On December 20, 2007, the FAA issued AD 2007-26-15, Amendment 39-15317 (73 FR 400, January 3, 2008), which applies to all DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-500MB gliders. AD 2007-26-15 requires you to modify the affected parts and exchange pages in the flight, maintenance, and repair manuals. Current language in § 39.13 [Amended] of AD 2007-26-15 references “2007-26-25” instead of “2007-26-15.”

This correction is needed to specify the correct AD number of AD 2007-26-15.

On November 2, 2007, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Cessna Aircraft Company 172 and 182 series airplanes that are equipped with the BRS-172 and BRS-182 Parachute System. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on November 2, 2007 (72 FR 62143). The NPRM proposed to require the replacement of the pick-up collar support and screws for the BRS-172 and BRS-182 Parachute System.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We estimate that this AD affects 54 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to do the modification:

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 AD.

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 the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

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

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-29317; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-079-AD” in your request.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to all Boeing Model 727 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2007 (72 FR 44433). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive external high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the crown skin for cracks at certain stringer attachment holes, and repair if necessary.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received from the commenter.

Boeing requests that paragraph (h) of the NPRM be revised to allow AMOCs for any required repair to be approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office.

We agree with Boeing's request and have revised paragraph (h) of the AD accordingly.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We also determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

There are about 842 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 459 airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspection takes about 110 work hours per airplane, 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 $4,039,200, or $8,800 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.

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.

You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket.

Streamlined Issuance of AD

The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This 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 Airworthiness Directive No. 2006-0306-E, dated October 10, 2006, to correct an unsafe condition for the French-certificated products. The MCAI states:

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

ECF has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 67.00.36, dated October 9, 2006. The actions described in the MCAI are intended to correct the same unsafe condition as that identified in the service information.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the member states of the European community and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, the State of Design, a member of the European community, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. However, our AD differs from the MCAI and service information as follows: We have changed the word “check” to “inspect” to more clearly indicate that we are requiring the work to be performed by a certificated mechanic. Also, this AD does not require that the operator send the information to the manufacturer as specified in the ASB. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. These differences are highlighted in the “Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI” section within the AD.

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 EASA AD was issued following the failure of an attachment bolt securing the main rotor right-hand servo-control or swash plate attachment in flight, which can lead to a complete loss of control of the helicopter. 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-2008-0044; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-40-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://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 4 helicopters of U.S. registry and will take about 3 work hours to inspect the bolts. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $600 for three bolts per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost to be $3,360.

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 this AD:

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 and placed it in the AD docket.

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by superseding AD 99-18-20, Amendment 39-11286 (64 FR 48286, September 3, 1999), with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to GE CF6-50, -80A1/A3, and -80C2A series turbofan engines, installed on Airbus A300, A300-600, and A310 series airplanes. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on October 25, 2007 (72 FR 60604). That action proposed to require revised inspection thresholds and intervals, and proposed to require the same actions as AD 99-18-20, and additional inspections of the thrust reverser actuation system locking features.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

One commenter, GE Aviation, points out that Alert Service Bulletin No. CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1015 should be No. CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1005, in paragraph (j)(2). We agree and corrected the number in the AD.

One commenter, Airbus, requests that we clarify paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), (j)(1), and (j)(2) by referencing that they apply to A300-600 series airplanes, instead of A300 and A310 series airplanes. We agree and made those changes to the AD.

We inadvertently listed an incorrect estimated cost total of $28,000 in the NPRM “Costs of Compliance” paragraph. We corrected the estimated cost total to $16,480, in this AD.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 206 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about one work-hour per engine to perform the additional inspection, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total additional cost of the AD for one inspection of the U.S. fleet, to be $16,480.

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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES .

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to certain McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2007 (72 FR 57892). That NPRM proposed to require modification of the conduit for the forward boost pump of the center fuel tank.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the two comments received from the one commenter.

AirTran Airways supports the NPRM.

AirTran Airways requests that we revise this AD to specify that actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0007, dated August 22, 2002, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (f) of this AD provided that a leak check of the conduit is accomplished in accordance with Boeing 717 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 28-22-28-700-801, “Leak Test of the Fuel Pump Electrical Conduit.” AirTran Airways has accomplished the actions specified in the original issue of the service bulletin on all applicable airplanes in its fleet. AirTran Airways states that Revision 1, dated September 23, 2003, of the service bulletin was published to provide a torque value for the conduits due to an instance of fuel leaking from the conduit at the front spar following accomplishment of the task. AirTran Airways notes that it accomplished a leak check of the conduit during accomplishment of the original issue of the service bulletin, and that the leak check was later added to the AMM in January 2004, as AMM Task 28-22-28-700-801. The leak check of the conduit ensured that the conduit was not leaking, in the absence of a specified torque value in the original issue of the service bulletin. AirTran Airways believes that, if operators have accomplished the modification in accordance with the original issue of the service bulletin, accomplishing a leak check of the conduits using AMM Task 28-22-28-700-801 should be acceptable to ensure that the conduits are not leaking in lieu of accessing the conduit connections again for a torque check.

We agree that work done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0007, dated August 22, 2002, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD provided that a leak check of the conduit is accomplished in accordance with Boeing 717 AMM Task 28-22-28-700-801. We have added a new paragraph (g) to this AD to allow credit for previous accomplishment.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We also determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

There are about 77 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 61 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 10 work hours per airplane, 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 $48,800, or $800 per airplane.

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.

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.

You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket.

Discussion

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 767-200 and 767-300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33701). That NPRM proposed to require reworking certain duct assemblies in the environmental control system (ECS).

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

Boeing concurs with the requirements of this AD.

Hawaiian Airlines requests that we revise the proposed AD to remove one of its airplanes from the proposed applicability. Hawaiian states that the airplane came to them with two ducts installed in the affected area that do not have insulation installed on them. Each of these ducts has a part number not listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21A0167, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2006. We referred to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21A0167, Revision 1, as the appropriate source of service information for doing the actions specified in the proposed AD. Hawaiian quotes text from a Boeing message, in which Boeing confirms that the two subject duct assemblies do not need rework in accordance with the service bulletin because neither of the ducts assemblies are wrapped with Boeing Material Specification (BMS) 8-39 polyurethane foam insulation.

We agree. We have verified that the subject airplane should not be subject to this AD for the reasons stated above. Therefore, we have revised the applicability of this final rule to remove the subject airplane from the applicability of this AD. We have also revised the Costs of Compliance section of this final rule to remove the cost for this airplane.

Hawaiian Airlines also requests that we revise the proposed AD to add language to clarify whether or not BMS 8-300 insulation must be installed on an affected duct. Hawaiian reiterates that it has one airplane with two ducts installed, which do not have any insulation installed.

We do not agree that it is necessary to make the requested clarification. As stated previously, we have determined that the subject airplane is not subject to this AD. Therefore, we have made no change to the final rule in this regard.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We also determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

There are about 129 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with 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 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.

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2007 (72 FR 52309). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received.

The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of one of its members, United Airlines, and Airbus ask that we refer to Airbus Service Bulletins A320-57-1129 and A320-57-1130, both Revision 02, both dated July 17, 2007, for accomplishing the specified actions.

We agree with the requests to refer to Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletins A320-57-1129 and A320-57-1130. In the NPRM, we referred to Airbus Service Bulletins A320-57-1129, and A320-57-1130, both Revision 01, both dated July 28, 2006, as the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the required actions. Revision 02 of the service bulletins updates the operator and aircraft effectivity to show the latest information. No additional work is required by these revisions of the service bulletins. We have changed paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD to refer to Revision 02 of the service bulletins. We have also changed paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) to give credit to operators that have done the actions previously in accordance with Revision 01 of the service bulletins. We have also revised the sentence giving credit for an earlier service bulletin in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD for clarity.

ATA, on behalf of one of its members, Northwest Airlines (NWA), states that installation of a pin-and-sleeve fastener, instead of the taperlok fastener, should be allowed due to the practical difficulties in accomplishing the NPRM as currently written. NWA notes that installation of the taperlok fasteners requires precision drilling and reaming of the tapered hole and countersink, and adds that industry data show that the installation of a MIL-B-85667 pin-and-sleeve fastener can be installed by conventional manual drilling and reaming of a standard hole with relative simplicity and still maintain the fatigue strength capability of the taperlok fastener. NWA adds that the fastener capability properties of the MIL-B-85667 pin-and-sleeve fastener (titanium tapered pin and aluminum sleeve) meet or exceed those of the Airbus taperlok fasteners for tensile, shear, and fatigue strength. NWA provided a table that identifies the fastener properties.

We do not agree with the commenters' request. The commenters have not provided sufficient data to demonstrate that this installation would adequately address the identified unsafe condition. Although the MIL-B-85667 pin-and-sleeve fastener material properties may be equal to or better than the taperlok fasteners, there are other considerations in selection of fasteners that must be addressed, in addition to proper drilling and reaming of the tapered hole and countersink. Therefore, we have not changed the AD in this regard. However, any operator may request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (g) of the AD, provided that sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the proposed AMOC would provide an acceptable level of safety.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. This change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

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

We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 583 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about between 16 and 77 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be between $746,240 and $3,591,280, or between $1,280 and $6,160 per product.

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 this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes; Boeing Model 757 airplanes; and Boeing Model 767 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2007 (72 FR 45986). That NPRM proposed to require an inspection of certain lighted pushbutton switches in the flight compartment for configuration ‘D' master modules and part numbers and corrective action if necessary. That NPRM also provided an option to inspect panel assemblies for part numbers.

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

Boeing, the airplane manufacturer, concurs with the content of the NPRM.

Japan Airlines requests that we remove the reference in the NPRM to Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 747-33A2280 and 767-33A0087, both Revision 1, both dated September 25, 2003 (we referred to those service bulletins as appropriate sources of service information for doing the actions specified in the NPRM). The commenter notes that it has incorporated Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 747-33A2280 and 767-33A0087, both dated December 19, 2001, for its Model 747-400 and Model 767-200/-300 fleets. The commenter notes that it strictly controls the configuration ‘D' master module. However, the commenter states it did not carry out some top assembly module part number changes according to the instructions of Revision 1 of the service bulletins because in some cases the original top assembly module part number was not indicated anywhere, or was indicated unclearly.

The commenter believes that it is impossible to follow the part number change indicated in Revision 1 of the service bulletins and notes that because it tracks the base module, it can ignore the top assembly module part number.

The commenter also states that Boeing agrees that Japan Airlines does not need to perform Revision 1 of the service bulletins because the changes to the bulletin caused by Revision 1 do not affect Japan Airlines' fleet/units.

We disagree with removing the reference to Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 747-33A2280 and 767-33A0087, both Revision 1. We acknowledge that each operator may wish to use different parts and have its own tracking methods. However, we cannot accommodate every operator's differences in each AD. We have determined that the best way to handle such circumstances is for operators to request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with paragraph (p) of this AD, rather than increasing the complexity of the AD by addressing each operator's unique situation. We have not revised this AD in this regard.

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

There are about 2,511 airplanes of the affected designs in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 934 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The inspection of switches takes about 8 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the inspection for U.S. operators is $597,760, or $640 per airplane.

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.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61296-61297). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on December 20, 2007. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date.

Confirmation of Effective Date

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on November 2, 2007 (72 FR 62108-62110). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on December 20, 2007. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date.

Confirmation of Effective Date

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on October 30 (72 FR 61293) amending Class E airspace to support a Special Copter Point in Space Instrument Approach Procedure into the Centre Community Hospital (PS57). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on December 20, 2007. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

On October 30, 2007, a final rule for Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-4, FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-27430 was published in the Federal Register (72 FR 61300), establishing Class E airspace in Springfield, CO. The longitude referencing Springfield Municipal Airport, CO was incorrect in that the longitude stated “* * * long. 103°37′05″ W.” instead of “* * * long. 102°37′05″ W.”. Also added to the legal description is the location of the TOBE VORTAC. This action corrects those errors.

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their 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, Takeoff Minimums, and ODP listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the SIAPs, the associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some 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.

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their 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, Takeoff Minimums, and ODP listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the SIAPs, the associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some 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.

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

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. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure 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 changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to 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.

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.

Novopharm Ltd., 30 Novopharm Ct., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M1B 2K9, filed ANADA 200-383 that provides for the veterinary prescription use of CLINDAROBE (clindamycin hydrochloride) Capsules in dogs for the treatment of various infections due to susceptible bacterial pathogens. Novopharm Ltd.'s CLINDAROBE Capsules is approved as a generic copy of Pharmacia & Upjohn Co.'s ANTIROBE Capsules, approved under NADA 120-161. The ANADA is approved as of December 19, 2007, and 21 CFR 520.446 is amended to reflect the approval.

In addition, Novopharm Ltd. has not been previously listed in the animal drug regulations as a sponsor of an approved application. At this time, 21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to add entries for the firm.

In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

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. The publishing of an NPRM would be impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to protect the maritime public from the hazards associated with this maintenance project. The necessary information to determine whether the construction poses a threat to persons and vessels was not provided with sufficient time to publish an NPRM. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have this regulation in effect during the construction.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the public's safety.

From 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on each Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday from January 8, 2008 through January 24, 2008 Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc. will relocate construction equipment in the vicinity of the U.S. Route 70 Highway Swing Bridge from James City, NC to New Bern, NC. To provide for the safety of the public, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict access to this section of the Trent River during equipment relocation.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone that will extend from the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge and Union Point, New Bern, NC to the U.S. Route 17 Highway Bridge at James City, NC, latitude 35°05.8′ N, longitude 77°02.2′ W. This zone will require mariners to avoid entry into the area. Entry into the zone will not be permitted except as specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.

Although this regulation will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration of time and (ii) the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this temporary final 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 temporary final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although the regulated area will apply to waters of the Trent River, the zone will not have a significant impact on small entities because the zone will only be in place for a limited duration of time and maritime advisories will be issued in advance to allow the public to adjust their plans accordingly.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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 temporary final 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 would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This temporary final 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 would 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, or 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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

This is a rate determination proceeding convened under 17 U.S.C. 803(b) and 37 CFR part 351. A Notice announcing commencement of proceeding with request for Petitions to Participate in such proceeding to determine the rates and terms of royalty payments under Sections 114 and 112 of the Copyright Act for the activities of preexisting subscription services (“PSS”) and preexisting satellite digital audio radio services (“SDARS”) was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 2006. 1 The rates and terms set in this proceeding apply to the period of January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2012 for PSS, and January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2012 for SDARS. 17 U.S.C. 804(b)(3)(B). The PSS royalty rates are provided in a separate order. For the SDARS, the instant order provides for a beginning rate of 6% of gross revenues, with increases during the term of the period. See infra at Section IV.C.3.d.

The following entities filed Petitions in response to the January 9, 2006 request for Petitions to Participate: SoundExchange, Music Choice, Muzak LLC, XM, Sirius, Royalty Logic, Inc. (“RLI”), and THP Capstar Acquisition d/b/a DMX Music (“DMX”). The Copyright Royalty Judges (“Judges”) dismissed Muzak as a party on January 10, 2007. 2 On August 21, 2006, the Judges referred a novel material question of substantive law regarding the universe of preexisting subscription services under 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(11)  3 to the Register of Copyrights. 4 On October 20, 2006, the Register transmitted a Memorandum Opinion to the Board that addressed the novel question of law. 5 The Register concluded that

Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Taking? II. What are the Regulatory History and General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? III. EPA Analysis of Connecticut's CAIR SIP Submittal A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs C. Applicability Provisions for non-EGUs NO X SIP Call Sources D. NO X Allowance Allocations E. Individual Opt-in Units IV. Final Action V. When Is This Action Effective? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

EPA is approving a revision to Connecticut's SIP that includes a new regulation, Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-22c, “The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) Ozone Season Trading Program” (herein called “Connecticut's CAIR program”), repeal of RCSA section 22a-174-22a (“The Connecticut NO X Budget Program”), as of September 4, 2007, and repeal of RCSA section 22a-174-22b, “The Connecticut Post-2002 NO X Budget Program” (herein called the “Connecticut NO X SIP Call trading program”), as of May 1, 2010. This SIP revision was first submitted on April 26, 2007, but includes amendments submitted on September 12, 2007.

The CT DEP had requested that EPA “parallel process” Connecticut's proposed CAIR SIP revision. Under this procedure, EPA prepared its proposed approval of Connecticut's SIP revision before the state's final adoption and repeal of the regulations referenced above.

EPA has reviewed Connecticut's final adopted regulations and determined that changes were made to clarify meaning, improve consistency, or to address redundancy, and that they do not differ significantly from the “post-hearing final draft” version that was the subject of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for this SIP Revision (72 FR 50305). For example, definitions of “commence commercial operation” and “commence operation” were clarified; the word “through” was substituted for a hyphen between dates listed to clearly identify the control periods included in the regulation; and language was added to clarify that the term “permitting authority” has the same meaning as in 40 CFR part 96, subpart AAAA, which refers to the CAIR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program. None of the changes made are deemed significant for SIP approval purposes, and it is, therefore, appropriate to prepare this final rule.

In its SIP revision, Connecticut will meet CAIR requirements by requiring certain electric generating units (EGUs) to participate in the EPA-administered State CAIR cap-and-trade program addressing NO X ozone-season emissions. EPA has determined that the Connecticut SIP, as revised, meets the applicable requirements of CAIR. As a consequence of the SIP approval, the Administrator of EPA will also, in a separate document, issue a final rule to withdraw the FIP concerning NO X ozone-season emissions for Connecticut. That action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.386. The withdrawal of the CAIR FIP for Connecticut is a conforming amendment that must be made once the SIP is approved because EPA's authority to issue the FIP was premised on a deficiency in the SIP for Connecticut. Once the SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer has authority for the FIP. Thus, EPA will not have the option of maintaining the FIP following the full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment on the withdrawal of the FIP.

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM 2.5 ) and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind States in the eastern part of the country. As a result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their SIPs to include control measures that reduce emissions of SO 2 , which is a precursor to PM 2.5 formation, and/or NO X , which is a precursor to both ozone and PM 2.5 formation. For jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM 2.5 nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO 2 and annual State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X . Similarly, for jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X for the ozone season (May 1st to September 30th). Under CAIR, States may implement these reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting other control measures. The first phase of NO X reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014, while the first phase of SO 2 reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both NO X and SO 2 starts in 2015 and continues thereafter.

More information on the regulatory history and requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs is available in the NPR and will not be restated here.

A brief summary of EPA's review of Connecticut's CAIR program is given below. Additional details regarding requirements of Connecticut's 22a-174-22c regulation and EPA's evaluation of this regulation are available in the NPR for this SIP revision. In addition, Connecticut's CAIR SIP submittal is available in the docket supporting this action.

The CAIR NO X annual and ozone season budgets were developed from historical heat input data for EGUs. Using these data, EPA calculated annual and ozone season regional heat input values, which were multiplied by 0.15 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/mmBtu), for phase 1 of the CAIR program (2009-2014) and by 0.125 lb/mmBtu, for phase 2 of the CAIR program (2015 and thereafter) to obtain regional NO X budgets for 2009-2014 and for 2015 and thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the State NO X annual and ozone season budgets from the regional budgets using State heat input data adjusted by fuel factors. Connecticut, however, is only required to participate in the CAIR NO X ozone-season program, not the CAIR NO X annual or SO 2 trading programs. Therefore, only CAIR NO X ozone-season budgets apply to the Connecticut CAIR program.

In today's action, EPA is approving Connecticut's SIP revision, which includes a new regulation, 22a-174-22c, which comprises Connecticut's CAIR program. This SIP revision adopts the budget established for the State in CAIR, i.e., 2,559 tons of NO X ozone-season emissions for CAIR phases 1 and 2, plus an additional 132 tons of NO X ozone-season emissions for both phases 1 and 2 to account for NO X emissions from “non-EGUs” from the Connecticut NO X SIP Call trading program. The total NO X ozone-season budget is therefore 2,691 tons of NO X ozone-season emissions for CAIR phases 1 and 2. Connecticut's SIP revision sets this budget as the total number of allowances (with each allowance authorizing one ton of NO X ozone-season emissions) available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-trade program.

The CAIR NO X annual and ozone-season model trading rules both largely mirror the structure of the NO X SIP Call model trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the provisions of the NO X annual and ozone-season model rules are similar, there are some differences. For example, the NO X ozone season model rule reflects the fact that the CAIR NO X ozone-season trading program replaces the NO X SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone-season and is coordinated with the NO X SIP Call program. The NO X ozone-season model rule provides incentives for early emissions reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NO X SIP Call allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NO X ozone-season trading program. In addition, States have the option of continuing to meet their NO X SIP Call requirements by participating in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program and including all their NO X SIP Call trading sources in that program.

In the SIP revision, Connecticut will implement its CAIR budgets by requiring EGUs (as well as “non-EGUs” from its NO X SIP Call trading program, as discussed below) to participate in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for NO X ozone-season emissions. Connecticut has adopted a full SIP revision that adopts, with certain allowed changes discussed below, the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules for NO X ozone-season emissions.

In general, the CAIR model trading rules apply to any stationary, fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990 or the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale.

States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NO X ozone-season program only, those units in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR (herein called “non-EGUs”). Under this option, the CAIR NO X ozone-season program must cover all large industrial boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small EGUs (i.e., units serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less) that the State currently requires to be in the NO X SIP Call trading program.

Connecticut has chosen to expand the applicability provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program to include all units in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program. Units in the Connecticut NO X SIP Call trading program include EGUs of 15 MW or more and non-EGUs (such as industrial boilers and combustion turbines) with a maximum design heat input of 250 MMBtu/hr or more. These units will be included in the Connecticut CAIR program beginning with the control period in 2009. EPA has determined that Connecticut's regulation 22a-174-22c includes the allowable CAIR applicability provisions relating to adding all NO X SIP Call trading-program units to the Connecticut CAIR NO X ozone season program.

Deadlines: CAIR provides in 40 CFR 51.123(aa)(2)(iii)(C) that for a full SIP revision, “[t]he State's methodology must require that, for EGUs commencing operation before January 1, 2001, the State will determine, and notify the Administrator of, each unit's allocation of CAIR NO X allowances by October 31, 2006 for the ozone seasons 2009, 2010, and 2011.” Connecticut's SIP revision requires that it submit and it in fact did submit these allocations by April 30, 2007 (the deadline for submittal applicable to abbreviated SIP revisions under 40 CFR 51.123(ee)(2)(ii)(C)). The purpose of the October 31, 2006 deadline was to allow EPA's Clean Air Markets Division sufficient time to process the allocations. At this point, as Connecticut has in fact submitted its allocations well before the date of this document, and as the Clean Air Markets Division is fully able to process the allocations, it makes no difference whether EPA received the 2009-2011 allocations in April of 2007 or October of 2006. EPA will still be able to record the allocations and provide the allowances to owners and operators sufficiently in advance of the 2009-2011 control periods. EPA considers the late submittal harmless error and consequently approves this SIP revision.

NO X allowance-allocation methodology: Under the NO X allowance-allocation methodology in the CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NO X annual and ozone-season allowances are allocated to units that have operated for five years (i.e., “existing units”), based on heat input data from a three-year period that are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior year emissions.

States may establish in their SIP submissions a different NO X allowance-allocation methodology that will be used to allocate allowances to sources in the State if certain requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative NO X allowance-allocation methodologies, States have flexibility with regard to:

1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be distributed for free or auctioned;

2. The frequency of allocations;

3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed, for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal output; and

4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size.

Connecticut has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone-season model trading rule concerning allowance allocations with its own methodology. Connecticut's CAIR program is codified at RCSA section 22a-174-22c. Whereas the model trading rule uses an allocation methodology that is fuel-adjusted and based on heat input, Connecticut's allocation methodology is not fuel-adjusted and is largely based on heat output. Connecticut also provides a percentage of allowances for a new unit set-aside and for an energy efficiency/renewable energy set-aside (EERESA) and Qualifying Other Project (QOPs).

For the 2009 through 2011 control periods, Connecticut will first allocate NO X allowances to CAIR NO X Ozone Season units which are cogeneration, industrial or waste-tire-fired units on an input basis, then will allocate allowances to older EGUs using an output basis. Remaining allocations will be allocated to newer EGUs on a pro-rated output basis. For the 2012 control period and beyond, Connecticut will allocate allowances to both older and newer EGUs on a pro-rated output basis.

Connecticut has set a new unit set-aside at 7 percent of the State's CAIR budget during CAIR phase 1 (2009-2014), and at 5 percent of the State's CAIR budget during CAIR phase 2 (2015 and thereafter). Therefore, the new unit set-aside includes 200 CAIR NO X ozone-season allowances during CAIR phase 1, and 134 allowances during CAIR phase 2. Connecticut has set the EERESA at 10 percent of the State's CAIR budget for both phases of the CAIR program. Therefore, the EERESA includes 268 CAIR NO X allowances for the 2009 and subsequent ozone-season control periods.

More details on Connecticut's methodology for allocating CAIR allowances, as well as information on Connecticut CAIR permits and requirements for facilities to report emissions data, can be found in the NPR and in Connecticut's CAIR SIP submittal available in the docket supporting this action.

In the NPR, EPA identified two potential ambiguities in the allocation provisions of Connecticut's proposed CAIR program, and proposed its interpretations of those provisions. See 72 FR 50309. EPA received no comments regarding these proposed interpretations. Consequently, EPA interprets the provisions involved as follows.

First, the proposed regulation uses the term “NO[X] allowance,” which is not defined, in three places. See RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(c)(2), 22a-174-22c(c)(3)(B), 22a-174-22c(g)(4). EPA interprets the term “NO[X] allowance” when used in RCSA section 22a-174-22c as being identical to the term “CAIR NO[X] Ozone Season allowance” as defined at 40 CFR 96.302.

Second, under RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(7)(A) and (B) and 22a-174-22c(e)(8)(A), there is no limit to the number of allowances that can be allocated to CAIR NO X Ozone Season units which are cogeneration units, industrial units, waste-tire-fired units, or Phase I units in any control period. For purposes of construing Connecticut's proposed SIP revision, EPA interprets RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(2) and 22a-174-22c(e)(3) to prohibit the Connecticut DEP from allocating allowances in excess of the total state budget, and to control in any conflict with RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(7)(A) and (B) and 22a-174-22c(e)(8)(A). Thus, if the operation of RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(7)(A)-(B) and/or 22a-174-22c(e)(8)(A) were to yield allowances for CAIR NO X Ozone Season units which are cogeneration units, industrial units, waste-tire-fired units, or Phase I units in excess of the state budget, either by themselves or in combination with allocations to other categories, then RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(2) and 22a-174-22c(e)(3) would require the Connecticut DEP to recalculate or reallocate allowances so as not to exceed the state budget.

EPA has relied on these interpretations of Connecticut's proposed SIP revision for the purposes of approving it as meeting the requirements of the Act and the CAIR program, and these interpretations represent EPA's formal interpretations of the SIP provisions at issue for purposes of federal law.

The Connecticut CAIR SIP does not include opt-in provisions because the State has chosen to allocate CAIR allowances using an energy-output methodology that cannot be used for opt-in sources under the model CAIR NO X ozone-season trading rule. In addition, Connecticut does not expect there to be a demand for opt-in provisions as no source opted into Connecticut's NO X SIP Call trading program.

EPA is approving a revision to Connecticut's SIP that includes a new regulation, RCSA section 22a-174-22c (Connecticut's CAIR program), and repeal of RCSA section 22a-174-22a (“The Connecticut NO X Budget Program”), as of September 4, 2007, and of RCSA section 22a-174-22b (“The Connecticut Post-2002 NO X Budget Program”), as of May 1, 2010. Under this SIP revision, Connecticut will participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program for NO X ozone-season emissions. The SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard to NO X ozone season emissions. EPA has determined that the SIP as revised meets the requirements of CAIR. As a consequence of the SIP approval, the Administrator of EPA will also issue, without providing an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment, a final rule to withdraw the CAIR FIP concerning NO X ozone-season emissions for Connecticut. That action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.386 in part 52.

Other specific requirements of the CAIR SIP revision and the rationale for EPA's approval are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

EPA finds that there is good cause for this approval to become effective on the date of publication of this action in the Federal Register , because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of the approval, which allows the State to make allocations under its CAIR rules. The expedited effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction” and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” CAIR SIP approvals exempt states and CAIR sources within states from being subject to allowance allocation provisions in the CAIR FIPs that otherwise would apply, allowing States to make their own allowance allocations based on their SIP-approved State rule. The exemption from these obligations is sufficient reason to allow an expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). In addition, Connecticut's exemption from these obligations provides good cause to make this rule effective on the date of publication of this action in the Federal Register , pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where, as here, the final rule grants an exemption rather than imposing obligations, and where the effect of the final rule is simply to approve for federal purposes obligations that are already effective under state law, affected parties, such as the State of Connecticut and CAIR sources within the State, do not need time to adjust and prepare before the rule takes effect.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. )

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 24, 2008.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Table of Contents I. EPA's Action A. What action is EPA approving? B. When did EPA propose to approve New York's SIP revision? C. What are the public comments on EPA's proposal? D. Where is additional information available on EPA's action? II. Conclusion III. When Is This Action Effective? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. EPA's Action A. What action is EPA approving?

EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to New York's SIP which was approved for adoption by New York's State Environmental Board on August 28, 2007 and submitted as a SIP revision on September 17, 2007. New York's revision addresses the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and obligations under 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and fine particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). New York's adoption was published in the New York Register on October 10, 2007 (Volume XXIX, Issue 41).

EPA has determined that the SIP, as revised, will meet the applicable requirements of CAIR. Parts 243, 244 and 245 of title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6NYCRR) constitute New York State's CAIR program. Part 243 establishes the CAIR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program; Part 244 establishes the CAIR NO X Annual Trading Program; and Part 245 establishes the CAIR SO 2 Trading Program.

As a result of this action, the Administrator of EPA will also issue a final rule to withdraw the FIPs concerning SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions for New York. The Administrator's action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.1684 and 40 CFR 52.1685, relating to the CAIR FIP obligations for New York. The withdrawal of the CAIR FIPs for New York is a conforming amendment that must be made once the SIP is approved because EPA's authority to issue the FIPs was premised on a deficiency in the SIP for New York. Once the SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer has authority for the FIPs. Thus, EPA will not have the option of maintaining the FIPs following the full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment on the withdrawal of the FIPs.

In addition, as EPA determined in the final CAIR, EPA's conclusion that the revised SIP meets the applicable requirements of CAIR is also sufficient to demonstrate that the New York SIP satisfies the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to “significant contribution” and “interference with maintenance”. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires, among other things, that each state submit a SIP that prohibits any source or any other type of emission activity within a state from emitting pollutants in amounts that will: (1) contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment of the NAAQS and (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS. Because EPA previously determined in the CAIR that states will meet these two obligations by complying with the applicable CAIR requirements, EPA is not taking any final action in this notice with regard to the “significant contribution” and “interference with maintenance” obligations in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) also contains requirements related to emissions that interfere with the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (PSD) and visibility protection, and CAIR did not address states' obligations with respect to these two requirements. In today's action, EPA is taking final action to determine that the New York SIP satisfies the CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement that each state is to submit a SIP that prohibits any source or any other type of emission activity within a state from emitting pollutants in amounts that will interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. EPA is taking no action to determine whether the New York SIP satisfies the visibility protection requirements in 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA because it is not possible at this time for New York to accurately determine whether there is interference with measures in another state's SIP to protect visibility. New York will need to address the visibility protection requirements once the regional haze SIP is completed and submitted to EPA.

EPA proposed to approve New York's request to amend the SIP on October 1, 2007 (72 FR 55723). The comment period closed on October 31, 2007. One comment was received and is addressed in Section I.C. below.

The following is a summary of the comments received on the proposed rule published on October 1, 2007 (72 FR 55723), and EPA's response.

Comment: On October 30, 2007, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) submitted adverse comments on EPA's proposed rule to approve New York's CAIR SIP. CTDEP indicates that the State is encouraged by the efforts of New York and other states to adopt programs to meet the emission reduction requirements of CAIR, and urges EPA approval. However, it argues that before approving state plans with respect to CAA 110(a)(2)(D), EPA should evaluate individually and in the aggregate each state's clean air programs. They argue such evaluation is necessary to ensure that each state's emissions do not significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment in Connecticut or any other state. CTDEP expresses concern that EPA is determining through this and other similar rulemakings that CAIR programs are sufficient to meet states' section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations. CTDEP asserts, based on EPA and State modeling for CAIR, that the levels of transported pollution remaining after CAIR implementation are large enough that, even with local controls, it may be difficult for Connecticut to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2010. Finally, CTDEP questions EPA's determination that highly cost effective controls are adequate to address states' section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations as compared to “reasonable cost” controls that could be achieved to effect more stringent NO X reductions.

Response: EPA does not agree that it is appropriate or necessary for EPA to conduct additional analysis before approving the New York CAIR SIP revision. Under this SIP revision, New York has chosen to participate in the EPA administered cap-and-trade program for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. EPA has evaluated this SIP revision and has determined that it complies with the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard to NO X annual and NO X ozone season emissions, and 40 CFR 51.124(o), with regard to SO 2 emissions. CTDEP does not challenge this determination. Thus, CTDEP's comments do not specifically pertain to any aspect of EPA's proposed action to approve New York's CAIR SIP revision. Rather, the comments appear to be directed broadly at EPA's decisions with regard to states' section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations. These decisions were made by EPA in the context of the CAIR rulemaking, which was promulgated on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), not in the proposed action to approve New York's CAIR SIP revision. Therefore, CTDEP's comments are not relevant to the proposed action. CTDEP had ample opportunity to submit comments both during the comment period for the proposed CAIR rulemaking of January 30, 2004 (69 FR 4566) and during the comment period for the proposed CAIR FIP of August 24, 2005 (70 FR 49708). EPA's proposal to approve New York's CAIR SIP did not reopen either the CAIR or CAIR FIP rulemakings. Consequently, CTDEP's comments are not relevant to this rulemaking, or timely with respect to the CAIR and CAIR FIP rulemakings. Thus, EPA does not believe it is necessary to conduct additional analysis on whether New York or any other state satisfies the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D) before approving the New York CAIR SIP submission.

A detailed analysis of New York's SIP submittal pertaining to New York's CAIR program and the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA is available in the October 1, 2007 Proposed Rulemaking (72 FR 55723). A copy of the rulemaking is available in the EPA docket.

EPA is taking final action to approve New York's full CAIR SIP revision submitted on September 17, 2007. Under this SIP revision, New York is choosing to participate in the EPA administered cap-and-trade program for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. The SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard to NO X annual and NO X ozone season emissions, and 40 CFR 51.124(o), with regard to SO 2 emissions. The revision includes three emission cap-and-trade rules, 6 NYCRR Parts 243, 244, and 245, effective on October 19, 2007, which implement the State's CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs in New York. EPA has determined that the SIP, as revised, will meet the requirements of CAIR. The Administrator of EPA has also issued a direct final rule to automatically withdraw the CAIR FIPs concerning SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions for New York State upon the effective date of EPA's approval of a full state SIP revision that meets the requirements of CAIR. This action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.1684 and 40 CFR 52.1685.

In addition, EPA is also taking final action to determine that the New York SIP satisfies the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that requires each state to submit a SIP that prohibits any source or any other type of emission activity within a state from emitting pollutants in amounts that will interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. EPA is not taking action to determine whether the New York SIP satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement regarding visibility protection. This requirement will be re-evaluated after regional haze SIPs are completed and approved by EPA.

EPA finds that there is good cause for this approval to become effective on January 24, 2008, because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of the approval, which allows the State to implement the State's CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs in New York. The expedited effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule ”grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction” and section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” CAIR SIP approvals relieve states and CAIR sources within states from being subject to allowance allocation provisions in the CAIR FIPs that otherwise would apply to them, allowing States to make their own allowance allocations based on their SIP-approved State rule. The relief from these obligations is sufficient reason to allow an expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). In addition, New York's relief from these obligations provides good cause to make this rule effective on January 24, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where, as here, the final rule relieves obligations rather than imposes obligations, affected parties, such as the State of New York and CAIR sources within the State, do not need time to adjust and prepare before the rule takes effect.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action approves pre-existing requirements under state law and would not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard and will result, as a consequence of that approval, in the Administrator's withdrawal of the CAIR FIP. It does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it would approve a state rule implementing a Federal Standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule would not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 24, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

The Federal Communications Commission has received OMB approval for the rule changes published at 66 FR 58982, November 26, 2001. Through this document, the Commission announces that it received this approval on July 7, 2003.

In a Report and Order, released on October 17, 2001, and published in the Federal Register on November 26, 2001, 66 FR 58982, the Federal Communications Commission adopted rules that contained information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. On July 7, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget approved the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.624(g)(2)(i). This information collection is assigned OMB Control Number 3060-0906. This publication satisfies the requirement that the Commission publish a document announcing the effective date of the rule changes requiring OMB approval.

This final rule amends DFARS text as follows:

○ Section 204.7005. Updates the office symbol for the Defense Logistics Agency order code monitor.

○ Section 225.103. Updates a cross-reference.

This final rule revises DFARS 204.804 to remove text addressing DoD procedures for closeout of contract files. Text on this subject has been relocated to the DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI), at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/index.html. In addition, the rule amends DFARS 244.304 to clarify an existing reference to corresponding PGI text.

DoD published a proposed rule at 72 FR 14256 on March 27, 2007. DoD received no comments on the proposed rule. Therefore, DoD has adopted the proposed rule as a final rule without change.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , because the rule pertains to administrative procedures for contract closeout functions performed by the Government.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, applies to the acquisition of supplies or services that meet the definition of “commercial item” in FAR 2.101. To emphasize the applicability of FAR Part 12, this DFARS rule specifies that, when using FAR Part 12 procedures for acquisitions exceeding $1 million in value, the contracting officer must determine in writing that the acquisition meets the commercial item definition in FAR 2.101, and the contracting officer must include the written determination in the contract file.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

This rule will not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors, or a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD. Therefore, publication for public comment under 41 U.S.C. 418b is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2007-D005.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

DoD published an interim rule at 71 FR 62560 on October 26, 2006, adding DFARS Subpart 222.17 and a corresponding contract clause at DFARS 252.222-7006, to implement DoD policy prohibiting DoD contractors from engaging in activities that support or promote trafficking in persons. The DFARS text is no longer necessary, as a result of the FAR rule published at 72 FR 46335 on August 17, 2007. The FAR rule addresses Governmentwide zero tolerance policy with regard to trafficking in persons, and includes a contract clause for use in all solicitations and contracts. Therefore, this final rule removes the DFARS text published on October 26, 2006, except for references to internal DoD procedures regarding the combating of trafficking in persons.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , because the rule removes DFARS text that has become obsolete as a result of changes that have been made to the FAR.

This final rule eliminates the information collection requirements previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0704-0440.

A. Background

This interim rule amends the clause prescriptions at DFARS 225.1101 and 225.7503 to reflect increased dollar thresholds for application of the trade agreements. Every two years, the trade agreements thresholds are escalated according to a pre-determined formula set forth in the agreements. The United States Trade Representative has specified the following new thresholds, as published at 72 FR 71166 on December 14, 2007, and corrected at 72 FR 73904 on December 28, 2007:

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , because the trade agreement threshold changes are designed to keep pace with inflation and thus maintain the status quo. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2007-D023.

This rule affects the certification and information collection requirements in the provisions at DFARS 252.225-7020 and 252.225-7035, currently approved under Office of Management and Budget Control Number 0704-0229. The impact, however, is negligible. The dollar threshold changes are in line with inflation and maintain the status quo.

A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule incorporates increased dollar thresholds for application of the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement and the Free Trade Agreements, as determined by the United States Trade Representative. The increased thresholds became effective on January 1, 2008. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule.

DFARS 232.111 and 252.232-7006 provide that, under time-and-materials and labor-contracts, there normally should be no need to withhold payment for a contractor with a record of timely submittal of a release discharging the Government from all liabilities, obligations, and claims under the contract. Similar policy was added to FAR 32.111 and 52.232-7 in the final rule published at 70 FR 43580 on July 27, 2005. Therefore, the DFARS text is no longer necessary, and sections 232.111 and 252.232-7006 are removed.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

This rule will not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors, or a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD. Therefore, publication for public comment under 41 U.S.C. 418b is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2007-D010.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

This interim rule implements Section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364). Section 818 requires DoD to modify regulations regarding the determination of contract type for development programs. Such regulations must require the Milestone Decision Authority for a major defense acquisition program to select the contract type for a development program that is consistent with the level of program risk. The Milestone Decision Authority may select a fixed-price type contract, including a fixed-price incentive contract; or a cost-type contract, provided certain written determination requirements are satisfied.

The rule adds policy at DFARS 234.004 to implement the requirements of Section 818 of Public Law 109-364, applicable to major defense acquisition programs, and updates the policy at 235.006 to address requirements for other than major defense acquisition programs.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , because the rule relates to internal DoD considerations and documentation requirements relating to the selection of contract type for development programs. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2006-D053.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule implements Section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364). Section 818 requires DoD to modify regulations regarding the determination of contract type for major development programs to address requirements for selection of the contract type that is consistent with the level of program risk. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule.

Several of the background documents for the ALWTRP and the take reduction planning process can be downloaded from the ALWTRP web site at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/ .

The ALWTRP was developed pursuant to section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of three endangered species of whales (right, fin, and humpback) due to incidental interaction with commercial fishing activities. In addition, the measures identified in the ALWTRP would provide conservation benefits to a fourth species (minke), which are neither listed as endangered nor threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ALWTRP, implemented through regulations codified at 50 CFR 229.32, relies on a combination of fishing gear modifications and time/area closures to reduce the risk of whales becoming entangled in commercial fishing gear (and potentially suffering serious injury or mortality as a result).

On January 9, 2002, NMFS published the final rule to implement the ALWTRP's DAM program (67 FR 1133). On August 26, 2003, NMFS amended the regulations by publishing a final rule, which specifically identified gear modifications that may be allowed in a DAM zone (68 FR 51195). The DAM program provides specific authority for NMFS to restrict temporarily on an expedited basis the use of lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear in areas north of 40° N. lat. to protect right whales. Under the DAM program, NMFS may: (1) require the removal of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear for a 15-day period; (2) allow lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing within a DAM zone with gear modifications determined by NMFS to sufficiently reduce the risk of entanglement; and/or (3) issue an alert to fishermen requesting the voluntary removal of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear for a 15-day period and asking fishermen not to set any additional gear in the DAM zone during the 15-day period.

A DAM zone is triggered when NMFS receives a reliable report from a qualified individual of three or more right whales sighted within an area (75 nm 2 (139 km 2 )) such that right whale density is equal to or greater than 0.04 right whales per nm 2 (1.85 km 2 ). A qualified individual is an individual ascertained by NMFS to be reasonably able, through training or experience, to identify a right whale. Such individuals include, but are not limited to, NMFS staff, U.S. Coast Guard and Navy personnel trained in whale identification, scientific research survey personnel, whale watch operators and naturalists, and mariners trained in whale species identification through disentanglement training or some other training program deemed adequate by NMFS. A reliable report would be a credible right whale sighting.

On January 13, 2008, an aerial survey reported two aggregations of right whales, totaling seven individuals: four whales in the proximity of 42° 37′ N. latitude and 70° 01′ W. longitude, and three whales in the proximity of 42° 51′ N. latitude and 70° 04′ W. longitude. These positions lie northeast of Boston, Massachusetts, and southeast of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, respectively. After conducting an investigation, NMFS ascertained that the report came from a qualified individual and determined that the report was reliable. Thus, NMFS has received a reliable report from a qualified individual of the requisite right whale density to trigger the DAM provisions of the ALWTRP.

Once a DAM zone is triggered, NMFS determines whether to impose restrictions on fishing and/or fishing gear in the zone. This determination is based on the following factors, including but not limited to: the location of the DAM zone with respect to other fishery closure areas, weather conditions as they relate to the safety of human life at sea, the type and amount of gear already present in the area, and a review of recent right whale entanglement and mortality data.

NMFS has reviewed the factors and management options noted above relative to the DAM under consideration. As a result of this review, NMFS prohibits lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear in this area during the 15-day restricted period unless it is modified in the manner described in this temporary rule.

The DAM Zone is bound by the following coordinates:

43° 09′ N., 70° 29′ W. (NW Corner)

43° 09′ N., 69° 39′ W.

42° 56′ N., 69° 39′ W.

42° 56′ N., 69° 33′ W.

42° 16′ N., 69° 33′ W.

42° 16′ N., 70° 33′ W.

42° 56′ N., 70° 33′ W.

42° 56′ N., 70° 29′ W.

43° 09′ N., 70° 29′ W. (NW Corner)

In addition to those gear modifications currently implemented under the ALWTRP at 50 CFR 229.32, the following gear modifications are required in the DAM zone. If the requirements and exceptions for gear modification in the DAM zone, as described below, differ from other ALWTRP requirements for any overlapping areas and times, then the more restrictive requirements will apply in the DAM zone.

Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within the portions of Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters, Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters, and the Stellwagen Bank/Jeffrey's Ledge Restricted Area that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:

1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;

2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;

3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and

4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 600 lb (272.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys.

Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within the portion of the Offshore Lobster Waters Area that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:

1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;

2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;

3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and

4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys.

Fishermen utilizing anchored gillnet gear within the portions of Other Northeast Gillnet Waters and the Stellwagen Bank/Jeffrey's Ledge Restricted Area that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:

1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;

2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;

3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per string;

4. The breaking strength of each net panel weak link must not exceed 1,100 lb (498.8 kg). The weak link requirements apply to all variations in net panel size. One weak link must be placed in the center of the floatline and one weak link must be placed in the center of each of the up and down lines at both ends of the net panel. Additionally, one weak link must be placed as close as possible to each end of the net panels on the floatline; or, one weak link must be placed between floatline tie-loops between net panels and one weak link must be placed where the floatline tie-loops attach to the bridle, buoy line, or groundline at each end of a net string;

5. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 1,100 lb (498.8 kg) must be placed at all buoys; and

6. All anchored gillnets, regardless of the number of net panels, must be securely anchored with the holding power of at least a 22 lb (10.0 kg) Danforth-style anchor at each end of the net string.

The restrictions will be in effect beginning at 0001 hours January 26, 2008, through 2400 hours February 9, 2008, unless terminated sooner or extended by NMFS through another notification in the Federal Register .

The restrictions will be announced to state officials, fishermen, ALWTRT members, and other interested parties through e-mail, phone contact, NOAA website, and other appropriate media immediately upon issuance of the rule by the AA.

In accordance with section 118(f)(9) of the MMPA, the Assistant Administrator (AA) for Fisheries has determined that this action is necessary to implement a take reduction plan to protect North Atlantic right whales.

Environmental Assessments for the DAM program were prepared on December 28, 2001, and August 6, 2003. This action falls within the scope of the analyses of these EAs, which are available from the agency upon request.

NMFS provided prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on the regulations establishing the criteria and procedures for implementing a DAM zone. Providing prior notice and opportunity for comment on this action, pursuant to those regulations, would be impracticable because it would prevent NMFS from executing its functions to protect and reduce serious injury and mortality of endangered right whales. The regulations establishing the DAM program are designed to enable the agency to help protect unexpected concentrations of right whales. In order to meet the goals of the DAM program, the agency needs to be able to create a DAM zone and implement restrictions on fishing gear as soon as possible once the criteria are triggered and NMFS determines that a DAM restricted zone is appropriate. If NMFS were to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment upon the creation of a DAM restricted zone, the aggregated right whales would be vulnerable to entanglement which could result in serious injury and mortality. Additionally, the right whales would most likely move on to another location before NMFS could implement the restrictions designed to protect them, thereby rendering the action obsolete. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the AA finds that good cause exists to waive prior notice and an opportunity to comment on this action to implement a DAM restricted zone to reduce the risk of entanglement of endangered right whales in commercial lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear as such procedures would be impracticable.

For the same reasons, the AA finds that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in effective date. If NMFS were to delay for 30 days the effective date of this action, the aggregated right whales would be vulnerable to entanglement, which could cause serious injury and mortality. Additionally, right whales would likely move to another location between the time NMFS approved the action creating the DAM restricted zone and the time it went into effect, thereby rendering the action obsolete and ineffective. Nevertheless, NMFS recognizes the need for fishermen to have time to either modify or remove (if not in compliance with the required restrictions) their gear from a DAM zone once one is approved. Thus, NMFS makes this action effective 2 days after the date of publication of this document in the Federal Register . NMFS will also endeavor to provide notice of this action to fishermen through other means upon issuance of the rule by the AA, thereby providing approximately 3 additional days of notice while the Office of the Federal Register processes the document for publication.

NMFS determined that the regulations establishing the DAM program and actions such as this one taken pursuant to those regulations are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of the U.S. Atlantic coastal states. This determination was submitted for review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Following state review of the regulations creating the DAM program, no state disagreed with NMFS' conclusion that the DAM program is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program for that state.

The DAM program under which NMFS is taking this action contains policies with federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, in October 2001 and March 2003, the Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, Department of Commerce, provided notice of the DAM program and its amendments to the appropriate elected officials in states to be affected by actions taken pursuant to the DAM program. Federalism issues raised by state officials were addressed in the final rules implementing the DAM program. A copy of the federalism Summary Impact Statement for the final rules is available upon request ( ADDRESSES ).

The rule implementing the DAM program has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.