In 2005 hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, and Wilma, in applicable counties in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas, destroyed and damaged trees, killed livestock, and adversely impacted crop production, including aquaculture, thus severely limiting the purchasing power of farmers engaged in the production of agricultural commodities. Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, as amended (Section 32), provides discretionary authority for the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) to use Section 32 funds to reestablish farmers' purchasing power by making payments to them in connection with the normal production of agricultural commodities produced for domestic consumption.

The FSA published an interim final rule on May 10, 2006, with a 30-day comment period which ended on June 9, 2006. The interim final rule provided that the Secretary would use an estimated $250 million in funds available under Section 32 to restore purchasing power to farmers affected by the significant and widespread destruction caused by the named hurricanes, in those counties in the named States that received a Presidential or Secretarial Designation as a primary county. Accordingly, for eligible losses suffered as a result of the aforementioned hurricanes, the Secretary determined that assistance would be provided by establishment of four hurricane disaster programs to provide direct payments to eligible producers who suffered eligible losses; and one grant program that will provide funds to the named States in order to enable these States to assist aquaculture producers. These programs include: (1) Hurricane Indemnity Program (HIP), (2) Feed Indemnity Program (FIP), (3) Livestock Indemnity program (LIP), (4) Tree Indemnity Program (TIP), and (5) Aquaculture Grant Program. These programs operate under regulations codified in 7 CFR part 760.

Seven respondents provided comments to FSA during the 30-day comment period. One comment was received from an individual, four comments were received from associations representing various producer interests, and two comments were received from advocacy organizations. All comments received were in support of the 2005 Section 32 Hurricane Disaster Programs and expressed the need for the programs because of the losses caused by hurricane destruction. Some of the commenters addressed issues about other, already existing regulations and issues which were not part of the interim final rule for which no comments were invited. Therefore, these issues are not addressed. A few editorial changes have been made in the text of the regulation for clarity and to facilitate the application of the regulations. The definition of deer has been removed because it, as provided in the interim rule, did not include all categories of eligible deer.

• Comment: Three commenters expressed concern that the disaster programs were not available to producers in DeSoto County, Florida.

Response: This rule addressed the hurricane destruction only in those counties in the named States that received a Presidential or Secretarial Designation as a primary county. DeSoto County was not so designated and therefore the disaster programs are not available for losses in that county. No change to the final rule was made as a result of these comments.

• Comment: One commenter expressed concern that payments under TIP would be paid only to eligible owners.

Response: The text of the background of the interim rule did state that TIP payments would be provided to eligible owners. However, the regulatory text at 760.502 is actually broader in that TIP payments are also made to those who bear financial responsibility and who have incurred costs, which includes lessees. Accordingly, no change to the final rule was made as a result of this comment.

• Comment: Two commenters sought clarification of the provisions which describe the exclusion from these disaster programs of individuals or entities whose adjusted gross income (AGI) is in excess of $2.5 million without including the stipulation that individuals or entities are eligible if 75% or more of the $2.5 million is earned from agricultural enterprises.

Response: A change to the final rule will be made to clarify the provision that an individual or entity may be considered to meet the AGI requirements if not less than 75% of the individual's or entity's average AGI for the three tax years immediately preceding the applicable crop year is derived from farming or ranching operations.

• Comment: One commenter suggested that the initial breeding and raising of horses should be deemed part of agricultural production, and that horses are an agricultural product regardless of the activity in which the horse may be used. Therefore, the definitions of “commercial use” and “farming operation” should be modified to indicate a commercial horse breeding operation, by itself, would satisfy the applicable definitions.

Response: FSA does not agree that a horse, or any animal, is an agricultural product without regard to the purpose, use, or activity for which it is used. Regardless of whether the animal is a horse, goat, sheep, cattle or other livestock, no animal is automatically considered an agricultural product based solely on the kind of livestock. No change to the final rule was made as a result of this comment.

• Comment: One commenter questioned why FIP excludes “* * * donkeys, mules, or other large solid-hoofed herbivorous mammals” but LIP includes “* * * mule or donkey.”

Response: Each of these two livestock programs was designed to be consistent with previous livestock programs implemented by FSA. Administering similar programs in a consistent manner reduces the burden placed on producers and ensures that these programs are consistent with similar previous FSA programs. Accordingly, FSA determined to include equine animals (horses, donkeys, and mules) as an eligible category under LIP, and determined to include horses as an eligible category of livestock because of the change in the definition of livestock included in Public Law 109-97. No change to the final rule was made as a result of this comment.

• Comment: One commenter suggested that the word “produced” be removed from the requirements for eligibility under both FIP and LIP as it pertains to animals because, the commenter claimed, animals such as race horses would thus not be eligible if they were produced for reasons other than commercial use as part of a farming operation.

Response: The purpose and use of any animal, including a horse, is critical to determining whether the requirements of Section 32 are met. Any animal, including a horse, which was produced and maintained for reasons other than commercial use as part of a farming operation would not meet the criteria required under the authority provided by Section 32. No change to the final rule was made as a result of this comment.

• Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to what FSA deems to be farming or ranching activities for these disaster programs.

Response: FSA defers to how the producer classified and reported the income of the farming enterprise to IRS. The producer decision of how to report such income reflects the business practices of that enterprise. FSA determinations about such farming or ranching activities, when necessary, will be determined by documents filed with IRS for the applicable year. No change to the final rule was made as a result of this comment.

• Comment: Two commenters expressed concern about HIP providing disaster benefits to eligible producers who receive either a Federal Crop Insurance Program or the Non Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) payment. One commenter asked that FSA let “small and limited farmers and ranchers participate in this program without regard to having received * * *” such a payment. Another commenter asked that FSA waive the requirement for those who agree to obtain coverage in the future, stating that the limitations of HIP payments to those who receive either a crop insurance or NAP payment places a disproportionate impact upon limited resource and socially disadvantaged farmers.

Response: Of the 5 disaster programs offered under the 2005 Section 32 Hurricane Disaster Programs, only HIP benefits are predicated on participants having received a crop insurance or NAP payment. HIP is a “top up” program that will supplement crop insurance or NAP payments because of emergency agricultural situations that crop insurance or NAP payments did not adequately meet. Because HIP is intended to supplement crop insurance or NAP payments, waiving this requirement for those who agree to obtain coverage in the future would delay implementation of the program. Also, both NAP and the catastrophic level of crop insurance are available at no cost to limited resource producers who request that the fees for same be waived. Further, some previous disaster programs have had the stipulation that payments be made based on the proviso that future coverage be obtained and in many instances such future coverage was not obtained. No change to the final rule was made as a result of this comment.

• Comment: One commenter stated that under HIP there seemed no need for FSA to determine that a producer who applies for benefits will be eligible to receive a payment if damage occurred due to an eligible hurricane and due to a cause of loss which includes hurricanes.

Response: A change to section 760.202(a)(3)(vi) in the final rule will be made to delete “hurricane.”

• Comment: One commenter stated concern that no rationale is offered for excluding FIP assistance for losses of beef cattle, buffalo/beefalo, and dairy cattle weighing less than 500 pounds and that because many producers have realized drastically lower-than-projected income from their 2005 calves, FIP assistance for these producers for all of their livestock losses is critical to restoring their buying power.

Response: The purpose of FIP is to provide monetary assistance to eligible livestock owners, or cash lessees, for feed losses or increased feed costs that occurred as a result of an applicable hurricane. The program is not designed or authorized to provide assistance for the loss or reduction of projected income. In general, livestock under a certain weight are normally still nursing and obtaining most of their nutrition from their mother. Therefore, generally, there is no, or minimal, feed loss associated with respect to such animals. No change to the final rule was made as a result of this comment.

• Comment: One commenter expressed concern that there would be insufficient funds to cover all losses, thus producing a ‘first-come, first-serve’ allocation system that would favor the most informed producers without accounting for less informed producers who are at least equally in need of assistance.

Response: FSA is confident that sufficient funds are available to cover all eligible losses. These programs are available to all eligible producers on an equal basis. No change to the final rule was made as a result of this comment.

• Comment: One commenter urged FSA to provide for producers who suffered eligible losses in multiple counties to apply for disaster benefits in one county office; and absent this provision, to make the date a producer files his first application in any county office the application date for his filings in all other county offices.

Response: Based on the fact that severe devastation occurred, very little documentation is available to support reported losses. Therefore FSA determined to require producers to apply in each county where loss occurred in order to enable each FSA county office to validate the loss in that county and to maintain the integrity of the program. As stated previously, FSA is confident that sufficient funds are available to cover all losses so there is no need for time-stamping when an application is filed. No change to the final rule was made as a result of this comment.

• Comment: One commenter asks that payments under these Section 32 programs not be subject to administrative offset.

Response: The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that, with only limited exceptions such as loan proceeds from the federal Farm Loan Program, all federal disbursements be subject to administrative offset. No change to the final rule was made as a result of this comment.

• Comment: One commenter asked that the dates of the application period be included in the rule.

Response: The application period for the disaster programs began on May 17, 2005, prior to the comment period deadline. As yet no end date has been established. To arbitrarily include an end date for the application period in the final rule might limit the time during which applications can be taken, to the detriment of some eligible producers. No change to the final rule was made as a result of this comment. Producers will be notified of the end of the enrollment period through the issuance of press releases and newsletters.

• Comment: One commenter stated that the tomato is a fruit grown on a vine and thus meets the definition of vine and should be eligible for benefits under the disaster programs.

Response: The tomato plant grows with a weak, woody, inflexible stem and, is traditionally considered to be a vegetable for farm program purposes.

Since the issuance of the interim rule that established the 2005 Section 32 Disaster Programs, USDA has determined that significant losses of forage have occurred in several States as the result of severe droughts. As a result of this determination, and taking into account the limited availability of Section 32 funds, FSA will administer a limited program to provide assistance to livestock producers where forage was adversely affected by drought in counties reaching D3 or D4 Drought on the U.S. Drought Monitor, during March 7 to August 31, 2006, in the States of: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Under the Livestock Assistance Grant Program, FSA will provide grants to the State governments of these States to assist livestock producers who suffered forage losses as part of a farming operation in eligible counties. Among other conditions in the grant, the amount of each grant will be based on the number of adult beef cattle and sheep from each eligible county uniformly prorated to insure that available funding is not exceeded. Accordingly, a new Subpart H is added to 7 CFR Part 760.

This rule has been determined to be economically significant under Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. A Cost-Benefit Analysis was completed and is summarized below. It is also available from the contact person cited above.

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).

This rule does not have Federalism implications that warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988. This rule is not retroactive and it does not preempt State law. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 must be exhausted.

This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA for State, local, and tribal government or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection required to support this program and assigned it OMB Control number 0560-0257. Copies of the information collection may be obtained from Debbie O'Donoghue, phone: (202)720-6605; e-mail: Debbie.Odonoghue@wdc.usda.gov.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (Pub. L. 104-121) (SBREFA) requires that an agency delay the effective date of a major rule for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. This rule has not been determined to be major under SBREFA. In addition, section 808 of SBREFA allows an agency to make a major regulation effective immediately if the agency finds there is good cause to do so. Accordingly, FSA finds that it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of this rule because it would significantly delay assistance to the many people affected by the hurricane disasters addressed by this rule. This rule is thus effective immediately.

The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. , the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500 1508), and regulations of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for compliance with NEPA, 7 CFR part 799. A Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) was completed and it was determined that the Proposed Action does not have the potential to significantly impact the quality of the human environment, and, therefore, FSA has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the 2005 Hurricane Assistance programs which include the Hurricane Indemnity Program, Feed Indemnity Program, Livestock Indemnity program, Tree Indemnity Program, Aquaculture Grant Program, and the 2006 Livestock Assistance Grant Program. A copy of the Final PEA and FONSI are on file and available to the public in the Administrative Record at the address specified in the ADDRESSES section of this rule.

FSA is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and the Freedom to E-File Act, which require Government agencies in general and FSA in particular to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. The regulation is available at http://www.fsa.usda.gov under the heading ‘Other Partners.’ Applications may be submitted at the FSA county offices.

CCC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-GOV compliance related to this rule, please contact the person named above under the information contact section.

As a result of 2005 hurricanes, 261 counties in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas were designated as Presidential and Secretarial primary disaster counties. A wide variety of crops were damaged because of the diversity of production in the affected areas. Damaged crops include feed grains, soybeans, upland cotton, rice, sugarcane, nursery plants, fruits, vegetables, pecans, pasture, livestock, poultry, and aquaculture. In response to this situation, FSA established four hurricane disaster programs for producers and a grant program for affected States. Their respective impacts are summarized as follows:

1. HIP. HIP payments are expected to be about $59 million. This estimate is based on 30 percent of the sum of the total payments reported by the RMA and total payment estimates for the NAP program. According to RMA, crop loss indemnities are estimated at $187 million. Based on the participation rates in the hurricane impacted States, it is estimated that approximately $10 million will be issued under NAP. Thus, HIP payments are estimated to total about $56 million (.30 × $187 million) plus about $3 million (.30 × $10 million). Therefore, crop loss payments are estimated to total about $59 million.

2. FIP. The value of expected claims under the 2005 FIP is approximately $5 million. For those producers who have suffered losses due to the 2005 hurricanes, and qualify for payments under the 2005 FIP, their farm income losses will be somewhat offset or reduced by these payments, and they and their local communities will benefit accordingly.

3. LIP. The value of expected claims under the 2005 LIP is $25 million based on projections from applications on file as of September 5, 2006. The impacts of the LIP on any sector of the economy, including livestock feed prices, livestock prices, and consumer prices, are not expected to be measurable. However, for those producers who have suffered losses due to the 2005 hurricanes, and qualify for payments under the LIP, their farm income losses will be somewhat offset or reduced by these payments, and they and their local communities will benefit accordingly.

4. TIP. FSA estimates the cost of the TIP to be between $31.6 million and $56.6 million with a point estimate of $35.1 million. Over 90 percent of the program funds will go to the Florida citrus industry.

5. Aquaculture grants were provided as follows: Alabama, $5,037,500; Florida, $3,662,500; Louisiana, $4,512,500; Mississippi, $10,762,500; North Carolina, $312,500; and Texas, $712,500. Funding of $25 million was expended.

6. Livestock Grant Program. To provide assistance to livestock producers whose forage has been adversely impacted by severe drought in 2006, $50 million has been allocated for block grants to States. Based on the counties declared drought disaster areas and NASS statistics on the number of livestock in each applicable county of each State, funds are being distributed as follows:

Political committees and other persons required to file campaign finance reports with the FEC must itemize certain disbursements and, for each itemized disbursement, must provide the full name and address of the recipient, the date the disbursement was made, and a brief statement or description of why the disbursement was made. See 2 U.S.C. 434(b); 11 CFR 104.3(b)(3) and (4), 104.10(b)(4), 104.17(b)(3) and 300.36(b)(2)(iii). The “purpose of disbursement” entry, when considered along with the identity of the disbursement recipient, must be sufficiently specific to make the purpose of the disbursement clear. 11 CFR 104.3(b)(3)(i)(B) and (4)(i)(A). The Commission's regulation requiring a description of the purpose of each itemized disbursement includes examples of descriptions that are acceptable ( e.g. , “dinner expenses,” “salary,” “travel expenses”) and examples that are unacceptable ( e.g. , “advance,” “miscellaneous”). Neither list is exhaustive.

The Commission solicited comments on a draft of this policy statement on November 2, 2006. Two comments were received. After reviewing the comments received, the Commission has decided to publish the policy statement with one change. As suggested by a commenter, the Commission has added “Consulting-Political” to the examples of generally insufficient descriptions. In light of this change, the Commission has also added examples of descriptions that would be generally sufficient, such as “Consulting-Media,” “Consulting-Fundraising,” “Consulting-Polling,” “Consulting-Legal” and “Consulting-Get-Out-The-Vote.”

The Commission recognizes that the “purpose of disbursement” entries, when linked to information provided about the recipient of the payment, may provide sufficient disclosure. For example, a disbursement to an office supply vendor for the stated purpose of “Supplies” provides adequate and acceptable disclosure, while a disbursement to a committee staff member for the same purpose of “Supplies” would likely trigger a request for a more complete description of the purpose of the disbursement. In the former case, it is obvious to the reader what type of supplies were purchased, while in the latter case, it is not.

As a rule of thumb, filers should consider the following question: “Could a person not associated with the committee easily discern why the disbursement was made when reading the name of the recipient and the purpose?” For example, a person not associated with the committee could not easily discern the purpose of a disbursement made to a vendor for “Consulting” (unless the vendor's name makes the purpose clear, e.g. , Smith Fundraising Consulting, Inc.). As discussed above, however, if the committee were to provide additional detail with respect to the type of consulting the vendor provided ( e.g. , “Fundraising Consulting”), an unassociated person would have no difficultly discerning the purpose of the disbursement.

All information on campaign finance reports submitted to the FEC, including the entries for “purpose of disbursement,” are reviewed by analysts in the Reports Analysis Division (RAD). Some campaign finance reports, particularly those filed by presidential campaign committees accepting public funding, are also reviewed by auditors in the Audit Division. In practice, the RAD analysts and the auditors often encounter “purpose of disbursement” entries that are not listed in the examples contained in 11 CFR 104.3(b)(3) and (4), and receive questions from filers regarding acceptable descriptions. Therefore, in order to provide further guidance to filers and to encourage consistency between filers, the Commission is publishing lists of additional generally acceptable and generally unacceptable descriptions.

The Commission does not intend to request that a committee provide additional information about a purpose of disbursement entry if the committee uses those descriptions listed below as providing sufficient detail. However, if a committee uses a description that is listed as lacking sufficient detail, a RAD analyst may review the report more closely but the Commission would not automatically take any particular action. In most instances, the Commission will merely contact the reporting committee and the committee may then amend its report. In the rare circumstances in which the Commission deems it necessary to pursue the matter further, the Commission will conduct a separate review of the sufficiency of the description of purpose to determine whether it meets the requirements of 11 CFR 104.3(b).

Any future revisions to these lists will be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fec.gov/law/policy.shtml . Committees with questions can contact either their assigned RAD analyst (phone: (800) 424-9530 (press 5)) or the FEC Information Division (phone: (800) 424-9530 (press 6); e-mail: info@fec.gov ).

Descriptions of purpose that provide sufficient detail:

• “Salary” for a disbursement to a staff member.

• “Media” for a disbursement to a television or radio communication company.

• “Polling” for a disbursement to a research/communications company.

• “Travel,” “Travel Expenses,” or “Travel Expense Reimbursement” for a disbursement to a staff member.

• “Printing” for a disbursement to a printing company.

• “Phone Banks” for a disbursement to a vendor providing phone bank services.

• “Dinner Expense” for a disbursement to a restaurant.

• “Catering Cost” for a disbursement to a hotel or restaurant where a fundraiser was held.

• “Party Fees” or “Party Annual Dues” for a disbursement to a National Party Committee for their annual dues.

• “Exit Polling,” “Door-to-Door Get-Out-the-Vote,” “Get-Out-the-Vote Phone Calls,” or “Driving Voters to the Polls” to individuals or vendors contracted for get-out-the-vote or voter registration activity.

• “Supplies” for a disbursement to an office supply vendor.

• “Consultant-Media,” “Consultant-Fundraising,” “Consultant-Get-Out-The-Vote,” “Consultant-Legal,” or “Consultant-Polling” for a disbursement to a consultant or consulting company.

Descriptions of purposes that generally lack sufficient detail:

This Federal Register notice represents a general statement of policy announcing the general course of action that the Commission intends to follow. This policy statement does not constitute an agency regulation requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunities for public participation, prior publication, and delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). As such, it does not bind the Commission or any member of the general public. The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which apply when notice and comment are required by the APA or another statute, are not applicable.

A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 by superseding AD 2004-24-08, Amendment 39-13884 (69 FR 69810, December 1, 2004), for the specified BHTC model helicopters was published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2005 (70 FR 60246). This action contains the same actions as the existing AD. Also, when we issued AD 2004-24-08, we intentionally did not include the long-term requirement (no later than April 27, 2007) for removing and sending the affected blades to Rotor Blades, Inc. as specified by the manufacturer. We are including a long-term requirement in this AD that the affected blades be replaced on or before April 27, 2007, as terminating action. Additionally, in AD 2004-24-08, we inadvertently omitted blade serial numbers 10102 through 10114 from the applicability. We are correcting that oversight with this action.

Since issuing AD 2004-24-08, BHTC has issued Alert Service Bulletin 206-04-100 for Bell Model 206A and B helicopters, and 206L-04-127 for Bell Model 206L series helicopters, both Revision C, both dated March 5, 2005 (ASB). These ASBs add two warnings in the compliance section specifying returning the blade for balancing to Rotor Blades, Inc., and introduce new skin damage limits that supersede the previous damage limits. The ASB also gives a new address for Rotor Blades Inc.

Transport Canada, the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on these helicopter models. Transport Canada advises of three reports of skin cracks originating near the blade trailing edge balance weight. Two of the occurrences caused a loss of the weight and a strip of material along the trailing edge leading to an imbalance, which caused the fracture of three of the four tail rotor gearbox attachments. One of these occurrences resulted in the gearbox shifting that caused failure of the drive shaft and resulting loss of yaw control. Transport Canada issued AD No. CF-2004-05R1, dated June 28, 2004, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in Canada.

These helicopter models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement, Transport Canada has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of Transport Canada, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of these type designs that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed, except for a change in paragraph (f) of the AD to add additional contact information. This change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The FAA estimates that this AD will:

• Affect 2194 helicopters of U.S. registry,

• Take about 1/4 work hour for a blade check or inspection, and

• Take 3 work hours to replace a blade at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour.

• Cost about $5848 per helicopter. (In its ASB, the manufacturer states it will give warranty credit based on hour usage on the blade with remaining life hours and other restrictions.)

Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $19,989,973. Costs assume—200 pilot checks, 26 mechanic inspections, and one blade replacement for 90 percent of the fleet with a nonconforming blade.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the DMS to examine the economic evaluation.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.

This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2006-0311-E, dated October 11, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Stemme GmbH & Co. KG has issued Stemme F&D Service Bulletin A31-10-076 Am. Index: 01.a, dated October 9, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might have also required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These requirements take precedence over those copied from the MCAI.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the cooling liquid is flammable. The liquid cooling circuit of the Stemme S10-VT is not designed to be filled with a flammable liquid without prior modifications, and this could result in a fire. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26518; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-84-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the Docket

You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2006 (71 FR 54939). That NPRM proposed to require determining the part number of the lift spoiler actuators/jacks (referred to after this as “lift spoiler jacks”). For affected lift spoiler jacks, that NPRM proposed to require determining the date of manufacture of the lift spoiler jacks, repetitively inspecting the eye-end assembly of the lift spoiler jacks to detect discrepancies of the assembly or associated parts, and performing corrective actions if necessary.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the single comment received.

The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, typically, ADs are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an AD, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings. MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the Federal Register needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals; traditionally, “affected individuals” means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument and published in the DMS.

We understand MARPA's comment concerning incorporation by reference. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the document necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information.

In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the final rule is necessary in response to this comment.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

This AD affects about 53 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required inspections take about 4 work hours per airplane, per inspection cycle, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $16,960, or $320 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

On October 25, 2006, the FAA published in the Federal Register (71 FR 62397) a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the Class D airspace at Mesa, AZ. Interested parties were invited to participate in this ruelmaking effort by submitting written comments on this proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. This revision is the same as that proposed in the notice. Class D airspace areas are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9P dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by revising the Class D airspace area for Mesa, AZ, Falcon Field Airport. The airspace is modified to accommodate general aviation pilots transitioning the Phoenix area as described in the forthcoming proposed Phoenix Class B airspace redesign. Revising the Mesa Falcon Field airspace provides a wider corridor for general aviation pilots to transition north and south beneath the proposed Phoenix Class B airspace and remain west of the Mesa Falcon Field Airport Class D airspace. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation 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.

On October 27, 2006, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 by establishing a Class E airspace area at Santa Cruz, CA. (71 FR 62954). Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is needed to contain helicopters executing Special COPTER Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) 040 Point In Space Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) and a Special COPTER RNAV (GPS) 227 Departure Procedure serving Dominican Hospital Heliport. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for helicopters executing Special COPTER Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) 040 Point In Space Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) and a Special COPTER RNAV (GPS) 040 Point In Space Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) and a Special COPTER RNAV (GPS) 227 Departure Procedure serving Dominican Hospital Heliport, Santa Cruz, CA.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments to the proposal were received. Class E airspace designations for airspace extending from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes a Class E airspace area at Santa Cruz, CA. The establishment of a Special COPTER Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) 040 Point In Space Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) and a Special COPTER RNAV (GPS) 227 Departure Procedure serving Dominican Hospital Heliport has made this action necessary. The effect of this action will provide adequate controlled airspace for helicopters executing the Special COPTER Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) 040 Point In Space Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) and Special COPTER RNAV (GPS) 227 Departure Procedure to Dominican Hospital Heliport, Santa Cruz, CA.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation—(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 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) amends Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), which is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.

The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in TERPS. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

As part of its obligations under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, the Department regularly evaluates CMPs to ensure that they continue to maintain their deterrent value and that penalty amounts due to the Federal Government are properly accounted for and collected. Under some circumstances, the Department may also need to adjust a portion of the CMPs within its jurisdiction in order to make them consistent with statutory changes.

The recent Patriot Act adjusted certain CMPs under IEEPA. A civil monetary penalty is defined as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that:

This rule adjusts the affected CMPs that are codified at 15 CFR 6.4(a)(4) and 15 CFR 6.4(a)(5) in order to make them consistent with the statutory changes. The actual penalty assessed for a particular violation will continue to be dependent upon a variety of factors.

It has been determined that this rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department for good cause finds that notice and an opportunity for comment required by the Administrative Procedure Act are unnecessary for this rulemaking. It is unnecessary to ask for notice and comment because the USA Patriot Act changed two CMPs within the Department's jurisdiction. As such, the corresponding changes to the Department's regulations are wholly non-discretionary. This rule merely adjusts the Department's CMPs according to the statutory mandate. For the same reasons, there exists good cause to waive the thirty day delay in effectiveness of the rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none was prepared.

This rule does not contain information collection requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

I. Introduction

The Commission has determined, as part of its oversight responsibilities, to review its rules and guides periodically to seek information about their costs and benefits as well as their regulatory and economic impact. The information obtained assists the Commission in identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission.

The Commission issued its Nursery Guides in 1979. 1 These Guides address numerous sales practices for outdoor plants, trees, and flowers, including deceptive claims regarding quantity, size, grade, kind, species, age, maturity, condition, vigor, hardiness, growth ability, price, and origin or place where grown.

In 1994, as part of its periodic review, the Commission amended the Nursery Guides. 2 Specifically, the Commission amended Guide 6 (Plants collected from the wild state) and the related definitions. Guide 6 now advises sellers that it is unfair or deceptive to offer for sale plants collected from the wild state without disclosing that fact. 3 Additionally, the Commission amended Guides 1-8 to update legal terminology. Specifically, the Commission deleted the expressions “it is an unfair trade practice” and “has the capacity and tendency or effect of deceiving purchasers,” neither of which the Commission uses in its orders, rules, or guides. The Commission substituted the language “it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice” and “misrepresents directly or by implication.”  4

On June 13, 2006, the Commission published a Federal Register notice (“FRN”) seeking comment on the Nursery Guides as part of the Commission's ongoing project to review periodically its rules and guides to determine their current effectiveness and impact. 5 The FRN sought comment on the continuing need for the Guides; the costs and benefits of the Guides; how the 1994 amendments to Guide 6 affected the nursery industry and purchasers; and what effects, if any, technological or economic changes have had on the Guides.

The Commission received two comments in response to the FRN, 6 one from an individual  7 and one from the American Nursery & Landscape Association (“ANLA”). ANLA, a national trade organization formed in 1875, represents nursery and greenhouse crop growers, landscape design and installation professionals, independent garden retailers, horticultural distributors, and industry suppliers. ANLA stated that these entities collectively comprise what is commonly referred to as the “green industry,” which generates annual economic output estimated at over $147 billion. According to ANLA, the Nursery Guides cover many of the activities of its members and the industry.

ANLA's comments, which responded to each of the eleven FRN questions, 8 indicated that the Nursery Guides serve a useful purpose and should remain in effect in their current form. ANLA stated that it did not have any proposals for changing the Guides  9 and did not have any “specific observations” about what effects, if any, changes in relevant technology, economic conditions, or environmental conditions had on the Guides. ANLA observed that the Guides “have been generally adopted and become part of routine business practice at least among legitimate and respectable industry firms” and that the Nursery Guides “provide a framework for addressing the bad actors.” ANLA stated that its sense was that the Guides have imposed minimal costs on purchasers because they “merely convey the performance standards that should be met” when the industry engages in advertising and labeling that it otherwise conducts. Further, ANLA said that it did not believe the Guides have imposed any significant burdens on industry businesses.

Concerning FRN question 5 (how the 1994 amendments to Guide 6 regarding plants collected from the wild state have affected the nursery industry and purchasers), ANLA stated that the intent of the 1994 amendments—which it supported—was to protect consumers because wild-collected plants often suffer high mortality. It noted, however, if wild-collected plants have been established in the nursery for at least a growing season, the surviving plants regain vigor and thus the consumer is more assured of purchasing viable plants. ANLA opined that the Guide 6 “nursery-propagated” designation helps conservationists and consumers interested in preserving these wild populations because they may want to purchase only truly nursery-propagated and grown plants.

Sachau's comment related solely to wild-collected plants, and did not indicate that any changes needed to be made to the Guides. Sachau stated that no wild-collected plants should be sold by any U.S. nursery. Sachau indicated that such plants were usually collected on national taxpayer-owned land, and that taking plants from this land was “stealing.” Sachau stated that stealing plants from national land should be a criminal offense, and suggested specific fines to be imposed on anyone caught stealing from nationally-owned land. With regard to Sachau's comments, the Commission notes that Guide 6 refers only to plants “lawfully” collected from the wild state. Moreover, to the extent that it is not already a crime, the FTC does not have the authority to make collecting plants from the wild state on national lands a criminal offense.

In light of the comments received, and in the absence of any opposition to the Guides, the Commission concludes that there is a continuing need for the Nursery Guides. The comments provide evidence that the Guides serve a useful purpose, while imposing minimal costs on the industry, and the Commission has no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, with the exception of correcting the misspelling of the word “bulblets”  10 in § 18.1(c)(9), the Commission has determined to retain the Nursery Guides in their current form.

For the reasons described above, the Commission has determined to retain the current Nursery Guides.

This document contains Final Regulations under 26 CFR part 1 relating to qualified amended returns. Temporary regulations (TD 9186) relating to qualified amended returns were published in the Federal Register (70 FR 10037) on March 2, 2005. A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-122847-04) cross-referencing the temporary regulations was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 10062) for the same day. A correction (70 FR 36345) and a correcting amendment (70 FR 36344) to the regulations were published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2005, and a correction to the correction was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 43635) on July 28, 2005. No written or electronic comments were received from the public in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking and no public hearing was requested or held. The proposed regulations are adopted as amended by this Treasury decision, and the corresponding temporary regulations are removed. The revisions are discussed below.

The final regulations clarify the applicability date of the regulations. Under the Special Rules section, the sentence in the proposed and temporary regulations regarding disclosure pursuant to § 1.6011-4 was removed in these final regulations because it could be incorrectly interpreted to provide relief from the section 6707A penalty. These final regulations are not intended to have any effect upon the applicability of the section 6707A penalty. In addition, examples one, four, five, six, and seven in the proposed and temporary regulations were further clarified. Finally, example eight in the proposed and temporary regulations was removed as unnecessary.

No other substantive revisions were made to the proposed and temporary regulations or the corrections to those regulations. These final regulations do, however, include revisions to the table of contents to the regulations under section 6664.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small businesses.

The principal author of this regulation is Laura Urich Daly, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration), Administrative Provisions and Judicial Practice Division.

Regulatory Information

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The Department of Homeland Security designated the January 23, 2007 State of the Union Address a National Special Security Event (NSSE). The Coast Guard is establishing this security zone to support the United States Secret Service, the designated lead Federal agency for an NSSE, in their efforts to coordinate security operations and establish a secure environment for this highly visible and publicized event. This temporary security zone of short duration is necessary to provide for the security of high-ranking United States officials and the public at large. Additionally, the publication of an NPRM is contrary to the public interest, as immediate action is required to address the ongoing threat to U.S. national interests.

For the same reasons, 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 . The measures contemplated by the rule are intended to protect the public by preventing waterborne acts of terrorism, which terrorists have demonstrated a capability to carry out. Immediate action is needed to defend against and deter these terrorist acts. Any delay in the effective date of this rule is contrary to public and national interests.

The ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert because the al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide. Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible, the Coast Guard, as lead Federal agency for maritime homeland security, has determined that the Coast Guard Captain of the Port must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks.

The Captain of the Port Baltimore is establishing a security zone to address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a gathering of high-ranking United States officials at or near the U.S. Capitol Building would have. This temporary security zone applies to all waters of the Potomac River, from the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge upstream to the Key Bridge, including the waters of the Anacostia River downstream from the Highway 50 Bridge to the confluence with the Potomac River, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin. Vessels underway at the time this security zone is implemented will immediately proceed out of the zone. We will issue written and broadcast Notices to Mariners to further publicize the security zone and any revisions to the zone.

Except for public vessels and vessels at berth, mooring or at anchor, this rule temporarily requires all vessels in the designated security zone as defined by this rule to depart the security zone.

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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to operate, transit or anchor on the Potomac River, from the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge upstream to the Key Bridge, including the waters of the Anacostia River downstream from the Highway 50 Bridge to the confluence with the Potomac River, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin, from 8 a.m. on January 23, 2007 through 8 a.m. on January 24, 2007. This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to a lack of seasonal vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing during the effective period. Further, vessels with compelling interests that outweigh the port's security needs may be granted waivers from the requirements of the security zone.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If your small business or organization would be affected by this final rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact one of the points of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule establishes a security zone.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. To protect the LNG slip from potential sabotage and unauthorized access prior to a LNG ship arrival, we are publishing this interim rule with request for comments that will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register. Additionally, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this interim rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register. Delaying implementation of this rule any longer to await public notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest because of the adverse effect on the safety of navigation in the Savannah River, vessel congestion, and the safety and security of LNG transfer operations in the port.

Even though, we did not publish an NPRM, we still encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material to the docket. We will accept comments for 60 days, after which we intend to publish the final rule. If you submit comments, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [COTP Savannah 06-160], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this interim rule in view of them.

We do not plan to hold a public meeting on the interim rule. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to MSU Savannah (see ADDRESSES above) explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at the time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

In May of 2002, Southern LNG, Inc., submitted a letter of intent to expand the LNG facility on Elba Island that would nearly double the LNG storage capacity and substantially increase the number of LNG tankship arrivals. The expansion project, completed in early 2006, resulted in the creation of two new berths within a slip at the Southern LNG Facility on the Savannah River. The design of the new slip inadvertently creates a safe refuge off the Savannah River with unrestricted access to LNG berths. As a result, the LNG facility and arriving LNG vessels are put at risk of sabotage or other adverse action that could result in significant damage to property and loss of life.

This concern was confirmed by an incident on June 6, 2006, when a sailing vessel entered the LNG slip and anchored for six hours, one day before the scheduled arrival of an LNG carrier. This incident raised security concerns and prompted the LNG facility to conduct a visual inspection of the above water mooring features and a complete underwater survey, in turn delaying the LNG vessel. The visual inspection and underwater survey was necessary to ensure no objects that could potentially harm the vessel or facility were left in the slip. Although the incident did not result in any harm to the facility or vessel, it was recognized by the Coast Guard that a potential vulnerability exists in the security of the LNG slip.

Additionally, as the demand for natural gas continues to grow, Southern LNG plans to expand its current operation, potentially increasing both the size and frequency of LNG vessel arrivals and further concerns over a potential accidental spill or intentional release of LNG. The risks and hazards from an LNG spill will vary depending on the size of the spill, environmental conditions, and the site at which the spill occurs. Hazards can include cryogenic burns to the ship's crew and people nearby or potential damage to the LNG ship from contact with the cryogenic LNG. Vaporization of the liquid LNG can occur once a spill occurs and subsequent ignition of the vapor cloud could cause fires and overpressures that could injure people or cause damage to the tanker's structure, other LNG tanks, or nearby structures.

Therefore, the incident of June 6, 2006, discussed above, the hazards associated with the transportation of LNG, and the expansion of Elba Island LNG facility necessitate making this interim rule effective upon publication with a 60-day request for comment period. Additionally, this security zone is necessary to protect the berths and moored LNG vessels within the LNG slip from potential sabotage and unauthorized access prior to an LNG ship arrival.

The Security Zone encompasses the following area: All the waters from surface to bottom of the northeastern most mooring dolphin located at approximately 32° 05.01′ North, 080° 59.38′ West, to the southeastern most mooring dolphin located at approximately 32° 04.49′ North, 080° 59.20′ West, and continues west along the North and South shoreline of the mooring slip to the shoreline of the right descending bank of the Savannah River. All marine traffic is prohibited from entering this zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP).

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. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security.

We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. These regulations will have minimal impact on recreational and commercial vessels and is necessary to protect the berths and moored LNG vessels within the LNG slip from potential sabotage and unauthorized access prior to an LNG ship arrival. This security zone is outside the channel and outside recreational vessel grounds. It encompasses waters inside the LNG terminal piers. Therefore, it should have a minimal impact on recreational and commercial vessels.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This security zone will only restrict access to a limited area, immediately surrounding an LNG facility, where vessels should not be operating due to the danger associated with the facility.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposal so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Small businesses may also 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).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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. This interim rule would not result in such an expenditure.

This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

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 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 might disproportionately affect children.

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.

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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D 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 (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Checklist” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

You may download this rule from the Department's Docket Management System ( http://dms.dot.gov ) by entering docket number 22428 in the search field or from the Government Printing Office's Federal Register Main Page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html . Users may also download an electronic copy of this document using a modem and suitable communications software from the GPO Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661.

On August 8, 2006, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish an “Emergency Relief Docket” for granting relief from Federal transit policy statements, circulars, and guidance documents, in times of national or regional emergency (71 FR 44957). The NPRM was in response to the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, during which FTA received numerous requests for relief from policy statements, circulars, guidance documents, and regulations, from grantees and subgrantees in the immediate disaster zone as well as from grantees and subgrantees in areas receiving evacuees.

The NPRM comment period remained open until October 10, 2006. FTA received 14 comments to the docket. FTA reviewed and considered all comments submitted. Commenters included the City of Lincoln, NE; the Metro Regional Transit Authority of Akron, OH; the Portage Area Regional Transportation Authority (OH); Congressman Tim Ryan (OH); Earthquake Solutions (CA); the Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (OH); Omnitrans (CA); the Licking County Transit Board (OH); the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (DC); Laketran (OH); the Alaska Department of Transportation; the American Public Transportation Association (APTA); the California Department of Transportation; and one individual. In addition, Senator DeWine (OH) wrote to FTA's Administrator, James S. Simpson, to bring to his attention the comments made by the Akron Metro Regional Transit Authority. FTA posted Senator DeWine's letter and Administrator Simpson's response in the docket.

Two commenters urged FTA not to employ emergency relief dockets. The commenters stated that relief from administrative requirements can be granted with or without a formal request and with or without public consultation. Several commenters stated a concern that requiring grantees and subgrantees to request relief through emergency relief dockets would slow response to emergencies. Others stated they should be permitted to use their federally-funded equipment in times of emergency and notify FTA of the issue as soon as possible but not later than 30 days after the event.

In response, we agree with commenters that grantees and subgrantees should have maximum flexibility to assist local responders during an emergency. We want to emphasize that an Emergency Relief Docket will most likely be utilized in the aftermath of an emergency that has regional or national implications. There is no question that a toxic chemical spill, a levee break, or other imminent life-threatening situation requiring immediate evacuation of a local area requires fast action by first responders, including local transit agencies. In cases such as these, the grantee or subgrantee would not request relief through the emergency relief docket; it would simply work with local authorities to evacuate people as quickly as possible, consistent with local emergency plans. However, if a toxic chemical spill or a major flood or other event required ongoing relief efforts over several days or weeks, or the emergency impacted a large geographical area, one or more grantees and subgrantees might need to request relief from policies, circulars, guidance or regulations, and in such cases the Emergency Relief Docket would be used.

Three commenters asked how they would notify FTA of the need for relief if there was no electricity or phone service. The NPRM contemplated the inability to access the electronic docket by providing that grantees and subgrantees could contact any FTA regional office, and ask the regional office to submit their request for relief to the docket. While acknowledging that in extreme situations it may be several days before a grantee or subgrantee could contact FTA to request relief from administrative requirements, we believe the option of contacting any regional office or FTA headquarters by telephone or mail, is sufficient if the electricity is not working. And again, FTA notes the purpose of the Emergency Relief Docket is to provide relief in the aftermath of regional or national emergencies, not during imminent life-threatening situations.

In the NPRM, FTA proposed that the emergency relief procedures would be triggered by a Presidential declaration of national or regional emergency. We sought comment on whether the proposed emergency procedures should also be triggered by a State Governor's declaration of emergency. Eight commenters supported the trigger of relief procedures for emergency declarations made by Governors, and one commenter expressed that a Mayoral declaration of emergency in the District of Columbia should trigger the relief procedures, as the Mayor is the highest ranking public official in the jurisdiction. Two commenters stated that an appropriate trigger for relief would be a local declaration of emergency.

In response, FTA believes that a declaration of emergency by a State Governor or the Mayor of the District of Columbia should trigger emergency relief procedures, in addition to a federal declaration of emergency by the President, and we have included this in the final rule. We decline to extend the relief procedures to local declarations of emergency, as the frequency of such events would be unmanageable by FTA. Grantees and subgrantees experiencing local emergencies should work with their FTA regional office if they need relief from administrative requirements in the aftermath of such emergencies.

In the NPRM, FTA requested comments on whether we should proactively extend relief from certain policies, circulars, guidance documents and regulations to the geographical area(s) most impacted by an emergency, rather than waiting for grantees and subgrantees to request relief. Eight commenters were supportive of this idea. Two commenters suggested that FTA create “menus of relief” most likely needed in disaster situations, and grant the entire menu of relief sua sponte where the need is obvious. One commenter also expressed that FTA should clearly identify those issues for which relief is not expected to be granted; for example, civil rights and non-discrimination.

In response to the support for proactive relief, we are including two additional elements in this final rule. First, FTA will establish, by January 31 of each year, an Emergency Relief Docket for that calendar year. We will publish a notice in the Federal Register indicating the establishment of the Emergency Relief Docket and the docket number. Second, FTA may, at the discretion of the Administrator, proactively grant relief from certain administrative requirements upon a State or Federal declaration of emergency, or in anticipation of such declaration. If FTA makes the decision to proactively grant relief, we will post this information in the Emergency Relief Docket.

As for the “menus of relief” suggested by two commenters, FTA will consider this idea further outside of the rulemaking process. Any such “menus of relief” would be likely to change over time and with different types of emergencies, so flexibility is required. FTA agrees that civil rights and non-discrimination protections, such as Title VI, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Environmental Justice, all of which ensure access to mobility for transit-dependent populations, require special consideration. We note that we do not have authority to waive statutory provisions, only regulatory provisions. FTA will work closely with grantees and subgrantees, the U.S. DOT, and others, as appropriate, if there is a request for relief from administrative requirements relating to civil rights and non-discrimination provisions.

In the NPRM, FTA proposed that requests for relief would be conditionally granted for three business days, and sought comment on whether three business days was a sufficient amount of time to provide comments on petitions for relief. Two commenters stated that relief from administrative requirements does not constitute a binding obligation that would require a public comment period of any length. One commenter felt that three days would allow the transit agency to address immediate needs, but expressed concern that continuing relief efforts should not be delayed while waiting for final approval. Others expressed concern that the three business day conditional approval may not be sufficient, and that limiting the conditional approval to three days created uncertainty. One commenter suggested a provision be added to the rule that would allow the transit agency to continue its efforts until FTA has made a decision.

In response, while public consultation on relief from administrative procedures may not be required, FTA believes it is in the interest of the public to have a process that is open and transparent. FTA is confident that it can and will respond to requests for relief within three business days; however, to address commenters' concerns, a provision has been added to the final rule, stating that if FTA fails to post a response to the request for relief to the docket within three business days, the grantee or subgrantee may assume its petition is granted until and unless FTA states otherwise. This allows the grantee or subgrantee to continue its efforts until FTA has made a final decision. In all cases, FTA shall post a response to the docket, so there is no uncertainty as to FTA's decision on the request for relief.

FTA proposed that any member of the public could request a hearing on any petition, and that FTA could reopen any docket and reconsider any decision made. Two commenters stated that there should be no provision for public hearings, and suggested that FTA should not “second-guess” decisions made. One commenter stated that the only review process should be an appeal of a denied request for relief. One commenter suggested that if a docket is reopened, FTA should notify the grantee or subgrantee that submitted the request for relief. Finally, one commenter stated that a grantee's or subgrantee's judgment and actions in times of emergency should be considered reasonable unless proven otherwise.

In response, we have removed the public hearing provision. FTA may, however, in its discretion, contact the grantee or subgrantee that submitted the request for relief, or any party that submits comments to the docket, to obtain more information prior to making a decision. FTA has retained the provision that allows us to reconsider any decision made. We have added language to this section stating that one reason for reconsidering our decision would be at the request of a grantee or subgrantee upon denial of a request for relief. In addition, we have added language stating that we will notify a grantee or subgrantee if we are going to reconsider a decision.

FTA proposed that a petition for relief must contain certain information, including the policy statement, circular, guidance document and/or rule from which the grantee or subgrantee seeks relief. One commenter stated that petitions for relief should not follow any prescribed format. The commenter stated that it would be unduly burdensome to identify specific regulatory and guidance provisions during or in immediate anticipation of an emergency. In response, FTA notes the “required information” provision for a request for relief requires grantees and subgrantees to submit only the minimum information necessary to assist FTA in making a decision. Further, we note that in order to request relief from a specific administrative requirement, the grantee or subgrantee should know the requirement from which they are requesting relief. A description of the requirement such that an FTA employee would be able to accurately determine the requested relief would be sufficient; it is preferred, but not required, that a grantee or subgrantee also include the circular number and/or regulatory citation.

In the NPRM, FTA requested comments on private sector involvement in emergency relief, and whether the procedures contained in the NPRM would provide the necessary relief while also allowing the private sector to participate in transit relief efforts. A number of commenters provided input on this issue. Two commenters stated that charter regulations should not be elevated to a higher importance than other regulatory provisions. Some commenters objected to the proposed requirement that grantees and subgrantees would have to call not only their local charter companies, but also notify the charter associations of their intent to provide service that might be considered charter service. Some felt this would create significant delay in responding to evacuation needs. One commenter pointed out that any interested transportation provider could contact the local Emergency Management Agency in advance to notify them of their availability to respond.

In response, FTA has removed the provision requiring grantees and subgrantees to make good faith efforts to contact private charter or school bus operators to determine whether those entities are willing to provide the service. FTA notes that a current charter rulemaking is underway that would exempt emergency services from the charter provisions. Members of the public interested in that rulemaking may wish to review the docket by going to http://dms.dot.gov and entering docket number 22657.

In the NPRM, FTA stated that we do not have the independent authority to grant relief from U.S. DOT regulations, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (49 CFR Part 37) or the Common Grant Rule (49 CFR Part 18). We proposed that if a grantee or subgrantee needed relief from a U.S. DOT regulation, the grantee or subgrantee would submit a request for relief to FTA's Emergency Relief Docket in the same manner it would request relief from FTA regulations. FTA would then work with DOT to process the petition for relief, including a request for a hearing, if any. Two commenters recommended that waivers of U.S. DOT regulations should be incorporated into FTA's emergency procedures through delegation of waiver authority to FTA.

In response, we note that the Secretary of Transportation has not delegated waiver authority of U.S. DOT regulations to FTA. FTA, however, works very closely in consultation with U.S. DOT in emergency situations; the consultation process will be invisible to grantees or subgrantees requesting relief and will not delay FTA's response to a request for relief.

Finally, two commenters asserted that the NPRM appeared to be in conflict with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, specifically citing section 3(c) which states, “[w]ith respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by the States, the national government shall grant the States the maximum administrative discretion possible. Intrusive Federal oversight of State administration is neither necessary nor desirable.” The commenters also cited section 5(b) which states, “[a]gencies shall not submit to the Congress legislation that would: (b) attach to Federal grants conditions that are not reasonably related to the purpose of the grant[.]”

In response, FTA notes that the purpose of the rulemaking is to grant relief from FTA administrative requirements. The emergency relief docket will not change any regulatory requirements, therefore it will not have a substantial effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We also note that this rulemaking is not legislation submitted to Congress; it is a rulemaking. Further, the rulemaking does not attach conditions to the grants that are not reasonably related to the purpose of the grant.

This final rule is nonsignificant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Practices. The final rule will establish emergency procedures and requests for relief from Federal transit regulations.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). FTA believes this rule will not impose any requirements that would have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not have tribal implications and does not impose direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing impacts on small entities whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 553 to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FTA has determined that the impact on entities affected by this rule will not be significant. The effect of this rule is to relieve entities of administrative requirements in times of regional or national emergency. Accordingly, the Administrator of FTA hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $128.1 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: State, local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private sector.

There are no new information collection requirements in this final rule.

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document may be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov .