8-16397 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Part 334 United States Marine Corps Restricted Area and Danger Zone, Neuse River and Tributaries, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC AGENCY: United States Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Corps of Engineers is amending its regulations to designate an existing rifle range fan as a danger zone. The military exercise area is located within the Rifle Range of Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina, along the Neuse River. The danger zone will only be activated by the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point during range operational hours. The Marine Corps will advise residents in the vicinity of the range fan thus ensuring their safety by alerting them to temporary potential hazardous conditions which may exist as a result of small arms exercises. There will be no change in the use of the existing exercise area. The area will be marked on navigation charts to ensure security and safety for the public. Entry points into the danger zone will be prominently marked with signage indicating the boundary of the danger zone. The placement of aids to navigation and regulatory markers will be installed in accordance with the requirements of the United States Coast Guard. If the proposed signage exceeds nationwide permit and/or regional general permit conditions, the Commander, United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina, will seek additional Department of the Army authorizations. DATES: *Effective date:* August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CECW-CO (David B. Olson), 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC, at
(202)761-4922, Mr. Scott Jones, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Regulatory Branch, at
(202)761-7763, or Ms. Tracey Wheeler, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Regulatory Branch, at
(252)975-1616. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the April 25, 2007, issue of the **Federal Register** (72 FR 20460), the Corps published a proposed rule to designate an existing rifle range fan as a danger zone. The proposed danger zone is within an existing restricted area that was established in 1951 (16 FR 2578) and amended in 1997 (62 FR 17553). In response to the April 25, 2007, proposed rule, no comments were received. Pursuant to its authorities in section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps amends 33 CFR 334.430 by adding a danger zone along the Neuse River as described below. The regulations governing the existing restricted area have not been changed. Procedural Requirements a. Review Under Executive Order 12866 This rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply. b. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) which requires the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (i.e., small businesses and small governments). The Corps has determined that the establishment of this danger zone will have practically no economic impact on the public, result in no anticipated navigational hazard, and will not interfere with existing waterway traffic. This rule will have no significant economic impact on small entities. c. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act Due to the administrative nature of this action and because there is no intended change in the use of the area, the Corps determined that this regulation will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required. An environmental assessment has been prepared. The environmental assessment may be reviewed at the District office listed at the end of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above. d. Unfunded Mandates Act This rule does not impose an enforceable duty on the private sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal private sector mandate and it is not subject to the requirements of either section 202 or section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also found under section 203 of the Act that small governments will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334 Danger zones, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps amends 33 CFR part 334, as follows: PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 334 continues to read as follows: Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3). 2. Revise § 334.430 to read as follows: § 334.430 Neuse River and tributaries at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina; restricted area and danger zone.
(a)*The restricted area.* That portion of Neuse River within 500 feet of the shore along the reservation of the Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina, extending from the mouth of Hancock Creek to a point approximately 6,800 feet west of the mouth of Slocum Creek, and all waters of Hancock and Slocum Creeks and their tributaries within the boundaries of the reservation.
(b)*The danger zone.* The waters within an area beginning at latitude 34.923425° N, longitude −76.853222° W; thence northeasterly across Hancock Creek to latitude 34.925258° N, longitude −76.849864° W; continuing northeasterly to latitude 34.933382° N, longitude −76.835081° W; thence northwesterly to the Neuse River shoreline at latitude 34.936986° N, longitude −76.841197° W, continuing northwesterly to latitude 34.943275° N, longitude −76.852169° W; thence southwesterly along the shorelines to latitude 34.935111° N, longitude −76.859078° W; thence southeasterly along Hancock Creek shoreline to the point of origin.
(c)*The regulations.*
(1)Except in cases of extreme emergency, all persons or vessels, other than those operated by the United States Navy or United States Coast Guard, are prohibited from entering the restricted area without prior permission of the enforcing agency.
(2)Entry points into the danger zone will be prominently marked with signage indicating the boundary of the danger zone.
(3)Firing will take place both day and night at irregular periods throughout the year. Appropriate warnings will be issued through official government and civilian channels serving the region. Such warnings will specify the time and duration of operations and give such other pertinent information as may be required in the interest of safety. Upon completion of firing or if the scheduled firing is cancelled for any reason, the warning signals marking the danger zone will be removed.
(4)Except as otherwise provided in this section the danger zone will be open to general public access. Vessels, watercraft, and other vehicles may proceed through the danger zone.
(5)The regulation in this section shall be enforced by the Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina, and/or persons or agencies as he/she may designate. Dated: July 11, 2008. James R. Hannon, Jr., Acting Chief, Operations, Directorate of Civil Works. [FR Doc. E8-16454 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-92-P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3020 [Docket No. CP2008-7; Order No. 84] Administrative Practice and Procedure; Postal Service AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: The Commission is adding the Postal Service's negotiated agreement with China Post Group to the competitive product list. This action is consistent with changes in a recent law governing postal operations. Re-publication of the lists of market dominant and competitive products is also consistent with new requirements in the law. DATES: Effective July 18, 2008. Related Postal Service filings due July 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6820 or *stephen.sharfman@prc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 20, 2008, the Postal Service filed notice, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5, of the Governors' decision establishing prices for competitive products not of general applicability for Inbound Express Mail International (EMS). 1 The Postal Service's filing, docketed as Docket No. CP2008-6, includes supporting material, including the Governors' decision, filed under seal. Concurrently, the Postal Service filed notice, pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5, of a specific negotiated service agreement covering Inbound EMS prices. 2 This filing, docketed as Docket No. CP2008-7, includes the contract and supporting materials filed under seal. 1 Notice of United States Postal Service of Governors' Decision on Inbound Prices Under Express Mail International
(EMS)Bilateral/Multilateral Agreements, May 20, 2008 (Notice). 2 Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing an Agreement for Inbound Express Mail International
(EMS)Prices, May 20, 2008 (Pricing Notice). On June 3, 2008, the Commission issued Order No. 79, which determined that Docket No. CP2008-6 establishes, in essence, a shell classification, while Docket No. CP2008-7 is a specific agreement negotiated pursuant to the conditions of the shell classification. Given this interrelationship, the Commission consolidated the proceedings for purposes of review under Docket No. CP2008-7. 3 3 PRC Order No. 79, Notice and Order Concerning Prices Under Express Mail International Bilateral/Multilateral Agreements, June 3, 2008 at 2 (Order No. 79). In Order No. 79, the Commission also reiterated its position that each negotiated service agreement will initially be classified as a separate product, while acknowledging the possibility of grouping functionally equivalent agreements as a single product if they exhibit similar cost and market characteristics. *Id* . at 2-3. This, in effect, invoked the filing and review requirements of 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B, along with the requirements of rule 3015.5 for competitive products. On June 10, 2008, the Postal Service filed material responsive to questions posed in Order No. 79, and material responsive to 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. 4 The material responsive to 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B included a statement of supporting justification sponsored by Pranab Shah. *See* Postal Service Response, Attachment A. 4 United States Postal Service Response to Order No. 79 and Notice of Filing Information Responsive to Part 3020 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, June 10, 2008 (Postal Service Response). The Commission previously proposed, at a minimum, identifying each international mail agreement with foreign posts involving competitive products (both in the Mail Classification Schedule and in other documents generated by the Commission) by the name(s) of the foreign post(s), the mail product(s) involved, and the agreement's expiration date. Order No. 79 at 3-4. In this instance, the Postal Service did not object to this proposal. Postal Service Response at 3. The Commission also noted that it has made no determination as to whether the portions of the agreement in Docket No. CP2008-7 that relate to outbound mail are subject to its review. Order No. 79 at 3. The Postal Service reiterated its position that an “outbound EMS agreement with China Post Group would no more need to be classified as a product or otherwise subjected to Commission review than would an agreement to purchase trucking services from highway contractors or to purchase air transportation from air carriers.” Postal Service Response at 3. Order No. 79 also provided an opportunity for public comment on the Postal Service's proposals. Comments were received from the Public Representative (an employee of the Commission assigned to represent the interests of the general public) and United Parcel Service. 5 Neither the Public Representative nor United Parcel Service expressed opposition to the China Post Group agreement. 5 Public Representative Comments in Response to United States Postal Service Notice of Negotiated Service Agreement
(NSA)for Inbound Express Mail International
(EMS)with China Post (Public Representative Comments); Comments of United Parcel Service in Response to Order Concerning Prices Under Express Mail International Bilateral/Multilateral Agreements (UPS Comments); both filed June 16, 2008. The Public Representative concludes that the China Post Group agreement “complies with the legal requirements for cost coverage and contribution to the Postal Service's institutional costs.” Public Representative Comments at 4. United Parcel Service supports the Commission's conclusion that this initial agreement be treated as a new product. UPS Comments at 2. It also suggests that because private carriers face more onerous customs and brokerage requirements than the Postal Service, the market for international package delivery and expedited services is less competitive than is often assumed. *Id.* Both the Public Representative and United Parcel Service discuss issues encompassing the provision of materials under seal. Public Representative Comments at 2-3; UPS Comments at 1. *Commission analysis* . The statutory responsibility of the Commission, in this instance, is to assign a new product to either the market dominant list or the competitive product list. 39 U.S.C. 3642. As part of this responsibility, the Commission also will preliminarily review the proposal for compliance with the requirements of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act
(PAEA)of 2006. For proposed competitive products, this includes review of the provisions applicable to rates for competitive products. 39 U.S.C. 3633. The Postal Service contends that adding the shell classification as a product will improve the Postal Service's competitive posture. It argues that this can be accomplished while allowing verification that each agreement covers attributable costs, does not result in subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products, and increases contribution from competitive products. Alternatively, adding the individual agreement as a product also will improve the competitive posture of the Postal Service, but to a lesser degree. Postal Service Response, Attachment A, at 2. The Commission has reviewed the financial analysis provided under seal that accompanies the agreement and finds that the China Post Group agreement should cover its attributable costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(2)), should not lead to the subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(1)), and should have a positive effect on the collective competitive products ability to provide their appropriate share of institutional costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3)). 6 Thus, a preliminary review of the agreement indicates that it comports with the provisions applicable to rates for competitive products. In determining whether to assign the China Post Group agreement as a product to the market dominant product list or the competitive product list the Commission must consider whether: 6 The Commission notes that the Postal Service derived inflation adjustment factors from two point estimates for a 21-month period, September 2007 to May 2009, rather than June 2008 to May 2009, which coincides with the duration of the bilateral agreement. The Commission also notes that the estimate of the total unit cost of inbound Express Mail from China Post Group is based upon an estimate of the unit cost of domestic mail processing that represents an average of the domestic mail processing cost of inbound Express Mail from all countries rather than the average unit domestic mail processing cost for transition system countries. These observations did not have a significant impact on the overall analysis; however, the rationale for a 21-month period and the use of an average should be explained when filing future similar agreements. * * * the Postal Service exercises sufficient market power that it can effectively set the price of such product substantially above costs, raise prices significantly, decrease quality, or decrease output, without risk of losing a significant level of business to other firms offering similar products. 39 U.S.C. 3642(b)(1). If this is the case, the product will be categorized as market dominant. The competitive category of products shall consist of all other products. The Commission is further required to consider the availability and nature of enterprises in the private sector engaged in the delivery of the product, the views of those that use the product, and the likely impact on small business concerns. 39 U.S.C. 3642(b)(3). The Postal Service asserts that its bargaining position is constrained by the existence of other shippers who can provide similar services. Thus, the market precludes the Postal Service from taking unilateral action to increase prices or decrease service without the risk of losing volume to private companies in the international shipping industry. Postal Service Response, Attachment A, at 2-3. The Postal Service contends that private consolidators and freight forwarders may offer international arrangements under similar conditions. *Id* . at 3. The Postal Service has no specific data on the views of those that use the products on the regulatory classification. *Id* . at 4. Finally, the Postal Service states that large shippers serve the market under consideration, and that there should be little impact upon small business other than adding an additional option for shipping articles to the United States. *Id* . The Commission previously assigned Inbound International Expedited Services to the competitive product list. 7 The Postal Service contends that the China Post Group agreement falls within the Inbound International Expedited Services heading. The Commission has not received public opposition to the proposed regulatory classification during the comment period. Having considered the statutory requirements, the argument put forth by the Postal Service, and the public comment, the Commission finds that the China Post Group agreement is appropriately categorized as a competitive product and should be added to the competitive product list. The revisions to the competitive product list are shown below the signature of this order, and shall become effective upon publication in the **Federal Register** . 7 PRC Order No. 43, Order Establishing Ratemaking Regulations for Market Dominant and Competitive Products, October 29, 2008, para. 3019. *Mail Classification Schedule* . The Postal Service previously proposed applicable draft Mail Classification Schedule language governing Inbound Express Mail International Services (EMS). 8 Attachment A to the Governors' decision filed in Docket No. CP2008-6 repeats this language. These proposals suggest assigning the China Post Group agreement to the Express Mail, Inbound Express Mail International category. In Docket Nos. CP2008-4, CP2008-5, CP2008-8, CP2008-9, and CP2008-10, the Postal Service's draft Mail Classification Schedule language proposes to assign the associated agreements to the Negotiated Service Agreements, Outbound International category. The intent of the overall Negotiated Service Agreements category is to organize all negotiated agreements. Thus, the categorization in the instant docket does not appear to be consistent with the other proposals. The Commission invites the Postal Service to share its thoughts and concerns on development of a consistent approach to organizing competitive product negotiated agreements within the Mail Classification Schedule. 8 *See* United States Postal Service Submission of Additional Mail Classification Schedule Information in Response to Order No. 43, November 20, 2007. The Postal Service's proposed Mail Classification Schedule language indicates that other negotiated agreements may exist within Inbound Express Mail International: Bilateral Express Mail Service (EMS); EMS Cooperative Pay for Performance; Kahala Posts Group; European Parcel Group; and China Post Group. The Commission does not have specific information on the negotiated agreements for these products. The Postal Service shall provide the Commission with a list of ongoing agreement names, and expiration dates separated by product, along with a copy of each agreement. 9 Providing this information will aid the Commission in understanding the Postal Service's product offerings, and enhance the transparency of the Postal Service to the mailing community. 9 *See* 39 U.S.C. 407(d)(2). Agreements that fall outside of the defined product models also are to be provided. *Updating the Mail Classification Schedule* . The China Post Group agreement contains provisions for early termination and automatic renewal of the agreement. The Postal Service shall notify the Commission of an early termination no later than the date of termination. The Commission then will remove the agreement from the Mail Classification Schedule at the earliest possible opportunity. The Postal Service also shall notify the Commission of an automatic renewal of the agreement 15 days prior its occurrence. Otherwise, the Commission will assume that the contract has lapsed and remove the agreement from the Mail Classification Schedule without notice. *Additional agreements* . As of now, the China Post Group agreement represented by Inbound International Expedited Services 1 (CP2008-7) in the competitive product list may be considered the same entity. In the future, the Postal Service may enter into other agreements substantially similar to the China Post Group agreement. When this occurs, Inbound International Expedited Services 1 (CP2008-7) will be considered the product and the included individual agreements will be treated as price categories under the product. 10 10 This may require future modification of the China Post Group descriptive language. If the Postal Service determines that it has entered into an agreement substantially equivalent to the China Post Group agreement with another country, it may file such an agreement using the abbreviated requirements provided by rule 3015.5. In each case, the individual agreement must be filed with the Commission, and each agreement must meet the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3633. The Postal Service shall identify all significant differences between the new agreement and the pre-existing product group. Such differences would include terms and conditions that impose new obligations or new requirements on any party to the agreement. The Commission will verify whether or not the second agreement is in fact substantially equivalent. Agreements that are not substantially equivalent will continue to have to meet the filing requirements provided by 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. If this approach proves too cumbersome, alternative approaches may be considered. *Confidentiality of information* . The Commission is aware that the treatment of information as confidential is a sensitive issue. The Postal Service, the Public Representative, and United Parcel Service all express valid concerns that the Commission will address in the future on a broader level. In this docket, the Commission will take a limited first step to add transparency and facilitate the process of reviewing future agreements of this style. The Commission has reviewed the Governor's decision supporting the request provided as required by rule 3020.31(b), and has determined that most of the document does not pose a risk of competitive harm if disclosed. In fact, the Postal Service disclosed similar information associated with Docket Nos. CP2008-8, CP2008-9, and CP2008-10. The Postal Service is directed to file a redacted version of the Governor's decision provided under seal in Docket No. CP2008-6. 11 11 The redacted version should be filed under Docket No. MC2008-7. The Commission anticipates the redacted version will be similar in nature to what the Postal Service provided associated with Docket Nos. CP2008-8, CP2008-9, and CP2008-10 on June 16, 2008. *It is Ordered:* 1. The China Post Group agreement is added as a product not of general applicability to the competitive product list under Inbound International Expedited Services as Inbound International Expedited Services 1 (CP2008-7). 2. The Postal Service shall provide the Commission with suggestions regarding the development of a consistent approach to organizing competitive product negotiated agreements within the Mail Classification Schedule by July 23, 2008. 3. The Postal Service shall file with the Commission a list of all ongoing Inbound International Expedited Services agreements and expiration dates separated by product, along with a copy of each agreement, by July 23, 2008. 4. The Postal Service shall file with the Commission a redacted version of the Governors' decision provided under seal in Docket No. CP2008-6 by July 23, 2008. 5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the **Federal Register** . By the Commission. Issued: June 27, 2008. Steven W. Williams, Secretary. List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3020 Administrative practice and procedure; Postal Service. For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority at 39 U.S.C. 503, the Postal Regulatory Commission amends 39 CFR part 3020 as follows: 1. The authority citation for part 3020 continues to read as follows: Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 3682. 2. In Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020 revise sections 1000 and 2000 to read as follows: Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020—Mail Classification Schedule Part A—Market Dominant Products 1000 Market Dominant Product List First-Class Mail Single-piece Letters/Postcards Bulk Letters/Postcards Flats Parcels Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Inbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Standard Mail (Regular and Nonprofit) High Density and Saturation Letters High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels Carrier Route Letters Flats Not Flat-Machinables (NFMs)/Parcels Periodicals Within County Periodicals Outside County Periodicals Package Services Single-Piece Parcel Post Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at UPU rates) Bound Printed Matter Flats Bound Printed Matter Parcels Media Mail/Library Mail Special Services Ancillary Services International Ancillary Services Address List Services Caller Service Change-of-Address Credit Card Authentication Confirm International Reply Coupon Service International Business Reply Mail Service Money Orders Post Office Box Service Premium Forwarding Service (Experiment) Negotiated Service Agreements Discover Financial Services Negotiated Service Agreement Bank One Negotiated Service Agreement HSBC North America Holdings Inc. Negotiated Service Agreement Bookspan Negotiated Service Agreement 1001 Market Dominant Product Descriptions Part B—Competitive Products 2000 Competitive Product List Express Mail Express Mail Outbound International Expedited Services Inbound International Expedited Services Inbound International Expedited Services 1 (CP2008-7) Priority Mail Priority Mail Outbound Priority Mail International Inbound Air Parcel Post Parcel Select Parcel Return Service International International Priority Airlift
(IPA)International Surface Airlift
(ISAL)International Direct Sacks—M-Bags Global Customized Shipping Services Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates) International Money Transfer Service International Ancillary Services Negotiated Service Agreements Domestic Outbound International [FR Doc. E8-16031 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1120; FRL-8693-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements for Marine Vessel and Barge Loading AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision establishes and requires reasonably available control technology
(RACT)for the control of volatile organic compound
(VOC)emissions from marine vessel and barge loading. EPA is approving this SIP revision in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1120. All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland, 21230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gobeail McKinley,
(215)814-2033, or by e-mail at *mckinley.gobeail@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On April 15, 2008 (73 FR 20234), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed approval of the control of VOC emissions from marine vessel and barge loading by establishing RACT requirements. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE)on October 24, 2007. II. Summary of SIP Revision The Maryland Department of the Environment submitted this revision to the SIP to establish reasonably available control technology requirements for marine vessel and barging loading. The SIP revision includes amendments to Regulation .01 and adoption of new Regulation .08 under COMAR 26.11.13 Control of Gasoline and Volatile Organic Compound Storage and Handling. The amendment to COMAR 26.11.13.01 consists of a new definition that defines a marine vessel as any tank ship or barge that transports VOCs in bulk as cargo. The new regulation COMAR 26.11.13.08 requires owners or operators of barge loading facilities in Baltimore City, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George's Counties to reduce capture of VOC vapors by 90 percent if emissions from the barge loading equal or exceed 25 tons per year (TPY). In the rest of the state (Allegheny, Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne's, St. Mary's, Somerset, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, and Worchester Counties), controls are required if emissions are equal to or exceed 50 TPY. The rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. On April 15, 2008, EPA received a comment on the April 15, 2008 NPR. A summary of the comment submitted and EPA's response is provided in section III of this document. III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Response *Comment:* A single commenter questions why the state is establishing a RACT standard for marine vessel and barge loading instead of a Best Available Control Technology
(BACT)or Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT)standard. The commenter also claims that established BACT and MACT standards would achieve greater control than the proposed RACT standard, though at cost ranging from somewhat less than estimated by the state. *Response:* These amendments, submitted by the State of Maryland establishing RACT requirements for VOC emissions from marine vessel and barge loading, are being approved by EPA because EPA has determined that they properly represent RACT for this source category. Since the 1970's, EPA has consistently interpreted RACT to mean the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of the control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. *See, e.g.* , 72 FR 20586 at 20610 (April 25, 2007). Maryland submitted this SIP revision request pursuant to the RACT requirements of sections 182 and 184 of the CAA. Other provisions of the CAA may require BACT or MACT level controls for sources. However, these are generally considered to be more stringent than RACT, and thus, the controls necessary to meet BACT or MACT requirements may not be the same as controls that would meet the RACT requirement. Maryland is located in the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR)that was created by section 184 of the CAA. Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires that Maryland implement RACT regulations on all VOC sources that have the potential to emit 50 TPY or more. In addition, section 182(b)(2) requires that Maryland implement RACT regulations on all major sources of VOC in moderate or above ozone nonattainment areas within the State. Major VOC sources are those with the potential to emit at least 100 TPY in moderate areas, 50 TPY in serious areas, and 25 TPY in severe areas. BACT, on the other hand, is a case-by-case emissions limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction of a regulated pollutant emitted from a major new source or a major modification of an existing source, as determined by application of EPA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations, 40 CFR 52.21, which are authorized by sections 160-169 of the CAA. BACT, therefore, is determined by a different standard than RACT and does not apply to unmodified existing sources that would be covered by the RACT rule. Similarly, MACT is also a distinct legal requirement and is determined through a different standard than RACT. MACT standards are designed to reduce hazardous air pollutants emissions to a maximum achievable degree, taking into account factors such as cost and energy requirements, as set forth at 40 CFR 63.41, and as authorized by section 112 of the CAA. Although EPA has promulgated a standard for barge loading (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart Y), as with BACT, not every source required to be covered by the Maryland RACT rule would be required to have a MACT limit, and the definition of MACT takes into account factors that are not required for RACT. In sum, RACT, MACT, and BACT are potentially overlapping emissions limitation requirements, authorized by different provisions of the CAA, directed to remedy distinct problems (RACT, in this case, to help attain the federal ozone standard by controlling emissions of VOC, an ozone precursor; BACT to prevent significant deterioration in areas attaining a federal standard through permitting of new and modified sources; and MACT to control emissions of listed hazardous air pollutants), covering different (but potentially overlapping) subsets of sources, and based on different control standards. The commenter's failure to document and support either cost data provided in the comment, or the methodology the commenter used to determine BACT/MACT, prevents EPA from ascertaining whether or not the commenter has properly determined BACT/MACT for these operations, the relative costs compared to the RACT adopted by the State, where the cost data supplied in the comment comes from, or if it is valid. Mere assertions, without analysis, that EPA's proposal is wrong are an insufficient basis for EPA to disapprove this SIP. See *International Fabricare Inst.* v. *EPA* , 972 F.2d 384 (D.C.Cir. 1992). EPA has evaluated Maryland's SIP submittal and determined that the Maryland regulation meets the requirements for RACT. Because this SIP revision meets the criteria for RACT, as well as the other approvability criteria, EPA must approve this SIP revision. *See* section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3); *see also, Union Elec. Co.* v. *EPA* , 427 U.S. 246, 265, 96 S.Ct. 2518, 49 L.Ed.2d 474 (1976). III. Final Action EPA is approving the control of volatile organic compound emissions by establishing reasonably available control technology requirements for marine vessel and barge loading as a revision to the Maryland SIP which was submitted on October 24, 2007. This regulation will result in the reduction of VOC emissions from the affected sources. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 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 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. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.,* as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action pertaining to Maryland's amendments to the control of volatile organic compound emissions by establishing RACT requirements for marine vessel and barge loading may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: July 2, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart V—Maryland 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph
(c)is amended by revising the entry for COMAR 26.11.13.01 and adding the entry for COMAR 26.11.13.08 to read as follows: § 52.1070 Identification of plan. (c)* * * EPA-Approved Regulations in the Maryland SIP Code of Maryland administrative regulations (COMAR) citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 * * * * * * * COMAR 26.11.13 Control of Gasoline and Volatile Organic Compound Storage and Handling * * * * * * * 26.11.13.01 Definitions 10/8/07 *07/18/08* [Insert page number where the document begins] 26.11.13.08 Control of VOC Emissions from Marine Vessel Loading 10/8/07 *07/18/08* [Insert page number where the document begins] New regulation * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E8-16272 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0188; FRL-8692-9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for the Snyder County Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Snyder County Area. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Snyder County Area as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0188. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,
(215)814-2096, or by e-mail at *linden.melissa@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On May 27, 2008 (73 FR 30347), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Snyder County Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after designation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on December 17, 2007. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's SIP revision and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. II. Final Action EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Snyder County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Snyder County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 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 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. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Snyder County Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: July 3, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for Snyder County at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2020 Identification of plan.
(e)* * *
(1)* * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory Snyder County 12/17/07 07/18/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] [FR Doc. E8-16274 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0184; FRL-8693-4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for the Juniata County Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Juniata County Area. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Juniata County Area as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0184. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,
(215)814-2096, or by e-mail at *linden.melissa@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On May 27, 2008 (73 FR 30352), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Juniata County Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after designation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on December 17, 2007. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's SIP revision and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. II. Final Action EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Juniata County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Juniata County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 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 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. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit September 16, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Juniata County Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: July 3, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for Juniata County at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2020 Identification of plan.
(e)* * *
(1)* * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory Juniata County 12/17/07 *07/18/08* [Insert page number where the document begins] [FR Doc. E8-16276 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0185; FRL-8693-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for the Lawrence County Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Lawrence County Area. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Lawrence County Area as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0185. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,
(215)814-2096, or by e-mail at *linden.melissa@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On May 27, 2008 (73 FR 30342), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Lawrence County Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after designation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on December 17, 2007. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's SIP revision and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. II. Final Action EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Lawrence County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Lawrence County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 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 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. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Lawrence County Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: July 3, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for Lawrence County at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2020 Identification of plan.
(e)* * *
(1)* * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory Lawrence County 12/17/07 07/18/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] [FR Doc. E8-16273 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0186; FRL-8693-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for the Northumberland County Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Northumberland County Area. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Northumberland County Area as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0186. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,
(215)814-2096, or by e-mail at *linden.melissa@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On May 27, 2008 (73 FR 30345), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Northumberland County Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after designation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on December 17, 2007. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's SIP revision and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. II. Final Action EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Northumberland County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Northumberland County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 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 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. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Northumberland County Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: July 3, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for Northumberland County at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2020 Identification of plan.
(e)* * *
(1)* * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory Northumberland County 12/17/07 07/18/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] [FR Doc. E8-16271 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0313, FRL-8694-1] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Pesticide Element; Ventura County AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is approving a revision of the California State Implementation Plan submitted by the California Air Resources Board on November 30, 2007. The revision in part, and temporarily, relaxes a commitment to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds in Ventura County caused by the application of pesticides. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective on August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0313 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX,
(520)622-1622, *tax.wienke@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action II. Public Comments and EPA Responses A. Comments on the Economic Consequences of EPA Action on the SIP Revision B. Comments on the Environmental Consequences of EPA Action on the SIP Revision C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l) Issues D. Comments on Technical Issue of Whether Reduction Is Based on Tonnage or Percentage Reductions E. Comment About the Opportunity to Comment F. Comments on Whether Best Available Control Technology
(BACT)Can Achieve the Necessary Reductions III. EPA's Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action On April 23, 2008 (73 FR 21885), we proposed to approve a revision of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP)submitted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB)on November 30, 2007. Table 1 lists the revision we proposed to approve with the dates that it was revised and submitted by CARB. Table 1.—Submitted SIP Revision Proposed for Full Approval State agency SIP revision Amended Submitted CARB Revised Proposed Revision to the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura County Nonattainment Area (August 13, 2007) November 30, 2007 November 30, 2007. CARB's November 30, 2007 SIP revision submittal package includes the “Revised Proposed Revision to the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura County Nonattainment Area (August 13, 2007)” (“Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura”) as attachment 3 to Executive Order S-07-003. As discussed in detail in our April 23, 2008, proposed rule, California adopted the original Pesticide Element to reduce volatile organic compounds
(VOC)emissions resulting from the application of agricultural and structural pesticides in certain ozone nonattainment areas and included the Pesticide Element in the 1994 Ozone SIP. Under the original Pesticide Element, for the Ventura County nonattainment area (Ventura), the California Department of Pesticide Regulation
(DPR)committed to adopt and submit to EPA by June 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and structural pesticides by 20 percent of the 1990 base year emissions by 2005. California further defined DPR's commitment in Ventura under the Pesticide Element in terms of VOC emissions reductions of 2.4 tons per day by 2005. 1 See 62 FR 1150, at 1169-1170 and at 1187 (January 8, 1997); and 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(A)(6) and 52.220(c)(236). In 1997, we approved the 1994 Ozone SIP, including the Pesticide Element. See 62 FR 1150, at 1169-1170 (January 8, 1997). In today's action, we are approving a revision by the State of California to the Pesticide Element for Ventura County. 1 Tonnage commitment is 2.37 tons per day per letter dated June 13, 1996, from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp, including “Corrections to State and Local Measures” (Attachment A) and “Summary Emission Reduction Spreadsheets” (Attachment C). In our April 23, 2008, proposed rule, we also described the replacement of the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), for which the 1994 Ozone SIP (and related original Pesticide Element) was developed, with the current 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, we noted that California had requested a change in classification, with respect to the 8-hour NAAQS for the Ventura County nonattainment area from “moderate” to “serious” with a new attainment date of June 15, 2013. We also indicated that we had reviewed the subject SIP revision assuming the “serious” classification in anticipation of our approval of the State's request. We have now approved the State's reclassification request. See 73 FR 29073 (May 20, 2008). In our April 23, 2008, proposed rule, we presented our evaluation of the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura first by characterizing the change in VOC emissions in Ventura County that would occur if we were to approve the revision, and then by determining whether the change in VOC emissions would interfere with reasonable further progress
(RFP)or attainment of any of the NAAQS as required under CAA section 110(l). We described the impact of the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura in terms of a reduction in the State's emission reduction commitments by 1.3 tons per day in 2008, 1.0 tons per day in 2009, 0.7 tons per day in 2010, and 0.3 tons per day in 2011 that allows a corresponding increase in VOC in Ventura County in those years. With respect to CAA section 110(l), we found that the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura would not interfere with RFP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, notwithstanding the corresponding, temporary increase in VOC emissions, based on the air quality analysis contained in the Draft Final Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP)(March 2008), which includes an RFP demonstration that does not rely on emissions reductions from pesticides. In reaching our conclusion of non-interference with respect to 8-hour ozone RFP, we reviewed the RFP demonstration in the draft Ventura County 2007 AQMP and concluded that the methodology and emission estimates used therein appear reasonable. In our proposed rule, we indicated that we would defer final action on our proposed approval of the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura until we had received a SIP revision submittal from California containing the final 8-hour ozone Ventura RFP plan. We have now received the final adopted 8-hour ozone Ventura RFP plan from CARB. 2 2 On June 27, 2008, CARB submitted the Final Ventura County 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (May 13, 2008), which includes the final 8-hour ozone RFP demonstration for Ventura County. The final adopted plan mirrors the draft Ventura County AQMP that we relied upon in our proposed approval of the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura. In our proposed rule, in addition to our RFP finding, we found that the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura would not interfere with attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the temporary decrease in the VOC emissions reduction commitment allowed under the revised pesticide element would be phased out by 2012, i.e., the year before the attainment deadline (June 15, 2013) for Ventura County as a reclassified “serious” ozone nonattainment area. Thus, based on the air quality analysis contained in the draft Ventura County 2007 AQMP and the phase-out of the relaxed commitment by 2012, we concluded that the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura would not interfere with RFP, attainment, or any other applicable requirement with respect to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. With respect to the other NAAQS, we based our non-interference conclusion on our finding that the SIP revision would only affect VOC emissions (precursor to ozone) and because Ventura County is unclassifiable/attainment for all of the other NAAQS. For a more detailed discussion, please refer to our proposed rule (see 73 FR 21885, April 23, 2008). II. Public Comments and EPA Responses Our April 23, 2008 proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period. EPA received seven comment letters on our proposed rule during the comment period. Commenters include a government agency (California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)), a State-sanctioned agricultural commission (California Strawberry Commission), two sets of agricultural groups (Western Growers and California Farm Bureau Federation (co-authored a single letter) and Ventura County Agricultural Association), a pesticides manufacturing group (Chloropicrin Manufacturers' Task Force), and two environmental groups (Pesticide Action Network, and Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment). Generally, the organizations other than the environmental groups provided comments in support of our proposed approval of the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura. These commenters concentrated the discussion on the economic and environmental consequences of the decision on whether or not to approve the proposed revision. Of the two environmental groups who wrote opposing our proposed approval, one raised concerns about the health issues related to the smog in the area, of which pesticide application is a contributor, and the other focused on allegations that the SIP revision would violate section 110(l) of the CAA. Additionally, commenters writing both in support and opposition to our proposed approval remarked upon the technical issue of whether the commitment was to reduce emissions by a tonnage or percentage value. A summary of the significant comments and responses is provided below. A. Comments on the Economic Consequences of EPA Action on the SIP Revision *Comment 1:* The majority of commenters emphasize that a reduction in the use of certain fumigants, as a result of a failure to approve the SIP revision, would have a significant, adverse economic impact on the farmers, as well as many others who depend on the agriculture industry. One commenter stresses the long reach of that economic loss, noting that there would be lost revenue to the community, lost jobs to the community, and lost land rents affecting bank loans and financing. These supporters contend that the phased-in approach to compliance will help mitigate adverse economic and environmental impacts in the region, while restoring the ultimate emissions reduction commitments under the 1994 Ozone SIP. *Response 1:* EPA's role in reviewing SIP revisions is to approve State choices, provided that they meet minimum criteria set by the CAA and any applicable EPA regulations. As discussed in our proposed rule and as discussed further in this final rule, we believe the SIP revision that is the subject of this action, the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, meets those criteria. Thus, while we acknowledge commenters' views as to the economic impacts that could occur if we were to disapprove the SIP revision, we did not base our proposed approval, nor do we base our final approval today, on such considerations. B. Comments on the Environmental Consequences of EPA Action on the SIP Revision *Comment 2:* A few of the commenters address the negative environmental impacts that, in their view, a failure by EPA to approve the SIP revision could create. They explain that the economic strain that would come with the denial of the revision would force a substantial portion of the agricultural land to be converted to urban and suburban development. This conversion, they assert, will result in a large amount of additional emissions from an increase in vehicle traffic and residences (e.g. use of consumer products). *Response 2:* We acknowledge commenters' views concerning long-term conversion of agricultural land to urban development and related environmental impacts that could occur if we were to disapprove the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura. However, we did not take such considerations into account in our proposed action, nor do we take such considerations into account for our final action today. With the limited amount of information on the topic of agricultural land conversion and related environmental impacts that is before us, we do not have a sufficient basis either to agree or to disagree with the commenters' view in that regard. Instead, we have based our approval on an evaluation of the near-certain increase in VOC emissions that would occur from 2008-2011 due to the SIP revision in light of CAA requirements, and have concluded that such VOC increases in Ventura County over the short-term would not interfere with RFP or attainment of any of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act. It is important to note that, while we describe the effect of the SIP revision as an increase in VOC emissions, we do not expect there to be an increase in overall VOC emissions within Ventura County over the period affected by the SIP revision, but only that the expected overall decrease would be slightly less with the SIP revision than would occur if the SIP revision were not approved. *Comment 3:* Two commenters state that the approval and implementation of the SIP revision would be accomplished without substantial adverse impacts to air quality in Ventura County or to the health or safety of its citizens. This conclusion is founded on the commenters' belief that the actual VOC from pesticides are a very small percentage of all VOC in Ventura. *Response 3:* As discussed in our proposed rule (see 73 FR 21885, April 23, 2008), we believe that the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura would have an adverse impact on air quality in the short-term as it would allow greater VOC emissions, and thereby incrementally slow the downward trend in such emissions and associated ozone concentrations, as compared to fully achieving the commitments for pesticide-related emission reductions in the 1994 Ozone SIP. However, we have determined that the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura would not interfere with RFP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on our review of the RFP demonstration in the Ventura County 2007 AQMP that does not rely on the foregone pesticide-related emissions reductions. 3 Further, we note that, by its terms, the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura phases out over four years (2008-2011), ensuring that it would not interfere with Ventura's ability to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the serious area deadline (i.e., June 15, 2013). 3 We note that the RFP demonstration that was contained in the draft Ventura County 2007 AQMP (March 2008) and that was included in the docket for our April 23, 2008 proposed rule mirrors the RFP demonstration in the final Ventura County 2007 AQMP (May 13, 2008) that was adopted by Ventura County on May 13, 2008, and adopted by CARB on June 26, 2008, and submitted to us on June 27, 2008. We received no comments on the substance of the RFP demonstration in response to our April 23, 2008 proposed rule. *Comment 4:* One commenter is concerned that EPA approval of the revision of the SIP would further delay efforts to reduce smog, of which pesticide application is a contributor, in the region and hence the area would continue to suffer from air pollution created by smog, which damages lung tissue, exacerbates asthma, reduces lung capacity, increases respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions, and increases school and work absenteeism. *Response 4:* We acknowledge the commenter's concerns over the health effects associated with elevated ozone concentrations. As discussed in our proposal, we believe that the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura would have an adverse impact on ozone air quality in the short-term as it would allow greater VOC emissions, and thereby incrementally slow the downward trend in such emissions and associated ozone concentrations, as compared to fully achieving the commitments for pesticide-related emission reductions in the 1994 Ozone SIP. Nonetheless, under the Clean Air Act, we must approve a SIP revision notwithstanding such impacts so long as all of the applicable requirements of the CAA (and applicable EPA regulations) are met. We have determined that the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura meets all applicable CAA requirements and applicable EPA regulations. For instance, notwithstanding the temporary increase in VOC emissions associated with the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, we have concluded that it would not interfere with RFP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in that area based on our review of the RFP demonstration in the Ventura County 2007 AQMP, which does not rely on the foregone pesticide-related emissions reductions, nor would it interfere with expeditious attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, because the effect of the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura diminishes each year through 2011 and phases out completely well before the serious area deadline (June 15, 2013). *Comment 5:* Some of the commenters assert that there would be no “backsliding” from the overall 1994 SIP commitments for Ventura County, because all of the reactive organic gases
(ROG)emission reductions committed to in the 1994 SIP would still be achieved. This assertion is based on the argument that a portion of the ROG reductions for Ventura County would come from other emission sources. *Response 5:* As stated in our proposed rule, we do not agree with CARB that emissions reductions from California's mobile source emissions control program are “surplus” for 8-hour ozone planning purposes, and thus, we do not agree that such reductions are a substitute for the foregone emissions reductions that would occur under the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura. See 73 FR 21885, at 21887 (April 23, 2008). Notwithstanding the temporary increase in VOC (equivalent to ROG) emissions resulting therefrom, we are approving the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura because, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and this final rule, we find that it would not interfere with any requirement concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act. C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l) Issues *Comment 6:* One commenter argues that EPA cannot propose approval of the SIP revision because it has not approved the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan and the 8-hour ozone reasonable further progress plan. It is suggested that approving the SIP revision before the attainment plan and reasonable further progress demonstration would make EPA's decision arbitrary and capricious because it has no basis to make the finding that the revision would not interfere with attainment. *Response 6:* For our final action, we are not relying on an EPA-approved 8-hour ozone RFP or attainment demonstration for Ventura, but rather, are relying on our review of the RFP demonstration included in the Ventura County 2007 AQMP as a reasonable basis for our finding of non-interference with respect to RFP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS under CAA section 110(l). We do not believe the attainment demonstration (approved or otherwise) to be necessary to this action because the effect of the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, by its terms, phases out completely by 2012, the year before the attainment deadline (June 15, 2013). 4 As discussed further below, we do not believe that an approved RFP demonstration is necessary to approve the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura based on our preliminary review of the air quality analysis in the Ventura County 2007 AQMP that shows how the area will maintain reasonable further progress towards the 8-hour NAAQS without the benefit of VOC emissions reductions from pesticide use. 4 The phase-out will also be complete before any attainment deadline for the 0.075 ppm 8-hour ozone standard. See generally, CAA sections 107(d), 181(a). As explained in the proposed rule at 73 FR at 21888-21889, we found, based on our review of the air quality analysis contained therein, the RFP demonstration in the draft Ventura County 2007 AQMP to be a reasonable basis to propose approval of the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura because the demonstration does not rely on VOC emission reductions from pesticide use to show RFP and the methods and emissions estimates used to demonstrate RFP in the AQMP appear reasonable. However, given the preliminary nature of our review of the RFP demonstration in the draft Ventura County 2007 AQMP, we concluded that it would be appropriate for us to wait for the final adopted AQMP to be submitted to us, and to consider any changes to the RFP demonstration as well as any public comments on the RFP demonstration submitted in connection with adoption of the plan at the county and State levels, and any public comments submitted in response to our April 23, 2008 proposed rule, prior to taking final action on the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura. We described our approach, including our reliance on a draft SIP revision and our deferral of final action pending receipt of the adopted SIP revision including public comments, in our proposed rule at 73 FR 21889. On June 27, 2008, CARB submitted the Final Ventura County 2007 Ventura County AQMP (May 13, 2008) as a revision to the California SIP. There were no public comments submitted either at the local district level or at the State level in relation to the AQMP's RFP demonstration, and the final adopted RFP demonstration is the same as the one in the Draft Final AQMP that was a basis for our proposed rule. We did not receive any comments on the substance of the RFP demonstration in the Ventura County 2007 AQMP in response to our April 23, 2008 proposed rule. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the proposed rule, we continue to believe that the RFP demonstration in the 2007 Ventura County AQMP, even though it has not been approved, provides a reasonable basis for us to make our non-interference finding with respect to the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura. *Comment 7:* One commenter objected to EPA's finding that the SIP revision does not interfere with “any other applicable requirement” of the Act when, in the commenters' opinion, the proposed SIP revision directly interferes with a court order issued to remedy a violation of the SIP. Noting that the EPA has not made an attainment finding for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in Ventura County, the commenter further contends that EPA cannot approve the SIP revision without making a finding that the revision does not interfere with attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable deadline. *Response 7:* We do not agree with the commenter's contention that the existence of a court order enforcing the existing SIP precludes a finding of non-interference under CAA section 110(l) with respect to a SIP revision amending the portion of the existing SIP that is under the court order. EPA is not a party to the lawsuit from which the court order emanates, and the court order is not itself part of the SIP. Thus, the existence of a court order under these circumstances is not material to EPA's evaluation of the subject SIP revision under CAA section 110(l), and as set forth in the proposed rule and further discussed in this document, we conclude that the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura would not interfere with any requirement concerning RFP or attainment of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement under the Clean Air Act. By the same token, however, our approval today of the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura does not relieve any obligations under the court order, but, as noted in the proposed rule at 73 FR 21886, footnote 2, we expect that our approval of the SIP revision will allow California to seek a modification to the court order. Second, the commenter's assertion that we cannot make a finding of non-interference for the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura without having first evaluated whether the SIP revision would interfere with attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 1-hour ozone attainment deadline is incorrect because the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has been revoked. By way of explanation, we note that, under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, States were required to develop, adopt and submit for EPA approval various SIP revisions to provide for expeditious attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by no later than the applicable deadline. However, under the Act, attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the deadline is not itself a separate requirement, although failure to do so, even now that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has been revoked, may have certain consequences such as the triggering of contingency measures. Nonetheless, we reviewed Ventura County's 1-hour ozone data contained in EPA's Air Quality System
(AQS)database, the database in which quality-assured concentration data from the States' monitoring networks are recorded, and note that Ventura County appears to have attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 1-hour ozone NAAQS deadline
(2005)and appears to have continued to have been in attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS since that time. Furthermore, as noted in response to comment #2, above, while we describe the effect of the SIP revision as an increase in VOC emissions, we mean that there would be an increase in VOC emissions relative to what otherwise would occur. We do not mean that there would be an increase in overall VOC emissions within Ventura County over the period affected by the SIP revision. Rather, we expect that overall VOC emissions in Ventura County, with or without approval of this SIP revision, would decrease, reducing the potential for 1-hour ozone violations during the period affected by the SIP revision. See ROG emissions projections in table 4-6 on page 61 of the Ventura County 2007 AQMP. Thus, even if interference with attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS by the applicable deadline were material to this action, the AQS data provides us with the basis to reasonably conclude that the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura would have no such effect. Our observations herein related to ambient 1-hour ozone concentrations are not tantamount to an attainment finding for Ventura County for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. We expect to propose such a finding through a separate rulemaking in the near future. *Comment 8:* One commenter claims the SIP revision relies on a new pesticide inventory, a part of the State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan and the Draft Ventura 2007 Air Quality Management Plan that has not been approved by the EPA, and that the pesticide inventory lacks the appropriate scientific basis. *Response 8:* California's Department of Pesticide Regulation
(DPR)develops and continues to update baseline and current year inventories to evaluate pesticide VOC emissions. The refinement of emissions estimates is ongoing and necessary to better characterize and quantify emissions and control measures. We proposed to approve the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura into the California SIP based on a finding of non-interference with 8-hour ozone RFP, which was itself based on a review of the Ventura County 2007 AQMP, and specifically, the RFP demonstration contained therein, and consideration of any related public comments. The AQMP includes an air quality analysis that demonstrates RFP toward attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS without the attribution of VOC emissions reductions from pesticides. The estimated VOC emissions from pesticide use are included in the baseline emissions estimates of the RFP demonstration, and if they were significantly underestimated, the RFP demonstration might be undermined. However, the RFP demonstration in the Ventura County 2007 AQMP shows a significant surplus in oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ) (i.e., the other ozone precursor in addition to VOC) after meeting substitution and contingency needs. See page 73 of the AQMP. The surplus in NO <sup>X</sup> in the RFP milestone year of 2011, for example, amounts to roughly 150 tons per day. Thus, even if the estimate for VOCs from pesticides were double or triple the AQMP estimate of 4.82 tons per day, RFP would continue to be demonstrated based on the analysis in the Ventura County 2007 AQMP. D. Comments on Technical Issue of Whether Reduction Is Based on Tonnage or Percentage Reductions *Comment 9:* Commenters in support and in opposition to our proposed action assert that the existing SIP commitment from the Pesticide Element in the 1994 Ozone SIP is only to achieve a percentage reduction from the 1990 baseline inventory and not, in addition, a commitment to achieve a tonnage reduction as our proposed rule states. A commenter in opposition to the proposed approval contends that in presenting the commitment in a tons-per-day amount, EPA is overstepping its authority and amending a SIP, rather than reviewing it under the proper standards of section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act. Lastly, DPR clarifies the basis for certain VOC emissions estimates attributed to DPR and cited in the proposed rule. *Response 9* : Commenters and EPA both agree that the State's SIP commitment (from the 1994 Ozone SIP) with respect to VOC emissions reductions from use of pesticides in Ventura County is defined in terms of percent reduction from base year emissions. The point of disagreement is that EPA states in the proposed rule that the commitment is a two-fold commitment defined in terms of both a percent reduction and a tonnage reduction. Our interpretation of the original Pesticide Element commitment as having both a tonnage reduction commitment in addition to the percent reduction commitment rests on general and specific grounds. First, EPA has traditionally found committal measures, such as the commitment to reduce VOC emissions in the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP, to be enforceable, and thus approvable, only if such measures identify the responsible party, adoption dates for rules, implementation dates, and emissions reductions in terms of emissions rates (such as tons per day) equal to the credit taken in the RFP or attainment plan for the committal measure. The tonnage specification provides the essential link between the committal measure and the RFP or attainment demonstration. See the general discussion of committal measures in EPA's final rule approving the 1994 Ozone SIP at 62 FR 1150 (January 8, 1997), at 1155-1157, and the specific discussion of the committal measures submitted as part of the 1994 Ozone SIP at 1157, column 3. In this case, the tonnage commitment (for 2005) links the original Pesticide Element commitment to the approved attainment demonstration for Ventura County. Each specific element of a committal measure, once the measure is approved by EPA, is considered to be enforceable. Thus, we believe that EPA would not have found the original Pesticide Element commitment for Ventura approvable unless the measure included the 2.37 tons per day reduction in pesticide VOC emissions in 2005 that was credited to the measure in the 1994 Ozone SIP. Second of all, we find support for our conclusion in the California SIP in the form of the letter from James D. Boyd, Executive Officer, CARB, to David Howekamp, Director, Air and Toxics Division, EPA-Region IX, dated June 13, 1996 (“Boyd letter”), that includes an attachment C that specifies a 2.37 tons per day commitment in 2005 in Ventura County under the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP. The second page of the Boyd letter describes attachment C as follows: “In Attachment C, we provide summary spreadsheets identifying the reductions that the State committed to achieve and that we expect from the federal government, by measure, area, and milestone year. These summary tables contain the numbers used in the rate-of-progress and attainment demonstrations, as reflected in Volume IV of the California SIP.” The Boyd letter, explicitly including attachment C, is incorporated by reference into the California SIP at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(236)(i)(A)(1). The commenters cite attachment A of the Boyd letter (also referred to as the “Howekamp letter”) as evidence that the Pesticide Element only includes a percent reduction commitment, but we interpret the meaning of attachment A (“commitment is for a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by 2005 in each SIP area, except SD”) as clarifying that a percent reduction commitment (related to the Pesticide Element) did not, as set forth in EPA's proposed rule on the 1994 Ozone SIP, exist for the RFP milestone years in Ventura County but only existed for the attainment year (2005). In other words, we do not view attachment A as excluding the existence of a tonnage reduction commitment in 2005 as set forth in attachment C to the Boyd letter. In any event, under the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, the original commitment from the 1994 Ozone SIP, whether defined exclusively in terms of percent reduction or also as a tonnage reduction, will be entirely restored by year 2012, and no VOC emissions reductions from pesticide use are relied upon in the 8-hour ozone RFP demonstration in the Ventura County 2007 AQMP. Thus, our rationale for approval of the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura does not depend upon definitive resolution of the issue of whether the original commitment from the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP is two-fold or just a percent reduction commitment. Lastly, EPA appreciates DPR's clarification of the estimates of pesticide-related VOC emissions in years 1990 and 1991. E. Comment About the Opportunity To Comment *Comment 10* : One commenter alleges that EPA has not provided the public with the opportunity to comment on the basis for its proposed findings—on whether the SIP revision interferes with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other requirement of the CAA, as required by section 110(l)— which violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Along the same lines, the commenter contends that EPA has failed to provide relevant documents requested in violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and that the denial of documents on which to base comments interfered with the opportunity to comment in a meaningful manner. *Response 10* : EPA has provided the public with the materials on which we have based our proposed action through creation of a docket for the rulemaking. In our proposed rule, at 73 FR 21886, we indicate where the index to the docket can be located and indicate how to access the items listed in the docket. Among the items so listed is Ventura County Air Pollution Control District's “Final Draft Ventura County 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2008),” which contains the air quality analysis, specifically, the RFP demonstration, that we relied upon in the proposed rule for our finding that the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura would not interfere with RFP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See footnote 5 of the proposed rule, at 73 FR 21888. For our final action, we are not relying on an EPA-approved 8-hour RFP demonstration for Ventura, but rather, are relying on our review of the RFP demonstration included in the Ventura County 2007 AQMP as a reasonable basis for our finding of non-interference with respect to RFP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS under CAA section 110(l). We described our approach, including our reliance on a draft AQMP and our deferral of final action pending receipt and consideration of the adopted SIP revision including any related public comments, as well as any comments made in response to our April 23, 2008 proposed rule, in our proposed rule at 73 FR 21889. There were no public comments submitted either at the local district level or at the State level in relation to the AQMP's RFP demonstration nor did we receive any comments on the substance of the RFP demonstration in the Ventura County 2007 AQMP in response to our April 23, 2008 proposed rule. Moreover, the final adopted RFP demonstration is the same as the one in the draft AQMP that was a basis for our proposed rule. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the proposed rule, we continue to believe that the RFP demonstration in the Ventura County 2007 AQMP, even though it has not been approved, is a reasonable basis to make our non-interference finding with respect to the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura. As explained above and because the RFP demonstration in the final Ventura County 2007 AQMP, that was submitted on June 27, 2008, is no different than the one available at the time we proposed action, we conclude that the public has had an opportunity to know and review the basis for our proposed action, consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). We will be taking action on the final adopted Ventura County 2007 AQMP, as submitted by CARB on June 27, 2008, in a separate rulemaking. With respect to the second part of this comment, we believe that the documents needed for an informed review of our proposed action were included in the docket during the public comment period. Additional documents have been provided in response to the FOIA request, but none of these additional documents were needed to review the substance and rationale of our proposed action in an informed manner. F. Comments on Whether Best Available Control Technology
(BACT)Can Achieve the Necessary Reductions *Comment 11* : Some commenters question whether further, even total, implementation of Best Available Control Technology
(BACT)could achieve the overall reductions commitment. The commenters indicate that even if all fumigant applicators adopt BACT, the emissions reduction commitment would still fail to be reached. They propose that the only way to reach the commitment level is through some combination of acreage reduction, application rate reduction, and shifting applications outside of the typical season. *Response 11* : In today's action, we are approving a SIP revision that relaxes in part, and temporarily, a commitment by the State of California to reduce VOC emissions from pesticide use in Ventura County. We are not taking action on the specific regulations promulgated by DPR, and that purportedly go beyond BACT-level of control, to fulfill that commitment. We acknowledge commenters' views concerning the feasibility of complying with DPR's regulations but have not based our approval action on the SIP revision on such considerations. III. EPA's Final Action No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura as set forth in our proposed rule. Therefore, pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA and for the reasons set forth in detail in EPA's proposed rule and in today's final rule, including the responses to comments, EPA is approving the revision to the California SIP submitted by the State of California on November 30, 2007 concerning the Pesticide Element for Ventura County. We find that the SIP revision is consistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations. 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 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 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 (Public 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. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: July 3, 2008. Kathleen H. Johnson, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(355) to read as follows: § 52.220 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(355)The following plan revision was submitted on November 30, 2007, by the Governor's designee.
(i)Incorporation by reference.
(A)California Air Resources Board. ( *1* ) Attachment 3 to Executive Order S-07-003, Appendix H, Revised Proposed Revision to the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura County Nonattainment Area (August 13, 2007). ( *2* ) California Air Resources Board, Executive Order S-07-003, November 30, 2007; to Wit: Revised Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura County Nonattainment Area. [FR Doc. E8-16388 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0254; FRL-8371-7] Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-)butoxymethylethoxy))methylethoxyl] ether; Tolerance Exemption AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-)butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether; (CAS Reg. No. 926031-36-9) when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Rhodia, Inc. c/o SciReg, Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
(FQPA)requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2)butoxymethylethoxy))methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether. DATES: This regulation is effective July 18, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 16, 2008, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0254. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Samek, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)347-8825; e-mail address: *samek.karen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this “ **Federal Register** ” document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0254 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before September 16, 2008. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0254, by one of the following methods. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings In the **Federal Register** of May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28461) (FRL-8361-6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by FQPA (Public Law 104-170), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 8E7315) by Rhodia, Inc. c/o SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, Va 22192.. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether; (CAS Reg. No. 926031-36-9). That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner. There were no comments in response to the notice of filing. Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *.” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption. III. Inert Ingredient Definition Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients. IV. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established. Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers that should present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low risk polymers: 1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment. 2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. 3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii). 4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize. 5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption. 6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight
(MW)greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons. Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e). 7. The polymer's number average MW of 3,000 daltons is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups. Thus, oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether meets all the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether. V. Aggregate Exposures For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether is 3,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether conforms to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health. VI. Cumulative Effects Section 408 (b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance or tolerance exemption, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular chemical's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether and any other substances and Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* . VII. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary. VIII. Determination of Safety Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether. IX. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation. B. International Tolerances The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels
(MRLs)been established for any food crops at this time. X. Conclusion Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe. XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 * et seq * ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). XII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 3, 2008. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.960 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a polymer to the table to read as follows: § 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Polymer CAS No. * * * * * * * Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether, minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 3,000. 926031-36-9 * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E8-16317 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 52 and 64 [CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196; FCC 08-151] Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts a system for assigning users of Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), specifically Video Relay Service
(VRS)and Internet Protocol
(IP)Relay, ten-digit telephone numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). This numbering system will further the TRS functional equivalency mandate by ensuring that Internet-based TRS users can be reached by voice telephone users in the same way that voice telephone users are called. The measures the Commission adopts also are intended to ensure that emergency calls placed by Internet-based TRS users will be routed directly and automatically to the appropriate emergency services authorities by Internet-based TRS providers. DATES: Effective August 18, 2008, except for 47 CFR 64.605
(a)and (b), and 64.611 (a), (b),
(c)and (f), which contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Public law 104-13, that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a separate document in the **Federal Register** announcing the effective date of these requirements. Interested parties (including the general public, OMB, and other Federal agencies) that wish to submit written comments on the PRA information collection requirements must do so on or before September 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit PRA comments identified by OMB Control Number 3060-1089, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Parties who choose to file by e-mail should submit their comments to *PRA@fcc.gov.* Please include CG Docket Number 03-123, WC Docket Number 05-196, and OMB Control Number 3060-1089 in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* Parties who choose to file by paper should submit their comments to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Chandler, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at
(202)418-1475 (voice),
(202)418-0597 (TTY), or e-mail *Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov.* For additional information concerning the PRA information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams at
(202)418-2918, or e-mail *Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov* and/or *PRA@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-To-Speech Services For Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements For IP-Enabled Services Providers,* Report and Order, document FCC 08-151, adopted June 11, 2008, and released June 24, 2008, in CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196. Simultaneously with the *Report and Order,* the Commission also issued a Further Notice and Proposed Rulemaking ( *FNPRM* ) in CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196, seeking comment on additional issues relating to the assignment and administration of ten-digit telephone numbers for Internet-based TRS. The *Report and Order* addresses issues arising from the following items:
(1)*Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( *VRS/IP Relay 911 NPRM* ), CG Docket No. 03-123, document FCC 05-196, published at 71 FR 5221, February 1, 2006;
(2)*Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* Declaratory Ruling and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( *Interoperability Declaratory Ruling and FNPRM* ), CG Docket No. 03-123, document FCC 06-57, published at 71 FR 30818 and 71 FR 30848, May 31, 2006;
(3)*Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( *IP Relay/VRS Misuse FNPRM* ), CG Docket No. 03-123, document FCC 06-58, published at 71 FR 31131, June 1, 2006;
(4)*Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements For IP-Enabled Service Providers,* Report and Order ( *Interim Emergency Call Handling Order* ), CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196, document FCC 08-78, published at 73 FR 21252, April 21, 2008; and
(5)*Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks to Refresh Record on Assigning Internet Protocol (IP)-Based Telecommunications Relay Service
(TRS)Users Ten-Digit Telephone Numbers Linked to North American Numbering Plan
(NANP)and Related Issues,* Public Notice ( *Numbering PN* ), CG Docket No. 03-123, document DA 08-607, published at 73 FR 16304, March 27, 2008. The full text of document FCC 08-151 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. FCC 08-151 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site *www.bcpiweb.com* or by calling 1-800-378-3160. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-0530 (voice) or
(202)418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 08-151 also can be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format
(PDF)at *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html.* Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis Document FCC 08-151 contains new and modified information collection requirements subject to the PRA. It will be submitted to OMB for review under section 3507 of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. Public and agency comments are due September 16, 2008. In addition, the Commission notes pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4), that the Commission previously sought specific comment on how it may “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” Synopsis 1. In the *Report and Order,* the Commission adopts a system for assigning users of Internet-based TRS, specifically VRS and IP Relay, ten-digit telephone numbers linked to the NANP. This numbering system will further the functional equivalency mandate by ensuring that Internet-based TRS users can be reached by voice telephone users in the same way that voice telephone users are called. The measures the Commission adopts also are intended to ensure that emergency calls placed by Internet-based TRS users will be routed directly and automatically to the appropriate emergency services authorities by Internet-based TRS providers. Consistent with the *Interim Emergency Call Handling Order,* the Commission requires that the ten-digit numbering plan adopted in the *Report and Order* be implemented no later than December 31, 2008. In the accompanying *FNPRM,* the Commission seeks comment on additional issues relating to the assignment and administration of ten-digit telephone numbers for Internet-based TRS. 2. Currently, VRS users do not have a reliable or consistent means by which others can identify or reach them. In contrast to the voice telephone network, Internet-based relay services are not linked to a uniform numbering scheme. Instead of a ten-digit telephone number, VRS users are typically assigned a “dynamic” IP address. As a consequence, it is more difficult to place a relay call to a VRS user, as compared to placing a call to a voice telephone user, because the calling party must ascertain the VRS user's current IP address each time he or she wishes to place a call to that individual. 3. The voice telephone system is predicated on the assignment of ten-digit numbers to consumers, and the ability of any telephone user to reach a consumer by dialing that person's particular number. Further, because location and other identifying information is attached to each number, consumers can dial 911 and reach emergency services that can automatically determine the caller's location to respond to the emergency. The same holds true for consumers of the PSTN-based TRS. Voice telephone users can call these consumers via TRS if they know the consumer's ten-digit telephone number, which they provide to the customer assistant
(CA)when making the relay call. These TRS consumers can also contact emergency services by either dialing 911 directly or by calling a TRS provider; in either case, the caller's location information will automatically be passed to the emergency personnel. This is presently not the case, however, with respect to consumers using the Internet-based forms of TRS. Voice telephone users can call an Internet-based TRS user only if the caller knows the TRS user's current Internet address (or a proxy therefor), and the Internet-based TRS user cannot call emergency services and have location information automatically transmitted. The Commission concludes that it has the authority to adopt a system for assigning persons using Internet-based TRS ten-digit telephone numbers linked to the NANP pursuant to sections 225 and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). 4. In the March 19, 2008, *Interim Emergency Call Handling Order,* the Commission announced its intention to adopt a ten-digit numbering plan for Internet-based TRS in a future Commission order. That same day, and to ensure that the record reflects new technical, economic, and administrative developments related to the implementation of a 10-digit numbering system, the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) issued the *Numbering PN,* inviting interested parties to refresh the record on issues relating to the assignment and administration of ten-digit numbering for Internet-based TRS users. The Bureau also sought to refresh the record on other issues related to numbering, including number resource conservation, and the application of the Commission's anti-“slamming” rules, customer proprietary network information
(CPNI)rules, and local number portability
(LNP)rules to Internet-based TRS providers. 5. In the *Interim Emergency Call Handling Order,* the Commission required Internet-based TRS providers to “accept and handle emergency calls” and to access, either directly or via a third party, a commercially available database that will allow the provider to determine an appropriate PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority that corresponds to the caller's location, and to relay the call to that entity. The Commission also adopted several interim emergency call handling requirements for Internet-based relay services, finding that these measures are needed to facilitate access to emergency services for consumers of Internet-based relay services, pending the adoption of a longer term solution. The Commission also announced its intention to adopt in a forthcoming Commission order a Registered Location process, similar to that adopted by the Commission in the interconnected voice over Internet protocol
(VoIP)context. 6. *Adoption of a Uniform Ten-Digit Telephone Numbering System for Internet-based TRS.* The Commission finds that utilization of NANP numbers will best achieve the goal of making Internet-based TRS functionally equivalent to traditional circuit switched telephony, and will provide Internet-based TRS users a reliable and consistent means by which they may receive calls from voice telephone users. The Commission therefore requires Internet-based TRS providers to assign Internet-based TRS users NANP telephone numbers. The Commission further requires Internet-based TRS providers to stop issuing “proxy” or “alias” numbers no later than December 31, 2008. 7. Full connectivity between Internet-based TRS and the PSTN cannot be achieved simply by assigning telephone numbers to Internet-based TRS users. The networks upon which the Internet portion of Internet-based TRS operates require IP addresses rather than NANP telephone numbers for routing. In order to allow calls to be appropriately routed and completed, a mechanism must be created for mapping the telephone numbers assigned to Internet-based TRS users to the IP addresses (or other appropriate endpoint identifiers) used by Internet-based TRS. 8. *Number Acquisition and Assignment.* The Commission finds that it is most expedient and consistent with the Commission's numbering policies for Internet-based TRS users to obtain NANP telephone numbers directly from their Internet-based TRS providers. Internet-based TRS providers may obtain such numbers either:
(1)Directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) or the Pooling Administrator
(PA)if they are certificated as carriers and otherwise meet the criteria for obtaining numbers; or
(2)through commercial arrangements with carriers ( *i.e.* , numbering partners). These are precisely the methods of obtaining numbers that are available to providers of interconnected VoIP service and their customers. Finally, Internet-based TRS users and providers of Internet-based TRS will enjoy the full benefits of LNP. 9. The Commission finds that the best process for Internet-based TRS users to obtain telephone numbers is directly from their Internet-based TRS providers. Such a process is functionally equivalent to the process by which subscribers to interconnected VoIP, Commercial Mobile Radio Service, and local exchange service obtain numbers. Indeed, even proponents of the neutral third-party process note that some consumers view their Internet-based TRS provider as if it were a telephone company and therefore expect that they should obtain numbering resources directly from the Internet-based TRS provider. 10. In light of the Commission's decision to have Internet-based TRS users obtain numbers directly from Internet-based TRS providers, the Commission must determine how Internet-based TRS providers are to obtain access to numbering resources. The record reflects three methods:
(1)Directly from the NANPA or the PA,
(2)from a neutral third party administrator established for the purpose, or
(3)from numbering partners through commercial agreements. 11. Only carriers, absent a Commission waiver, may obtain numbering resources directly from the NANPA or the PA. Section 52.15(g)(2) of the Commission's rules limits access to the NANP numbering resources to those applicants that are
(1)“authorized to provide service in the area for which the numbering resources are being requested” and
(2)“[are] or will be capable of providing service within sixty
(60)days of the numbering resources activation date.” 47 CFR 52.15(g)(2). Allowing only carriers to have direct access to NANP numbering resources helps to ensure that the numbers are used efficiently and to avoid number exhaust and also provides some control over who may access numbering databases and personnel. Thus, to the extent that a provider of Internet-based TRS is licensed or certificated as a carrier under the Act and relevant state law (as appropriate), it may obtain numbering resources directly from the NANPA or PA. 12. The Commission recognizes, however, that many, if not all, providers of Internet-based TRS will not be licensed or certificated as carriers. Internet-based TRS providers that have not obtained a license or certificate of public convenience and necessity from the relevant states or otherwise are not eligible to receive numbers directly from the NANPA or PA may make numbers available to their customers through commercial arrangements with carriers ( *i.e.* , numbering partners). This method has proven successful in the context of interconnected VoIP, is consistent with the Commission's numbering rules, and is cost effective. TRS providers can easily obtain numbers from certified carriers the same way interconnected VoIP providers obtain numbers today. 13. In any case, Internet-based TRS providers and their numbering partners shall be entitled to obtain and use numbering resources only to the extent they comply with the requirements of the *Report and Order* . The Commission also reminds all parties that telephone numbers are a public resource, not private property. They may not be bought or sold. They may, however, be provided as part of a package of services that includes, for example, interconnection, connectivity, or 911 service. 14. In light of record support for, and the demonstrated success of interconnected VoIP providers in obtaining NANP telephone numbers from carriers, the Commission declines to appoint a neutral third party to obtain numbers from the NANPA or from numbering partners for distribution to providers of Internet-based TRS or Internet-based TRS users. Allowing a third-party administrator direct access to numbering resources is not consistent with general Commission policy—as discussed above, absent a waiver, the Commission's rules allow only carriers direct access to NANP numbering resources. Further, the record reflects that a third-party administrator would add another layer of personnel, process, and cost in the number procurement process. 15. The Commission also finds that Internet-based TRS providers and their numbering partners are subject to the same LNP obligations, with the sole exception of contributing to meet shared numbering administration costs and LNP costs, as the Commission set forth in *Telephone Number Requirements for IP Enabled Services Providers; Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements; IP-Enabled Services; Telephone Number Portability; CTIA Petitions for Declaratory Ruling on Wireline-Wireless Porting Issues; Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; Number Resource Optimization,* Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, Order on Remand, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket Nos. 07-243, 07-244, 04-36; CC Docket Nos. 95-116, 99-200, document FCC 07-188, published at 73 FR 9463, February 21, 2008 and 73 FR 9507, February 21, 2008. The Commission expands the scope of the Commission's LNP rules to include Internet-based TRS providers, so that the full array of obligations relating to the porting of numbers from one service provider to another service provider are applicable when an Internet-based TRS user wishes to port a number, regardless of whether the service providers involved are carriers, interconnected VoIP providers, or Internet-based TRS providers. The Commission notes that the Internet-based TRS provider has an affirmative legal obligation to take all steps necessary to initiate or allow a port-in or port-out itself or through its numbering partner on behalf of the Internet-based TRS user, subject to a valid port request, without unreasonable delay or unreasonable procedures that have the effect of delaying or denying porting of the number. Moreover, Internet-based TRS providers and their numbering partners may not enter into agreements that would prohibit or unreasonably delay an Internet-based TRS user from porting between Internet-based TRS providers and will be subject to Commission enforcement action for any such violation of the Act and the Commission's LNP rules. 16. To the extent that an Internet-based TRS provider is licensed or certificated as a carrier, that carrier is eligible to obtain numbering resources directly from the NANPA, subject to all relevant rules and procedures applicable to carriers, including LNP requirements. Under these circumstances, the Internet-based TRS provider would not have a numbering partner, and would thus be solely responsible for compliance with the Commission rules at issue here. 17. Section 251(e)(2) of the Act provides that “[t]he cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration arrangements and number portability shall be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as determined by the Commission.” 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(2). Carriers and interconnected VoIP providers that benefit from LNP generally are required to contribute to meet shared LNP costs. The Commission declines to extend to Internet-based TRS providers the obligation to contribute to meet shared LNP costs at this time. Unlike other providers that benefit from LNP, providers of Internet-based TRS are not permitted to recover their costs from their end users. Rather, Internet-based TRS providers are compensated by the Interstate TRS Fund for the costs of providing relay service. Money in the Interstate TRS Fund is collected from various providers of telecommunications and related services—many of which already contribute to meet shared LNP costs. It makes little sense to require Internet-based TRS providers to contribute to defray shared LNP costs covered by the same providers that ultimately provide the money Internet-based TRS providers will use to make such contributions. 18. The Commission finds that Internet-based TRS users should be assigned geographically appropriate NANP numbers, as happens today for hearing users. The Commission notes that there may be unusual and limited circumstances in which an Internet-based TRS provider may not be able to obtain a geographically appropriate number for a particular end user. While the Commission does not expect this to be a common occurrence, Internet-based TRS providers may temporarily employ suitable workarounds in such circumstances, such as the assignment of a number which is reasonably close to the Internet-based TRS user's rate center, or the use of remote call forwarding. Such workarounds may be employed only until a geographically appropriate number becomes available, unless the end user chooses to retain the originally assigned number. 19. *“Default Provider” Registration.* Every provider of Internet-based TRS is required to provide Internet-based TRS users with the capability to register with that Internet-based TRS provider as a “default provider” and provide or port for that user a NANP telephone number. Such registration is required:
(1)To allow the Internet-based TRS provider to take steps to associate the Internet-based TRS user's telephone number with their IP address to allow for the routing and completion of calls;
(2)to facilitate the provision of 911 service; and
(3)to facilitate the implementation of appropriate network security measures. 20. The Internet-based TRS provider with which an Internet-based TRS user has registered will serve as the Internet-based TRS user's “default provider.” For all Internet-based TRS users, all inbound and outbound calls will, by default, be routed through the default provider. Such a default provider arrangement is functionally equivalent to services provided on the PSTN and via interconnected VoIP. For example, voice telephone users that subscribe to a particular carrier for long distance service will make all of their long distance calls on that carrier's network unless they choose to “dial around” to an alternative long distance provider. Likewise, calls made to and from an Internet-based TRS user will be handled by the default provider, unless the calling Internet-based TRS user specifically “dials around” in order to utilize an alternative provider. Individuals calling an Internet-based TRS user likewise will have the option of “dialing around” an Internet-based TRS user's default provider in order to utilize the services of a different TRS provider. An Internet-based TRS user may select and register with a new default provider at any time and have his or her number ported to that provider. 21. As of December 31, 2008, Internet-based TRS providers must, prior to the initiation of service for an individual that has not previously utilized Internet-based TRS, register that new Internet-based TRS user, provide that user with a ten-digit NANP telephone number, obtain that user's Registered Location, and fulfill all other requirements set forth in the *Report and Order* that pertain to Registered Internet-based TRS Users. The Commission's numbering plan must be implemented such that ten-digit numbers are available to Internet-based TRS users no later than December 31, 2008. The Commission recognizes, however, that every existing Internet-based TRS user will not be able to register with a default provider on that day. The Commission therefore recognizes that the Commission must adopt a registration period for the existing base of Internet-based TRS users to migrate to the new numbering plan. 22. *Centralized Numbering Directory Mechanism.* The Commission finds that the best centralized numbering directory mechanism shall:
(1)Be provisioned with Uniform Resource Identifiers
(URIs)that contain, *inter alia,* end-user IP addresses for VRS and domain names and user names for IP Relay;
(2)be provisioned by Internet-based TRS providers on behalf of their Registered Internet-based TRS Users; and
(3)limit central database access to Internet-based TRS providers. The Commission further finds that industry-standard DNS and ENUM technology is well-suited for implementing and querying the database. 23. The primary purpose of the central database will be to map each Internet-based TRS user's NANP telephone number to his or her end device. This can be accomplished by:
(1)Provisioning the database with each Internet-based TRS user's IP address (either alone or as part of a URI); or
(2)provisioning the database with URIs that contain domain names and user names—such as an instant-message service and screen-name—that can be subsequently resolved to reach the user's end device. 24. The Commission finds that the central database should be provisioned with URIs containing IP addresses for VRS users. Provisioning URIs containing IP addresses to the central database will result in a simplified, and more efficient, call setup process by eliminating the need to query an Internet-based TRS user's default provider before completing every call. Further, the use of a domain name in the URI normally would create a dependency on the global Domain Name System and thereby introduce those additional security vulnerability issues associated with the global DNS. Finally, eliminating the terminating party's default provider from the call flow also improves Internet-based TRS user privacy by limiting the number of Internet-based TRS providers that have access to call signaling data, and limits any ability the terminating party's default provider might have to block or otherwise degrade calls initiated through a competitor. 25. The Commission requires Internet-based TRS providers to provision routing information directly to the central database. Default providers must obtain current routing information, including URIs containing IP addresses or domain names and user names, from their Registered Internet-based TRS Users, provision such information to the central database, and maintain it in their internal databases and in the central database. Conversely, Internet-based TRS providers (and, to the extent necessary, their numbering partners) must take such steps as are necessary to *cease* acquiring routing information from any Internet-based TRS user that ports his or her number to another provider or otherwise selects a new default provider. In addition, Internet-based TRS providers and their numbering partners also must communicate among themselves as necessary to ensure that only the default provider provisions routing information to the central database, and that providers other than the default provider are aware that they must query the central database in order to obtain accurate routing information for a particular user of Internet-based TRS. In order to ensure that the telephone numbers of Internet-based TRS users are fully portable, that their devices are interoperable, and their privacy is protected, if an Internet-based TRS provider cannot provide service to a particular user in the manner described in the *Report and Order,* the Internet-based TRS provider must not provide service to that user without seeking prior approval of the Commission. 26. The Commission concludes that only Internet-based TRS providers will be authorized to query the central database for the purpose of obtaining information from the database to complete calls. 27. The Commission further concludes that building, maintaining, and operating the central database will best be done by a neutral third party administrator under contract with the Commission and compensated through the Interstate TRS Fund. The neutral database administrator must be selected, and must construct the database, work with industry to populate the database, test the functionality of the database, and be prepared to support ten-digit numbers for Internet-based TRS users by December 31, 2008. 28. In the interest of time, the Commission is not referring this issue to the North American Numbering Council (NANC), as the Commission has for past numbering contracts. Rather, the Commission delegates authority to the Office of the Managing Director (Managing Director), with the assistance of the Wireline Competition Bureau, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, and the Office of General Counsel, to select the neutral administrator based on a competitive bidding process. 29. The Commission concludes that:
(1)The neutral administrator must be a non-governmental entity that is impartial and is not an affiliate of any Internet-based TRS provider;
(2)the neutral administrator and any affiliate may not issue a majority of its debt to, nor derive a majority of its revenues from, any Internet-based TRS provider; and
(3)notwithstanding the neutrality criteria set forth in
(1)and
(2)above, the neutral administrator may be determined to be or not to be subject to undue influence by parties with a vested interest in the outcome of TRS-related numbering administration and activities. Any subcontractor that performs functions of the neutral administrator must also meet these neutrality criteria. 30. *Emergency Calling Handling Requirement.* The Commission stated in the *Interim Emergency Call Handling Order* the Commission's belief that the use of a Registered Location process, similar to that adopted in the *VoIP 911 Order,* constitutes an additional critical component of an E911 solution for Internet-based TRS providers, so that a CA may promptly determine an appropriate PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority to call to respond to the emergency. Accordingly, as the Commission required of all interconnected VoIP providers, the Commission requires that all Internet-based TRS providers obtain or have access to consumer location information for the purposes of emergency calling requirements. The Commission also requires all Internet-based TRS providers to obtain from their Registered Internet-based TRS users their physical location, and the Commission modifies the call handling requirements adopted in the *Interim Emergency Call Handling Order* to reflect the adoption of a Registered Location requirement. 31. *Registered Location Requirement.* The Commission recognizes that it currently is not always technologically feasible for providers of Internet-based TRS to automatically determine the location of their end users without end users' active cooperation. The Commission therefore requires each provider of Internet-based TRS to obtain location information from each of their Registered Internet-based TRS users. Specifically, providers of Internet-based TRS must obtain from each of their Registered Internet-based TRS users, prior to the initiation of service, the physical location at which the service will first be utilized. The most recent location provided to an Internet-based TRS provider by a Registered Internet-based TRS user is the “Registered Location.” Internet-based TRS providers can comply with this requirement directly or by utilizing the services of a third party. Furthermore, providers of Internet-based TRS that can be utilized from more than one physical location must provide their Registered Internet-based TRS users one or more methods of updating information regarding the Registered Internet-based TRS user's physical location. Although the Commission declines to specify any particular method, the Commission requires that any method utilized allow a Registered Internet-based TRS user to update his or her Registered Location at will and in a timely manner, including at least one option that requires use only of the CPE necessary to access the Internet-based TRS. Further, Internet-based TRS providers may not charge users to update their Registered Location, as this would discourage Registered Internet-based TRS users from doing so and therefore undermine this solution. 32. The *Interim Emergency Call Handling Order* required Internet-based TRS providers to “request, at the beginning of every emergency call, the caller's name and location information.” Internet-based TRS providers no longer are required to request such information at the beginning of an emergency call if the Internet-based TRS provider has, or has access to, a Registered Location for the caller. 33. *Routing 911 Calls.* The *Interim Emergency Call Handling Order* permitted Internet-based TRS providers to route 911 calls to PSAPs' ten-digit administrative lines pending adoption of a Registered Location requirement. As of December 31, 2008, the Commission requires that an Internet-based TRS provider must transmit all 911 and E911 calls, as well as a call back number, the name of the relay provider, the CA's identification number, and the caller's Registered Location for each call, to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority that serves the caller's Registered Location and that has been designated for telecommunications carriers under § 64.3001 of the Commission's rules. These calls must be routed through the use of ANI and, if necessary, pseudo-ANI, via the dedicated Wireline E911 Network, and the Registered Location must be available from or through the ALI Database. 34. *911 Service Providers.* The Commission continues to expect that Internet-based TRS providers will be able to use much of the same infrastructure and technology that is already in place for the delivery of 911 and E911 calls by interconnected VoIP service providers. The Commission recognizes that, because Internet-based TRS providers will be able to choose from among multiple providers of 911 related services, in instances in which an Internet-based TRS user places an emergency call through an Internet-based TRS provider other than the Internet-based TRS user's default provider, the alternative provider may not have access to the Internet-based TRS user's Registered Location information. The Commission notes, however, that providers must prioritize and answer emergency calls in accordance with the requirements set forth in the *Interim Emergency Call Handling Order.* Further, because of the importance of emergency call handling, providers must ensure adequate staffing of emergency call handling processes so that CAs are not required to disconnect non-emergency calls in order to process emergency calls. In light of these requirements and the nature of emergency calls, the Commission expects that most, if not all, emergency calls will be dialed via an Internet-based TRS user's default provider and thus will have associated Registered Locations. Further, in light of the importance of access to emergency services for relay users, the Commission asks in the accompanying *FNPRM* whether the Commission should take other steps in order to ensure that emergency calls are handled in an appropriate and expeditious manner. 35. *Consumer Outreach and Education.* Because substantial consumer outreach efforts will be needed to ensure a seamless transition to a ten-digit numbering system and to ensure the successful implementation of the Registered Location requirement adopted herein, the Commission requires each Internet-based TRS provider, upon the effective date of the *Report and Order,* to include an additional advisory on its Web site and in any promotional materials addressing the new requirements adopted herein. At a minimum, the advisory must address the following issues:
(1)The process by which Internet-based TRS users may obtain ten-digit telephone numbers, including a brief summary of the numbering assignment and administration processes adopted herein;
(2)the portability of ten-digit telephone numbers assigned to Internet-based TRS users;
(3)the process by which persons using Internet-based forms of TRS may submit, update, and confirm receipt by the provider of their Registered Location information; and
(4)an explanation emphasizing the importance of maintaining accurate, up-to-date Registered Location information with the user's default provider in the event that the individual places an emergency call via an Internet-based relay service. The Commission also requires Internet-based TRS providers to obtain and keep a record of affirmative acknowledgement by every user assigned a ten-digit telephone number of having received and understood the advisory described above. 36. The Commission also directs the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to issue a consumer advisory to TRS users summarizing the requirements and obligations set forth in the *Report and Order,* and to disseminate the advisory through the Consumer Information Registry. 37. *IP Relay Fraud.* Although Internet-based relay services have proven to be enormously popular with consumers, these services (and particularly IP Relay) may be more susceptible to misuse than other forms of TRS. For example, the Commission has received complaints and anecdotal evidence that persons without a hearing or speech disability have misused IP Relay to defraud merchants by making purchases over the telephone using stolen, fake, or otherwise invalid credit cards. *See IP Relay/VRS FNPRM.* This misuse is enabled both by Internet-based TRS providers' current difficulty in determining with certainty the geographic location of their users and by IP Relay providers' inability to determine the identity of any particular user (because an IP Relay CA only receives the text of a user's message). In other words, IP Relay affords the user a degree of anonymity that is generally not possible with PSTN-based relay calls. This misuse harms both the merchants who are victimized and legitimate IP Relay users who may no longer be able to convince merchants to take their calls or accept their orders for merchandise. In addition, the misuse of IP Relay by hearing callers poses an added burden on the Fund—a burden ultimately borne by all consumers. The Commission believes that registration of Internet-based TRS users with a default provider and provision of a Registered Location should reduce the misuse of IP Relay by persons seeking anonymity to make fraudulent credit card purchases and engage in other wrongdoing. 38. *Cost Recovery Issues.* Section 225 of the Communications Act creates a cost recovery regime whereby TRS providers are compensated for their reasonable costs of providing service in compliance with the TRS regulations. The Commission has explained that “for purposes of determining the `reasonable' costs that may be recovered * * *, the costs must relate to the provision of service in compliance with the applicable non-waived [TRS] mandatory minimum standards.” Therefore, because the Commission now requires Internet-based TRS providers to offer ten-digit numbering and E911 services, providers of these services are entitled to recover their reasonable costs of complying with the new requirements as set forth in the *Report and Order.* The Commission will require that such costs be submitted every three months, beginning three months after the release date of the *Report and Order.* Costs submitted must be for those costs actually incurred during the prior three-month period. The TRS Fund Administrator, and the Commission, shall review submitted costs and may request supporting documentation to verify the expenses claimed, and may also disallow unreasonable costs. The Commission will permit such filings until such time as new compensation rates are adopted that include the costs of complying with the requirements adopted herein, or the Commission otherwise re-addresses this issue. 39. Submitted costs may include those additional costs incurred by a provider that directly relate to:
(1)Ensuring that database information is properly and timely updated and maintained;
(2)processing and transmitting calls made to ten-digit numbers assigned pursuant to the *Report and Order;*
(3)routing emergency calls to an appropriate PSAP;
(4)other implementation related tasks directly related to facilitating ten-digit numbering and emergency call handling; and
(5)consumer outreach and education related to the requirements and services adopted in the *Report and Order.* These costs do not include, however, costs relating to assigning numbers to the Internet-based TRS users nor costs relating to number portability. Because voice telephone users generally bear these costs, the Commission seeks comment in the *FNPRM* on whether Internet-based TRS users or the Fund should bear these costs. The Commission also reminds Internet-based TRS providers, however, that these costs may not include costs related to facilitating non-TRS peer-to-peer (or video-to-video) calls. 40. The Commission authorizes the TRS Fund Administrator to pay the reasonable costs of providing necessary services consistent with the *Report and Order* directly to the database administrator rather than funnel the funding indirectly through providers. Finally, the Commission notes that to the extent the costs necessitated by the requirements adopted in the *Report and Order* may require an adjustment to the Fund size, and therefore the carrier contribution factor, the Commission expects the TRS Fund Administrator to monitor payments made from the Fund in connection with the *Report and Order* and to recommend to the Commission, if and when appropriate, that the Fund size be adjusted. 41. *Timeline and Benchmarks.* By the *Report and Order,* the Commission has met its commitment to complete a final order on a ten-digit numbering plan in the second quarter of this year. Recognizing that Internet-based TRS providers and the neutral third-party administrator discussed above will require time to implement the *Report and Order,* the Commission requires, consistent with the *Interim Emergency Call Handling Order,* that the ten-digit numbering plan be implemented such that ten-digit numbers are available to end users no later than December 31, 2008. In order to ensure this deadline is met, the Commission authorizes the Managing Director to include in the neutral third-party administration contract such benchmarks as are necessary to meet the implementation deadline. 42. As a further means of ensuring that the Commission's implementation deadline is met, and recognizing that detailed implementation issues must be finalized prior to the implementation deadline, the Commission hereby directs the Managing Director to include in the neutral third-party administration contract the requirement to refer all implementation disputes that it is unable to resolve in a reasonable time to the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. The Commission further authorizes the Managing Director, if so requested by the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, to retain a technical advisor that will provide such assistance as the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, may require to resolve such disputes. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification 43. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), *see* 5 U.S.C. 603, requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A “small business concern” is one which:
(1)Is independently owned and operated;
(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632. 44. In the *Report and Order,* the Commission adopts a system for assigning ten-digit telephone numbers linked to the NANP to persons using Internet-based TRS. The *Report and Order* will further the functional equivalency of TRS mandated in Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Commission finds that utilization of NANP numbers will achieve the goal of making Internet-based TRS functionally equivalent to traditional circuit switched telephony, and will provide Internet-based TRS users a reliable and consistent means by which they may receive calls from voice telephone users in the same way that voice telephone users are called. 45. Under the *Report and Order,* each Internet-based TRS provider must provide Internet-based TRS users with the capability to register with that provider as a “default” provider. Upon a user's registration, each provider must either facilitate the user's valid number portability request or, if the user does not wish to port a number, assign that user a geographically appropriate NANP telephone number. Each provider also must route and deliver all of its Registered Internet-based TRS users' inbound and outbound calls unless the user chooses to place a call with, or receives a call from, an alternate provider. Further, the *Report and Order* requires Internet-based TRS providers to obtain from each of their Registered Internet-based TRS users, prior to the initiation of service, the physical location at which the service will first be utilized. In addition, providers of Internet-based TRS that can be utilized from more than one physical location must provide the registered user one or more methods of updating the user's physical location. As noted in the *Report and Order,* the numbering system adopted will enable individuals with hearing and speech disabilities using Internet-based TRS access to emergency services. 46. Specifically, the *Report and Order* is intended to ensure that emergency calls placed by Internet-based TRS users will be routed directly and automatically to the appropriate emergency services authorities by Internet-based TRS providers. The Commission also requires each Internet-based TRS provider to include an advisory on its Web site and in any promotional materials addressing the new requirements adopted in the *Report and Order.* Providers must obtain and keep a record of affirmative acknowledgement by every user assigned a number of having received and understood this advisory. The Commission also states its belief that instituting a numbering system and a Registered Location requirement, as provided in the *Report and Order* , will reduce the misuse of IP Relay by persons seeking to use this service for fraudulent purposes. Finally, the *Report and Order* concludes that providers will be compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund for their reasonable actual costs of complying with the new rules adopted therein. 47. To the extent that all Internet-based TRS providers, including small entities, will be eligible to receive compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund for their reasonable costs of complying with these numbering and Registered Location requirements, the Commission finds that these requirements will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Further, the Commission believes that allowing providers until December 31, 2008, to implement the ten-digit numbering plan adopted in the *Report and Order* is a reasonable timeframe for both large and small providers. The Commission also authorizes the Managing Director to include in the third-party administrator contract the requirement to refer all implementation disputes that it is unable to resolve in a reasonable time to the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau for resolution, which will ease burdens on providers, including small entities. For all of these reasons, the Commission concludes that these measures will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because each small business will receive financial compensation for reasonable costs incurred rather than absorb an uncompensated financial loss or hardship. 48. With regard to whether a *substantial number* of small entities may be affected by the requirements adopted in the *Report and Order,* the Commission notes that, of the 11 providers affected by the *Report and Order,* only three meet the definition of a small entity. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. Currently, eleven providers receive compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund for providing VRS, IP Relay and IP CTS: AT&T Corp.; CSDVRS; CAC; GoAmerica; Hamilton Relay, Inc.; Hands On; Healinc; Nordia Inc.; Snap Telecommunications, Inc; Sorenson; and Sprint. Because only three of the providers affected by the *Report and Order* are deemed to be small entities under the SBA's small business size standard, the Commission concludes that the number of small entities affected by the Commission's decision in the *Report and Order* is not substantial. Moreover, given that all affected providers, including the three that are deemed to be small entities under the SBA's standard, will be entitled to receive prompt reimbursement for their reasonable costs of compliance, the Commission concludes that the *Report and Order* will not have a significant economic impact on these small entities. 49. Therefore, for all of the reasons stated above, the Commission certifies that the requirements of the *Report and Order* will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Congressional Review Act The Commission will send a copy of the *Report and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Ordering Clauses Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 225, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 251, and 303(r), the *Report and Order is adopted* . Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 225, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 251, and 303(r), parts 52 and 64 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR parts 52 and 64, *are amended* . The *Report and Order shall be effective* August 18, 2008 and all requirements set forth in the *Report and Order* must be implemented by December 31, 2008, except for the information collections, which require approval by OMB under the PRA and which shall become effective after the Commission publishes a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing such approval and the relevant effective date(s). The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the *Report and Order* , including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 52 and 64 Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications. Federal Communications Commission. William F. Caton, Deputy Secretary. Rule Changes For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 52 and 64 to read as follows: PART 52—NUMBERING 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154 and 155 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 3, 4, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-52, 271 and 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-52, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 52.21 is amended by: a. Redesignating paragraphs
(o)through
(s)as paragraphs
(q)through (u); b. Redesignating paragraphs
(i)through
(n)as paragraphs
(j)through (o); and c. Adding new paragraphs (i), (p), and (v). The additions read as follows: § 52.21 Definitions.
(i)The term *IP Relay provider* means an entity that provides IP Relay as defined by 47 CFR 64.601.
(p)The term *Registered Internet-based TRS User* has the meaning set forth in 47 CFR 64.601.
(v)The term *VRS provider* means an entity that provides VRS as defined by 47 CFR 64.601. 3. Section 52.34 is revised to read as follows: § 52.34 Obligations regarding local number porting to and from interconnected VoIP or Internet-based TRS providers.
(a)An interconnected VoIP or VRS or IP Relay provider must facilitate an end-user customer's or a Registered Internet-based TRS User's valid number portability request, as it is defined in this subpart, either to or from a telecommunications carrier or an interconnected VoIP or VRS or IP Relay provider. “Facilitate” is defined as the interconnected VoIP or VRS or IP Relay provider's affirmative legal obligation to take all steps necessary to initiate or allow a port-in or port-out itself or through the telecommunications carriers, if any, that it relies on to obtain numbering resources, subject to a valid port request, without unreasonable delay or unreasonable procedures that have the effect of delaying or denying porting of the NANP-based telephone number.
(b)An interconnected VoIP or VRS or IP Relay provider may not enter into any agreement that would prohibit an end-user customer or a Registered Internet-based TRS User from porting between interconnected VoIP or VRS or IP Relay providers, or to or from a telecommunications carrier. PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 4. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted. 5. Section 64.601 is amended by: a. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(18) and (a)(19) as (a)(26) and (a)(27); b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(13) through (a)(17) as paragraphs (a)(19) through (a)(23); c. Removing paragraph (a)(12); d. Redesignating paragraph (a)(11) as paragraph (a)(16); e. Redesignating paragraph (a)(10) as paragraph (a)(14); f. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(9) as paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(10); and g. Revising paragraph
(a)introductory text and adding new paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(11) through (a)(13), (a)(15), (a)(17), (a)(18), (a)(24), and (a)(25). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 64.601 Definitions and provisions of general applicability.
(a)For purposes of this subpart, the terms *Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), statewide default answering point,* and *appropriate local emergency authority* are defined in 47 CFR 64.3000; the terms *pseudo-ANI* and *Wireline E911 Network* are defined in 47 CFR 9.3; the term *affiliate* is defined in 47 CFR 52.12(a)(1)(i), and the terms *majority* and *debt* are defined in 47 CFR 52.12(a)(1)(ii).
(3)*ANI.* For 911 systems, the Automatic Number Identification
(ANI)identifies the calling party and may be used as the callback number.
(11)*Internet-based TRS.* A telecommunications relay service
(TRS)in which an individual with a hearing or a speech disability connects to a TRS communications assistant using an Internet Protocol-enabled device via the Internet, rather than the public switched telephone network. Internet-based TRS does not include the use of a text telephone
(TTY)over an interconnected voice over Internet Protocol service.
(12)*Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS).* A telecommunications relay service that permits an individual who can speak but who has difficulty hearing over the telephone to use a telephone and an Internet Protocol-enabled device via the Internet to simultaneously listen to the other party and read captions of what the other party is saying. With IP CTS, the connection carrying the captions between the relay service provider and the relay service user is via the Internet, rather than the public switched telephone network.
(13)*Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay).* A telecommunications relay service that permits an individual with a hearing or a speech disability to communicate in text using an Internet Protocol-enabled device via the Internet, rather than using a text telephone
(TTY)and the public switched telephone network.
(15)*Numbering Partner* . Any entity with which an Internet-based TRS provider has entered into a commercial arrangement to obtain North American Numbering Plan telephone numbers.
(17)*Registered Location.* The most recent information obtained by a VRS or IP Relay provider that identifies the physical location of an end user.
(18)*Registered Internet-based TRS User.* An individual that has registered with a VRS or IP Relay provider as described in § 64.611 of this chapter.
(24)*TRS Numbering Administrator.* The neutral administrator of the TRS Numbering Directory selected based on a competitive bidding process.
(25)*TRS Numbering Directory.* The database administered by the TRS Numbering Administrator, the purpose of which is to map each Registered Internet-based TRS User's NANP telephone number to his or her end device. 6. Section 64.605 is revised to read as follows: § 64.605 Emergency Calling Requirements.
(a)*Additional Emergency Calling Requirements Applicable to Internet-based TRS Providers.*
(1)As of December 31, 2008, the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(iv) of this section shall not apply to providers of VRS and IP Relay.
(2)Each provider of Internet-based TRS shall:
(i)Accept and handle emergency calls and access, either directly or via a third party, a commercially available database that will allow the provider to determine an appropriate PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority that corresponds to the caller's location, and to relay the call to that entity;
(ii)Implement a system that ensures that the provider answers an incoming emergency call before other non-emergency calls ( *i.e.* , prioritize emergency calls and move them to the top of the queue);
(iii)Request, at the beginning of each emergency call, the caller's name and location information, unless the Internet-based TRS provider already has, or has access to, a Registered Location for the caller;
(iv)Deliver to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority, at the outset of the outbound leg of an emergency call, at a minimum, the name of the relay user and location of the emergency, as well as the name of the relay provider, the CA's callback number, and the CA's identification number, thereby enabling the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority to re-establish contact with the CA in the event the call is disconnected;
(v)In the event one or both legs of an emergency call are disconnected ( *i.e.* , either the call between the TRS user and the CA, or the outbound voice telephone call between the CA and the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority), immediately re-establish contact with the TRS user and/or the appropriate PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority and resume handling the call; and
(vi)Ensure that information obtained as a result of this section is limited to that needed to facilitate 911 services, is made available only to emergency call handlers and emergency response or law enforcement personnel, and is used for the sole purpose of ascertaining a user's location in an emergency situation or for other emergency or law enforcement purposes.
(b)*E911 Service for VRS and IP Relay.*
(1)*Scope.* The following requirements are only applicable to providers of VRS or IP Relay. Further, the following requirements apply only to 911 calls placed by users whose Registered Location is in a geographic area served by a Wireline E911 Network.
(2)*E911 Service.* As of December 31, 2008:
(i)VRS or IP Relay providers must, as a condition of providing service to a user, provide that user with E911 service as described in this section;
(ii)VRS or IP Relay providers must transmit all 911 calls, as well as ANI, the caller's Registered Location, the name of the VRS or IP Relay provider, and the CA's identification number for each call, to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority that serves the caller's Registered Location and that has been designated for telecommunications carriers pursuant to § 64.3001 of this chapter, provided that “all 911 calls” is defined as “any communication initiated by an VRS or IP Relay user dialing 911”;
(iii)All 911 calls must be routed through the use of ANI and, if necessary, pseudo-ANI, via the dedicated Wireline E911 Network; and
(iv)The Registered Location, the name of the VRS or IP Relay provider, and the CA's identification number must be available to the appropriate PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority from or through the appropriate automatic location information
(ALI)database.
(3)*Service Level Obligation.* Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if a PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority is not capable of receiving and processing either ANI or location information, a VRS or IP Relay provider need not provide such ANI or location information; however, nothing in this paragraph affects the obligation under paragraph
(c)of this section of a VRS or IP Relay provider to transmit via the Wireline E911 Network all 911 calls to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority that serves the caller's Registered Location and that has been designated for telecommunications carriers pursuant to § 64.3001 of this chapter.
(4)*Registered Location Requirement.* As of December 31, 2008, VRS and IP Relay providers must:
(i)Obtain from each Registered Internet-based TRS User, prior to the initiation of service, the physical location at which the service will first be utilized; and
(ii)If the VRS or IP Relay is capable of being used from more than one location, provide their Registered Internet-based TRS Users one or more methods of updating their Registered Location, including at least one option that requires use only of the CPE necessary to access the VRS or IP Relay. Any method utilized must allow a Registered Internet-based TRS User to update the Registered Location at will and in a timely manner. 7. Section 64.611 is added to read as follows: § 64.611 Internet-Based TRS Registration.
(a)*Default Provider Registration.* Every provider of VRS or IP Relay must, no later than December 31, 2008, provide users with the capability to register with that VRS or IP Relay provider as a “default provider.” Upon a user's registration, the VRS or IP Relay provider shall:
(1)Either:
(i)Facilitate the user's valid number portability request as set forth in 47 CFR 52.34; or, if the user does not wish to port a number,
(ii)Assign that user a geographically appropriate North American Numbering Plan telephone number; and
(2)Route and deliver all of that user's inbound and outbound calls unless the user chooses to place a call with, or receives a call from, an alternate provider.
(b)*Mandatory Registration of New Users.* As of December 31, 2008, VRS and IP Relay providers must, prior to the initiation of service for an individual that has not previously utilized VRS or IP Relay, register that new user as described in paragraph
(a)of this section.
(c)*Obligations of Default Providers and Former Default Providers.*
(1)Default providers must:
(i)Obtain current routing information, including IP addresses or domain names and user names, from their Registered Internet-based TRS Users;
(ii)Provision such information to the TRS Numbering Directory; and
(iii)Maintain such information in their internal databases and in the TRS Numbering Directory.
(2)Internet-based TRS providers (and, to the extent necessary, their Numbering Partners) must:
(i)Take such steps as are necessary to cease acquiring routing information from any VRS or IP Relay user that ports his or her number to another VRS or IP Relay provider or otherwise selects a new default provider;
(ii)Communicate among themselves as necessary to ensure that:
(A)Only the default provider provisions routing information to the central database; and
(B)VRS and IP Relay providers other than the default provider are aware that they must query the TRS Numbering Directory in order to obtain accurate routing information for a particular user of VRS or IP Relay.
(d)*Proxy Numbers.* After December 31, 2008, a VRS or IP Relay provider:
(1)May not assign or issue a proxy or alias for a NANP telephone number to any user; and
(2)Must cease to use any proxy or alias for a NANP telephone number assigned or issued to any Registered Internet-based TRS User.
(e)*CPE.*
(1)Every VRS or IP Relay provider must ensure that all CPE they have issued, leased, or otherwise provided to VRS or IP Relay users delivers routing information or other information only to the user's default provider, except as is necessary to complete or receive “dial around” calls on a case-by-case basis.
(2)All CPE issued, leased, or otherwise provided to VRS or IP Relay users by Internet-based TRS providers must be capable of facilitating the requirements of this section.
(f)*User Notification.* Every VRS or IP Relay provider must include an advisory on its website and in any promotional materials addressing numbering or E911 services for VRS or IP Relay.
(1)At a minimum, the advisory must address the following issues:
(i)The process by which VRS or IP Relay users may obtain ten-digit telephone numbers, including a brief summary of the numbering assignment and administration processes adopted herein;
(ii)The portability of ten-digit telephone numbers assigned to VRS or IP Relay users;
(iii)The process by which persons using VRS or IP Relay may submit, update, and confirm receipt by the provider of their Registered Location information; and
(iv)An explanation emphasizing the importance of maintaining accurate, up-to-date Registered Location information with the user's default provider in the event that the individual places an emergency call via an Internet-based relay service.
(2)VRS and IP Relay providers must obtain and keep a record of affirmative acknowledgment by every Registered Internet-based TRS User of having received and understood the advisory described in this subsection. 8. Section 64.613 is added to read as follows: § 64.613 Numbering Directory for Internet-based TRS Users.
(a)*TRS Numbering Directory.*
(1)The TRS Numbering Directory shall contain records mapping the NANP telephone number of each Registered Internet-based TRS User to a unique Uniform Resource Identifier (URI).
(2)For each record associated with a VRS user, the URI shall contain the user's Internet Protocol
(IP)address. For each record associated with an IP Relay user, the URI shall contain the user's user name and domain name that can be subsequently resolved to reach the user.
(3)Only the TRS Numbering Administrator and Internet-based TRS providers may access the TRS Numbering Directory.
(b)*Administration* —(1) *Neutrality.*
(i)The TRS Numbering Administrator shall be a non-governmental entity that is impartial and not an affiliate of any Internet-based TRS provider.
(ii)Neither the TRS Numbering Administrator nor any affiliate may issue a majority of its debt to, nor derive a majority of its revenues from, any Internet-based TRS provider.
(iii)Nor may the TRS Numbering Administrator nor any affiliate be unduly influenced, as determined by the North American Numbering Council, by parties with a vested interest in the outcome of TRS-related numbering administration and activities.
(iv)Any subcontractor that performs any function of the TRS Numbering Administrator must also meet these neutrality criteria.
(2)*Terms of Administration.* The TRS Numbering Administrator shall administer the TRS Numbering Directory pursuant to the terms of its contract.
(3)*Compensation.* The TRS Fund, as defined by 47 CFR 64.604(a)(5)(iii), may compensate the TRS Numbering Administrator for the reasonable costs of administration pursuant to the terms of its contract. [FR Doc. E8-16260 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 [Docket No. 071211828-8826-03] RIN 0648-AU22 Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish; Permit and Reporting Requirements in the Main Hawaiian Islands AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule; effectiveness of collection-of-information requirements. SUMMARY: NMFS announces approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)of collection-of-information requirements contained in regulations implementing Amendment 14 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. The intent of this final rule is to inform the public that the associated permitting and reporting requirements have been approved by OMB. DATES: The amendments to §§ 665.13(f)(2) and (g), 665.14(a), and 665.61(a), published at 73 FR 18450 (April 4, 2008) have been approved by OMB and are effective on August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to William L. Robinson, Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700, and to David Rostker, OMB, by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to 202-395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Harman, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2271. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access This **Federal Register** document is also accessible at the Office of the **Federal Register** : *www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/* . Background A final rule for Amendment 14 was published in the **Federal Register** on April 4, 2008 (73 FR 18450), and the requirements of that final rule, other than the collection-of-information requirements, were effective on April 1, 2008. Because OMB approval of the collection-of-information requirements had not been received by the date that final rule was published, the effective date of the associated permitting and reporting requirements in that rule was delayed. OMB approved the collection-of-information requirements contained in the final rule on July 3, 2008. Accordingly, this final rule makes effective the collection-of-information requirements at §§ 665.13, 665.14, and 665.61, which were amended in the April 4, 2008, final rule. Classification This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. This final rule contains new collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA under OMB Control Number 0648-0577. The public reporting burden for these requirements is estimated to be 20 minutes for a new permit application, two
(2)hours for a permit appeal, and 20 minutes for completing a fishing logbook each day. These estimates include time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES ), or by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to 202-395-7285. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: July 15, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-16488 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 139 Friday, July 18, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 983 [Docket No. AO-FV-08-0147; AMS-FV-08-0051; FV08-983-1] Pistachios Grown in California; Hearing on Proposed Amendment of Marketing Order No. 983 AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of hearing on proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to receive evidence on proposed amendments to Marketing Order No. 983 (order), which regulates the handling of pistachios grown in California. The amendments are proposed by the Administrative Committee for Pistachios (Committee), which is responsible for local administration of the order. The proposed amendments would: Expand the production area covered under the order to include Arizona and New Mexico in addition to California; authorize the Committee to reimburse handlers for a portion of their inspection and certification costs in certain situations; authorize the Committee to recommend research projects; modify existing order authorities concerning aflatoxin and quality regulations; modify the authority for interhandler transfers of order obligations; redesignate several sections of the order; remove previously suspended order provisions, and make other related changes. In addition, the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)proposes to make any such additional changes as may be necessary to the order to conform to any amendment that may result from the hearing. The proposals are intended to improve the operation and functioning of the marketing order program. DATES: The hearing will be held on July 29, 2008, in Fresno, California, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 4:30 p.m. The hearing will continue, if necessary, on July 30, 2008, at 8:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: The hearing location is: Fresno County Farm Bureau, 1247 West Hedges Avenue, Fresno, CA 93728, Telephone:
(559)237-0263. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Engeler, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, Suite 102-B, Fresno, California 93721; Telephone:
(559)487-5110, Fax:
(559)487-5906, or e-mail: *Martin.Engeler@usda.gov* ; or Kathleen M. Finn, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:
(202)720-2491, Fax:
(202)720-8938, or e-mail: *Kathy.Finn@usda.gov* . Small businesses may request information on this proceeding by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:
(202)720-2491, Fax:
(202)720-8938, or e-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This administrative action is instituted pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” This action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code and, therefore, is excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) seeks to ensure that within the statutory authority of a program, the regulatory and informational requirements are tailored to the size and nature of small businesses. Interested persons are invited to present evidence at the hearing on the possible regulatory and informational impacts of the proposals on small businesses. The amendments proposed herein have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed amendments would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with the proposals. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. The hearing is called pursuant to the provisions of the Act and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900). The proposed amendments were recommended by the Committee and submitted to USDA on June 10, 2008. After reviewing the proposals and other information submitted by the Committee, USDA made a determination to schedule this matter for hearing. The proposed amendments include addition of new sections to the order which would result in numerical redesignation of several sections of the order. The proposed amendments recommended by the Committee are summarized below. 1. Amend the order to expand the production area to include the States of Arizona and New Mexico. The production area covered under the order is currently limited to the State of California. This proposal would revise existing § 983.26, Production area, and redesignate it as § 983.25. It would also result in conforming changes being made to existing § 983.11, Districts; § 983.21, Part and subpart; and existing § 983.32, Establishment and membership. Existing sections 983.21 and 983.32 would also be redesignated as § 983.20 and § 983.41, respectively. 2. Amend the order to authorize the Committee to reimburse handlers for travel and shipping costs related to aflatoxin inspection, under certain circumstances. This proposal would amend existing § 983.44, Inspection, certification and identification, and redesignate it as § 983.56. 3. Amend the order to add a new § 983.46, Research, that would authorize the Committee to engage in research projects with the approval of USDA. This proposed amendment would also require conforming changes to existing § 983.34, Procedure, to establish voting requirements for Committee recommendations concerning research. It would also require conforming changes to existing § 983.46, Modification or suspension of regulations, and § 983.54, Contributions. The existing § 983.34, § 983.46, and § 983.54 would also be redesignated as § 983.43, § 983.59, and § 983.72, respectively. 4. This proposal would amend the order to provide broad authority for aflatoxin regulations by revising existing § 983.38, Aflatoxin levels, and redesignating it as § 983.50. This proposal would also require conforming changes to existing § 983.40, and redesignating that section as § 983.52. It would also require conforming changes to § 983.1, Accredited laboratory. 5. This proposal would amend the order to provide broad authority for quality regulations by revising existing § 983.39, Minimum quality levels, and redesignating it as § 983.51. It would also remove provisions from that section concerning specific quality regulations that are currently suspended. This amendment would also require conforming changes by removing currently suspended language in § 983.6, Assessed weight; revising § 983.7, Certified pistachios; removing existing § 982.19, Minimum quality requirements and § 983.20, Minimum quality certificate; revising existing § 983.31, Shelled pistachios; revising existing § 983.41, Testing of minimal quantities, and removing currently suspended language in that section; revising existing § 983.42, Commingling; and revising existing § 983.45, Substandard pistachios. Sections 983.31, 983.41, 983.42, and 983.45 would be redesignated as sections 983.30, 983.53, 983.54, and 983.57, respectively. 6. This proposal would also amend the order to add a new § 983.58, Interhandler Transfers. This proposal would modify existing authority under the order by expanding the range of marketing order obligations that may be transferred between handlers when pistachios are transferred between handlers. This proposal would require a conforming change to existing § 983.53, Assessments, and would redesignate § 983.53 as § 983.71. 7. As a result of the proposed amendments and conforming changes to the order summarized above, numerous administrative changes to the order would also be required. Such changes include numerical redesignations to several sections of the order, changes to cross references of section numbers in regulatory text as a result of the numerical redesignations, and removal of obsolete provisions. In addition, a change would be made to amend existing § 983.70 and redesignate it as § 983.92. In addition to the proposed amendments to the order, AMS proposes to make any such additional changes as may be necessary to the order to conform to any amendment that may result from the hearing. The public hearing is held for the purpose of:
(i)Receiving evidence about the economic and marketing conditions which relate to the proposed amendments of the order;
(ii)determining whether there is a need for the proposed amendments to the order; and
(iii)determining whether the proposed amendments or appropriate modifications thereof will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Testimony is invited at the hearing on all the proposals and recommendations contained in this notice, as well as any appropriate modifications or alternatives. All persons wishing to submit written material as evidence at the hearing should be prepared to submit four copies of such material at the hearing and should have prepared testimony available for presentation at the hearing. From the time the notice of hearing is issued and until the issuance of a final decision in this proceeding, USDA employees involved in the decisional process are prohibited from discussing the merits of the hearing issues on an *ex parte* basis with any person having an interest in the proceeding. The prohibition applies to employees in the following organizational units: Office of the Secretary of Agriculture; Office of the Administrator, AMS; Office of the General Counsel, except any designated employee of the General Counsel assigned to represent the Committee in this proceeding; and the Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS. Procedural matters are not subject to the above prohibition and may be discussed at any time. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 983 Pistachios, Marketing agreements and orders, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. PART 983—PISTACHIOS GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 983 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 2. Testimony is invited on the following proposals or appropriate alternatives or modifications to such proposals. Proposals submitted by the Administrative Committee for Pistachios: Proposal Number 1 3. Revise § 983.11
(a)by adding a paragraph
(4)following paragraph (3): § 983.11 Districts.
(a)* * *
(4)District 4 consists of the States of Arizona and New Mexico. 4. In § 983.20, lift the suspension of December 10, 2007, remove § 983.20, redesignate existing § 983.21 as § 983.20, and revise it to read as follows: § 983.20 Part and subpart. *Part* means the order regulating the handling of pistachios grown in the States of California, Arizona and New Mexico, and all the rules, regulations and supplementary orders issued thereunder. The aforesaid order regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona and New Mexico shall be a subpart of such part. 5. Redesignate § 983.26 as § 983.25 and revise it to read as follows: § 983.25 Production area. *Production Area* means the States of California, Arizona, and New Mexico. 6. Redesignate § 983.32 as § 983.41, remove the words “eleven (11)” from the introductory paragraph and add in their place the words “twelve (12),” and revise paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 983.41 Establishment and membership.
(a)* * *
(b)*Producers.* Nine members shall represent producers. Producers within the respective districts shall nominate four producers from District 1, three producers from District 2, one producer from District 3, and one producer from District 4. The Secretary, upon recommendation of the committee, may reapportion producer representation among the districts to ensure proper representation. Proposal Number 2 7. Redesignate § 983.44 as § 983.56 and revise it to read as follows: § 983.56 Inspection, certification and identification. Upon recommendation of the committee and approval of the Secretary, all pistachios that are required to be inspected and certified in accordance with this part, shall be identified by appropriate seals, stamps, tags, or other identification to be affixed to the containers by the handler. All inspections shall be at the expense of the handler, *Provided,* That for handlers making shipments from facilities located in an area where inspection costs for inspector travel and shipment of samples for aflatoxin testing would otherwise exceed the average of those same inspection costs for comparable handling operations located in Districts 1 and 2, such handlers may be compensated by the committee for the difference between their respective inspection costs and such average, or as otherwise recommended by the committee and approved by the Secretary. Proposal Number 3 8. Redesignate § 983.34 as § 983.43 and revise paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 983.43 Procedure.
(a)*Quorum.* A quorum of the committee shall be any seven voting committee members. The vote of a majority of members present at a meeting at which there is a quorum shall constitute the act of the committee: Provided, That actions of the committee with respect to the following issues shall require twelve
(12)concurring votes of the voting members regarding any recommendation to the Secretary for adoption or change in:
(1)Quality levels;
(2)Aflatoxin levels;
(3)Research under § 983.46; and *Provided further,* That actions of the committee with respect to the following issues shall require eight
(8)concurring votes of the voting members regarding recommendation to the Secretary for adoption or change in:
(4)Inspection programs;
(5)The establishment of the committee. 9. Redesignate existing § 983.46 as § 983.59, add a new § 983.46, and revise § 983.59 to read as follows: § 983.46 Research. The committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish or provide for the establishment of projects involving research designed to assist or improve the efficient production and postharvest handling of quality pistachios. The committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may also establish or provide for the establishment of projects designed to determine the effects of pistachio consumption on human health and nutrition. Pursuant to § 983.43(a), such research projects may only be established with 12 concurring votes of the voting members of the committee. The expenses of such projects shall be paid from funds collected pursuant to §§ 983.71 and 983.72. § 983.59 Modification or suspension of regulations.
(a)In the event that the committee, at any time, finds that by reason of changed conditions, any regulations issued pursuant to §§ 983.50 through 983.58 should be modified or suspended, it shall, pursuant to § 983.43, so recommend to the Secretary.
(b)Whenever the Secretary finds from the recommendations and information submitted by the committee or from other available information, that a regulation should be modified, suspended, or terminated with respect to any or all shipments of pistachios in order to effectuate the declared policy of the Act, the Secretary shall modify or suspend such provisions. If the Secretary finds that a regulation obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act, the Secretary shall suspend or terminate such regulation.
(c)The committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may issue rules and regulations implementing §§ 983.50 through 983.58. 10. Redesignate § 983.54 as § 983.72 and revise it to read as follows: § 983.72 Contributions. The committee may accept voluntary contributions but these shall only be used to pay for committee expenses unless specified in support of research under § 983.46. Furthermore, research contributions shall be free of additional encumbrances by the donor and the committee shall retain complete control of their use. Proposal Number 4 11. In § 983.1, remove the words “for testing aflatoxin.” 12. In § 983.38, lift the suspension of December 10, 2007, redesignate § 983.38 as § 983.50, and revise it to read as follows: § 983.50 Aflatoxin regulations. The committee shall establish, with the approval of the Secretary, such aflatoxin sampling, analysis, and inspection requirements applicable to pistachios to be shipped for domestic human consumption as will contribute to orderly marketing or be in the public interest. No handler shall ship, for human consumption, pistachios that exceed an aflatoxin level established by the committee and approved by the Secretary. All domestic shipments must be covered by an aflatoxin inspection certificate. 13. In § 983.40, lift the suspension of December 10, 2007, redesignate § 983.40 as § 983.52, and revise it to read as follows: § 983.52 Failed lots/rework procedure.
(a)*Substandard pistachios.* Each lot of substandard pistachios may be reworked to meet aflatoxin or quality requirements. The committee shall designate, with the Secretary's approval, appropriate rework procedures.
(b)*Failed lot reporting.* If a lot fails to meet the aflatoxin and/or the quality requirements of this part, a failed lot notification report shall be completed and sent to the committee within 10 working days of the test failure. This form must be completed and submitted to the committee each time a lot fails either aflatoxin or quality testing. The accredited laboratories shall send the failed lot notification reports for aflatoxin tests to the committee, and the handler, under the supervision of an inspector, shall send the failed lot notification reports for the lots that do not meet the quality requirements to the committee. Proposal Number 5 14. In § 983.6, lift the suspension of December 10, 2007, and revise the section to read as follows: § 983.6 Assessed weight. *Assessed weight* means pounds of inshell pistachios, with the weight computed at 5 percent moisture, received for processing by a handler within each production year: *Provided,* That for loose kernels, the actual weight shall be multiplied by two to obtain an inshell weight; *Provided further,* That the assessed weight may be based upon quality requirements for inshell pistachios that may be recommended by the committee and approved by the Secretary. 15. In § 983.7, lift the suspension of December 10, 2007, and revise the section to read as follows: § 983.7 Certified pistachios. Certified pistachios are those that meet the inspection and certification requirements under this part. 16. In § 983.19, lift the suspension of December 10, 2007, and remove the section. 17. In § 983.31, remove the suspension of December 10, 2007, redesignate § 983.31 as § 983.30, and revise it to read as follows: § 983.30 Substandard pistachios. *Substandard pistachios* means pistachios, inshell or shelled, which do not meet regulations established pursuant to §§ 983.50 and 983.51. 18. In § 983.39, lift the suspension of December 10, 2007, redesignate § 983.39 as § 983.51, and revise it to read as follows: § 983.51 Quality regulations. For any production year, the committee may establish, with the approval of the Secretary, such quality and inspection requirements applicable to pistachios to be shipped for domestic human consumption as will contribute to orderly marketing or be in the public interest. In such production year, no handler shall ship pistachios for domestic human consumption unless they meet the applicable requirements as evidenced by certification acceptable to the committee. 19. In § 983.41, lift the suspension of December 10, 2007, redesignate § 983.41 as § 983.53, and revise it to read as follows: § 983.53 Testing of minimal quantities.
(a)*Aflatoxin.* Handlers who handle less than 1 million pounds of assessed weight per year, have the option of utilizing both of the following methods for testing for aflatoxin:
(1)The handler may have an inspector sample and test his or her entire inventory of hulled and dried pistachios for the aflatoxin certification before further processing.
(2)The handler may segregate receipts into various lots at the handler's discretion and have an inspector sample and test each specific lot. Any lots that have less than 15 ppb aflatoxin can be certified by an inspector to be negative as to aflatoxin. Any lots that are found to be above 15 ppb may be tested after reworking in the same manner as specified in § 983.50.
(b)*Quality.* The committee may, with the approval of the Secretary, establish regulations regarding the testing of minimal quantities of pistachios for quality. 20. In § 983.42, lift the suspension of December 10, 2007, redesignate § 983.42 as § 983.54, and revise it to read as follows: § 983.54 Commingling. Certified lots may be commingled with other certified lots, but the commingling of certified and uncertified lots shall cause the loss of certification for the commingled lots. 21. In § 983.45, lift the suspension of December 10, 2007, redesignate § 983.45 as § 983.57, and revise it to read as follows: § 983.57 Substandard pistachios. The committee shall, with the approval of the Secretary, establish such reporting and disposition procedures as it deems necessary to ensure that pistachios which do not meet the aflatoxin and quality requirements established pursuant to §§ 983.50 and 983.51 shall not be shipped for domestic human consumption. Proposal Number 6 22. Redesignate § 983.53 as § 983.71 and revise paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 983.71 Assessments.
(a)Each handler who receives pistachios for processing in each production year, except as provided in § 983.58, shall pay the committee on demand, an assessment based on the *pro rata* share of the expenses authorized by the Secretary for that year attributable to the assessed weight of pistachios received by that handler in that year. 23. Redesignate existing § 983.58 as § 983.80 and add a new § 983.58 as follows: § 983.58 Interhandler transfers. Within the production area, any handler may transfer pistachios to another handler for additional handling, and any assessments, inspection requirements, aflatoxin testing requirements, and any other marketing order requirements with respect to pistachios so transferred may be assumed by the receiving handler. The committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish methods and procedures, including necessary reports, to maintain accurate records for such transfers. Proposal Number 7—Administrative Changes 24. § 983.8 is revised to read as follows: § 983.8 Committee. *Committee* means the Administrative Committee for Pistachios established pursuant to § 983.41. 25. Redesignate § 983.33 as § 983.42 and revise it by removing the word “grower” and adding in its place the word “producer” in paragraph (a), removing the reference to “§ 983.32” and adding in its place the “§ 983.41” in paragraph (j), and by removing the reference to “§§ 983.32, 983.33, and 983.34” and adding in its place “§§ 983.41, 983.42, and 983.43” in paragraph (n). 26. Redesignate § 983.56 as § 983.74 and revise it by removing the reference to “§ 983.53” and adding in its place “§ 983.71” in paragraph (a)(1). 27. Redesignate § 983.57 as § 983.75 and revise it to read as follows: § 983.75 Implementation and amendments. The Secretary, upon the recommendation of a majority of the committee, may issue rules and regulations implementing or modifying §§ 983.64 through 983.74 inclusive. 28. Redesignate § 983.65 as § 983.87 and revise it to read as follows: § 983.87 Effective time. The provisions of this part, as well as any amendments, shall become effective at such time as the Secretary may declare, and shall continue in force until terminated or suspended in one of the ways specified in § 983.88 or 983.89. 29. Redesignate § 983.70 as 983.92 and revise it to read as follows: § 983.92 Exemption. Any handler may handle pistachios within the production area free of the requirements in §§ 983.50 through 983.58 and 983.71 if such pistachios are handled in quantities not exceeding 5,000 dried pounds during any production year. This section may be changed as recommended by the committee and approved by the Secretary. 30. Redesignate the following sections as follows: Old section New section 983.22 983.21 983.23 983.22 983.24 983.23 983.25 983.24 983.27 983.26 983.28 983.27 983.29 983.28 983.30 983.29 983.35 983.44 983.36 983.45 983.37 983.47 983.43 983.55 983.47 983.64 983.48 983.65 983.49 983.66 983.50 983.67 983.51 983.68 983.52 983.70 983.55 983.73 983.59 983.81 983.60 983.82 983.61 983.83 983.62 983.84 983.63 983.85 983.64 983.86 983.66 983.88 983.67 983.89 983.68 983.90 983.69 983.91 Proposal Number 8 Make such changes as may be necessary to the order to conform with any amendment that may result from the hearing. Dated: July 15, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 08-1445 Filed 7-15-08; 4:25 pm]
Connectionstraces to 79
Traces to 79 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
84 references not yet in our index
  • 5 CFR 930
  • 5 CFR 930.204(b)
  • 12 CFR 229
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • 12 USC 4001-4010
  • 12 USC 5001-5018
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 13 CFR 121.902-903
  • 13 CFR 121
  • 13 CFR 123
  • Pub. L. 105-135
  • Pub. L. 102-395
  • 106 Stat. 1828
  • Pub. L. 103-75
  • 107 Stat. 739
  • Pub. L. 106-50
  • 113 Stat. 245
  • 14 CFR 71
  • 22 CFR 7.3
  • 22 CFR 7
  • 22 CFR 7.3(b)
  • 22 CFR 51
  • 22 CFR 51.70-51
  • 22 CFR 51.80
  • 22 CFR 7.3(c)
  • 41 USC 607
  • 48 CFR 633
  • 22 CFR 7.3(e)
  • 22 CFR 7.2(b)
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 109 Stat. 64
  • 22 CFR 50
  • 22 CFR 122
  • Pub. L. 90-629
  • 90 Stat. 744
  • 26 CFR 1
  • T.D. 9391
  • 27 CFR 7
  • 27 CFR 25
+ 44 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Interim rule with request for comments
U.S.C.§ 553
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 1104
U.S.C.§ 3506
C.F.R.§ 121.301
C.F.R.§ 121.502
C.F.R.§ 121.512
C.F.R.§ 123.300
U.S.C.§ 632
F. App'x972 F.2d 384
SCOTUS427 U.S. 246
Cite5 CFR 930
Cites 163 · 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.