The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of specified animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into the United States of various animal diseases, including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, swine vesicular disease, classical swine fever, and African swine fever (ASF). These are dangerous and destructive communicable diseases of ruminants and swine.

Section 94.8 of the regulations lists regions of the world where ASF exists or is reasonably believed to exist and imposes restrictions on the importation of pork and pork products into the United States from those regions.

On June 5, 2007, the Republic of Georgia reported to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) 11 outbreaks of ASF in various areas throughout the country. The source of the outbreak is unknown. Therefore, in order to prevent the introduction of ASF into the United States, we are amending the regulations by adding Georgia to the list of regions in § 94.8 where ASF exists or is reasonably believed to exist. As a result of this action, the importation into the United States of pork or pork products from Georgia will be restricted. We are imposing this restriction retroactively to June 5, 2007, which is that the presence of ASF in Georgia was confirmed.

This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the introduction of ASF into the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule.

This interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

This interim rule amends the regulations by adding the Republic of Georgia to the list of regions in which ASF exists. This action is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the introduction of ASF into the United States.

The rule will restrict the importation of pork and pork products from Georgia. Georgia is a net importer of swine and swine products. The country's exports of pork products represent less than 0.1 percent of the world export of these products. The United States, Canada, and Mexico did not import any pork or pork products from Georgia during the period of January 2006 through March 2007. Since no pork or pork products have been imported into the United States from Georgia during this time period, it is unlikely that this interim rule will have any substantial effects on trade, or on large or small businesses.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has retroactive effect to June 5, 2007; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

On August 8, 2007, the FAA issued AD 2007-17-03, Amendment 39-15161 (72 FR 46541, August 21, 2007), which applies to certain Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd Model 750XL airplanes. AD 2007-17-03 requires you to inspect the inboard end of the rear spar for security of the blind rivets, inspecting the radii of the rear spar upper and lower flanges for cracking, inspecting the aft flange of the inboard rib for cracking, replacing the rear spar if cracks are found in any of the inspections, and replacing rear spar blind rivets with bolts or rivets. The paragraph following the section heading Materials Incorporated by Reference does not have a paragraph designator. This document corrects that paragraph by inserting the paragraph designator “(i)” preceding the paragraph text.

This correction is needed to specify the paragraph designator for the paragraph that follows the Materials Incorporated by Reference section heading.

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 June 11, 2007 (72 FR 32025). 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 received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

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.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects about 51 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it takes about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Where the service information lists required labor costs that are covered under warranty at the operator's agreed in-house warranty labor rate, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $12,240, or $240 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://dms.dot.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.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Raytheon (Beech) Model 400, 400A, and 400T series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 29, 2007 (72 FR 29446). That NPRM proposed to require modifying the attachment fasteners on the engine cowling panels.

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

We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to match the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.

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

There are about 757 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 575 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. Required parts cost about $400 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of this AD for U.S. operators is $690,000, or $1,200 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 proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to GEAE CF6-45A, -45A2, -50A, -50C, -50CA, -50C1, -50C2, -50C2B, -50C2D, -50C2F, -50C2R, -50E, -50E1, -50E2, and -50E2B turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on May 31, 2007 (74 FR 30300). That action proposed to require replacing the CDP restoring spring assembly on certain MECs and re-marking MECs that already incorporate GEAE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0119, dated March 21, 2005 or GEAE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0119, Revision 01, dated May 26, 2006.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.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. The commenters support the proposal.

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.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 756 GEAE CF6-45A, -50C, and -50E series turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 40 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,787 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $3,770,172.

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

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD 2007-0046, dated February 22, 2007, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The EASA AD states:

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

Rolls-Royce plc has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 73 2818, Original Issue, dated October 18, 2006, and Update No. 1, dated April 3, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the UK and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the UK, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires removal of IP Compressor Drums, part number FK30102, serial numbers MW0134967, MW0131219, MW0156891, MW0158192, MW0164840, MW0168864, MW0168190, MW0171399, and KHI00012 from service at the next engine overhaul or before accumulating 2,190 cycles-since-new, whichever occurs first. This AD also requires replacement with a serviceable Drum.

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 no airplanes that are registered in the United States use these engines. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary 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-2007-27955; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-15-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the civil aviation authority for the UK, has issued AD 002-11-2001, dated November 27, 2001, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The CAA AD states:

B/E Aerospace has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 25-20-2658, dated November 12, 2001. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the CAA AD.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the UK and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the UK, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the CAA AD and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information provided by the CAA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires inspection and re-orientation of the Hydrolok retaining pin.

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 B/E Aerospace requires compliance with the ASB within one month of receipt of the ASB. 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-2007-28075; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-21-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD 2007-0126, dated May 7, 2007, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The EASA AD states:

The loss of automatic control mode coupled with the deteriorated performance of the backup mode can lead to the inability to continue safe flight, forced autorotation landing, or an accident. You may obtain further information by examining the EASA AD in the AD docket.

This AD supersedes AD 2007-03-14, Amendment 39-14925 (72 FR 4948, February 2, 2007), which we issued in response to EASA AD 2007-0006, dated January 9, 2007.

Turbomeca has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 73 2818, Original Issue, dated October 18, 2006, and Update No. 1, dated April 3, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of France and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires initial and repetitive replacement of the HMU with a serviceable HMU every 1,500 hours-in-service.

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 of the high risk to engines that could experience a ruptured delta P diaphragm with HMUs that have accumulated over 1,500 operating hours. 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-2007-27009; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-02-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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.

On December 29, 2005, the FAA published a final rule (70 FR 76974) that withdrew a final rule entitled Service Difficulty Reports. As part of that withdrawal, the FAA should have removed any cross-reference to § 135.416 that appeared elsewhere in the regulation, since that section was removed as part of withdrawing the Service Difficulty Reports rule.

To correct this oversight, this action removes references to § 135.416 from paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of § 135.411.

The technical amendment will make a minor editorial correction to § 135.411, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2).

Because this action removes references to a section that no longer exists, the FAA finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary. For the same reason, the FAA finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this rule effective upon publication.

In 1998 the Parole Commission promulgated a rule establishing the expedited revocation procedure. 63 FR 25769-70 (May 21, 1998). Under this procedure, after a preliminary interview and a probable cause determination, the Commission may offer an alleged parole violator the opportunity to receive a revocation and reparole decision without a revocation hearing. By accepting the Commission's offer and foregoing the revocation hearing, the alleged violator may expedite his transfer from a local jail to a federal institution where vocational, educational, and other prison programs are available. In using this procedure, the Commission saves the costs associated with conducting an in-person hearing.

In October 2005, the Commission began an “advanced consent” pilot project at the District of Columbia Central Detention Facility at the suggestion of the Commission's hearing examiners and attorneys from the District of Columbia Public Defender Service. After a parolee or supervised releasee is arrested on a violator warrant issued by the Commission, a Commission hearing examiner conducts a probable cause hearing for the alleged violator at the DC jail within 5 days of the arrest. See 28 CFR 2.101(a). Under the pilot project, the alleged violator may propose to the hearing examiner at the probable cause hearing that he will accept a disposition of the case without a revocation hearing. Usually the alleged violator makes the proposal with the condition that the prison term resulting from the revocation stays at the bottom of the applicable guideline range (see 28 CFR 2.20 and 2.21). The Commission maintains the authority to reject the proposal for any reason, and uses the same substantive criteria in evaluating the case that are described in the present rule at § 2.66, e.g. , cases in which the offense severity rating for the alleged violation behavior under the paroling policy guidelines (28 CFR 2.20) is Category Two or less (Categories One and Two are the least serious offense ratings in the guidelines). Under the advanced consent process, the Commission hoped to expedite revocation proceedings and reduce the number of days the offender would be incarcerated at the DC jail before transferring to a federal facility where more programs would be available to the offender.

The results of the advanced consent program show that this procedure does expedite the resolution of less serious parole and supervised release revocation cases. For the period from January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007, the Commission made 2,607 revocation decisions for violators in the District of Columbia. Of this number, 1048 cases (40%) were decided using the advanced consent procedure. The average processing time of these 1048 cases was 44 days from the date the violator was arrested on a violator warrant to the date of the revocation decision, almost half the time contemplated by the Commission's regulation governing local revocation hearings. See 28 CFR 2.105(c) and 2.218(g) (a revocation decision for a DC violator must be made within 86 days of arrest on a violator warrant).

With the success of the pilot project, the Commission is now amending its rule at § 2.66 to incorporate the advanced consent alternative as a variation of the expedited revocation procedure. No change has been made in the criteria used by the Commission in determining those offenders who may be considered for revocation without the need of a hearing. In applying the amended rule, the Commission will continue to exercise its discretion to conduct a hearing when it deems a hearing to be necessary to protect the public safety, even if the alleged violator's case appears to meet one of the criteria for consideration under § 2.66. The Commission has also edited the rule to ensure that it is clear and easy to read. With the editing of the rule, a conforming amendment is made to the rule on miscellaneous provisions at 28 CFR 2.89. The Commission is publishing the amended rule at § 2.66 as a final rule without seeking public comment because the rule is procedural in nature and does not establish any new substantive criteria for making revocation and reparole decisions.

The amended rules will take effect October 18, 2007, and will apply to federal and District of Columbia offenders.

The U.S. Parole Commission has determined that this final rule does not constitute a significant rule within the meaning of Executive Order 12866.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications requiring a Federalism Assessment.

The rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605 (b), and is deemed by the Commission to be a rule of agency practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties pursuant to Section 804 (3) (c)) of the Congressional Review Act.

This rule will not cause State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. No action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is necessary.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies.

Since early 2004, the Parole Commission has been conducting some parole proceedings by videoconference to reduce travel costs and to conserve the time and effort of its hearing examiners. The Commission initiated a pilot project in which examiners conducted some parole release hearings by videoconference between the Commission's office in Maryland and the prisoner's federal institution. The Commission published an interim rule that provided notice that the Commission would be using the videoconference procedure. 69 FR 5273 (Feb. 4, 2004).

Based on the success of that project, the Commission extended the use of videoconferencing to institutional revocation hearings by an interim rule promulgated in April 2005. 70 FR 19262 (Apr. 13, 2005). The Commission holds the revocation hearing at a federal institution when the releasee has admitted the charged violation, waives a local hearing, or has been convicted of a crime that establishes a release violation. The great majority of institutional revocation hearings are still held with the hearing examiner and the releasee together at the federal institution. The Commission's experience with the videoconference procedure in institutional revocation hearings is consistent with the satisfactory experience it has had with videoconferencing in parole release hearings. Releasees, their attorneys, and witnesses have been able to effectively participate in the videoconference hearings with the hearing examiner.

Now the Commission has decided to explore the utility of the videoconference procedure for probable cause hearings held at the District of Columbia Central Detention Facility for parolees and supervised releasees arrested for violations of the conditions of release. Following arrest on a violator warrant and subsequent detention at the DC jail, a releasee is given a hearing with an examiner of the Parole Commission within five days of arrest for the purpose of determining whether probable cause exists for the alleged violation of release. At this hearing, the hearing examiner's primary task is to determine whether any submissions from the releasee and counsel require a different decision as to the evidentiary support for the issuance of a warrant and the continued custody of the releasee. The releasee is usually represented by an attorney from the DC Public Defender Service. Given the limited purpose of the proceeding and the five-day time frame in which the hearing must be held, witnesses are normally not present at a probable cause hearing. The hearing examiner has the delegated authority to make a determination as to the existence of probable cause. At the end of the hearing, if the hearing examiner makes a finding of probable cause, the releasee is normally held in custody for a local revocation hearing. If probable cause is not found, the releasee is discharged from custody and revocation proceedings are terminated. At the local revocation hearing a Commission hearing examiner accepts written and oral submissions from the releasee and counsel, takes testimony from witnesses, and recommends credibility determinations that lead to a final examination of the evidence regarding the alleged violation. All local revocation hearings are held with the hearing examiner in the same room with the releasee, counsel, and any witnesses. With the written report of the hearing by the hearing examiner and the examiner's recommended disposition, the Commission decides if the releasee committed the charged violation, and, if so, whether the Commission should revoke the release.

The Commission held approximately 1700 probable cause hearings in 2006 and sees several benefits in using videoconferencing for these preliminary proceedings. Videoconferencing may allow the hearing examiner to make the best use of the examiner's time and effort during the hearing docket. The progress of a probable cause hearing docket is frequently delayed as releasees are brought in for the hearings by corrections personnel, attorneys and clients meet to discuss some issue regarding the proceedings, or some procedural problem is corrected. If the examiner's attention is not needed during the delay, the examiner may use that time to read the releasee's file that is before the examiner at the Commission's office. (Given the number of probable cause hearings on each docket, it is impractical for an examiner to bring releasee files to the jail for review and use during the hearing docket. The examiner has only a packet of documents concerning the alleged violation.) With the full file readily available, the examiner is in a position to quickly resolve problems such as replacement of a document missing from the releasee's disclosure packet. Moreover, the hearing examiner could promptly respond to questions from the releasee and counsel that may assist them in making a decision whether to initiate a request to the Commission for a disposition of the case without a hearing. These questions may pertain to the calculation of the releasee's salient factor score, the estimate of the releasee's guideline range, or the maximum time remaining on the sentence. Consequently, probable cause hearings by videoconference may offer the possibility of more expeditious decisions regarding the disposition of the charged violation.

The DC Public Defender Service, the Criminal Justice Clinic of the Georgetown University Law Center, and other advocacy programs have already raised concerns that using videoconferencing for probable cause hearings will inhibit the hearing examiner's ability to gauge the credibility of the releasee and witnesses, and will unjustifiably deny the releasee the opportunity to have a face-to-face meeting with a representative of the Commission before release is revoked. Underlying these concerns is the belief that a revocation proceeding should be guided by procedures appropriate to a criminal prosecution. The Commission does not agree with this proposition. Due process does apply to revocation proceedings, but not to the extent that the proceedings are the equivalent of criminal trials. Moreover, the probable cause hearing is only a preliminary proceeding in the revocation process. The full examination of the credibility of the releasee's statements and witnesses' testimony as to the alleged violation takes place at the local revocation hearing, which is held with the hearing examiner face-to-face with the releasee and counsel, and the witnesses.

Videoconferencing has been found to be legally sufficient for a variety of judicial and administrative proceedings. Pappas v. Kentucky Parole Board, 156 S.W.3d 303 (Ky.Ct.App. 2005) (parole release hearing); Wilkins v. Wilkinson, 809 N.E.2d 1206 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (parole revocation hearing); United States v. Baker, 45 F.3d 837 (4th Cir. 1995) (involuntary commitment hearing for a mentally ill prisoner). Furthermore, research studies regarding the use of videoconferencing in forensic interviews show that psychiatric evaluations done with videoconferencing are just as reliable as those done with the evaluator and the subject in a face-to-face meeting. See Lexcen, et al. , Use of Video Conferencing for Psychiatric and Forensic Evaluations, Psychiatric Services, vol. 57, 713-15 (May 2006). Another study concludes that persons observing witnesses' statements face-to-face with the witnesses, though these “live” observers were likely to perceive the witnesses’ appearance more favorably than persons observing the statements through video, were no better at determining the truth of the witnesses' statements than the video observers. Landstrom, et al. , “Witnesses Appearing Live Versus on Video: Effects on Observers’ Perception, Veracity Assessments and Memory,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 19, 913-33 (2005).

The Commission is sensitive to the concern that use of the videoconference procedure may depersonalize the revocation process and might result in the imprisonment of a revoked releasee for a number of months without ever meeting a Commission examiner face-to-face. However, this latter situation would ordinarily occur at the election of a releasee who agrees to waive a revocation hearing, either accepting a sanction offered by the Commission, or offering to accept a designated sanction. If a releasee decides that he wants a face-to-face meeting with a Commission hearing examiner, the releasee can have such a meeting by declining the sanction offered by the Commission or by not offering to accept a designated sanction. The choice rests with the releasee and counsel, who must weigh the benefits of an early disposition of the alleged violation against the loss of a face-to-face meeting with a hearing examiner. The Commission's experience over the last three years has been that the quality of interpersonal exchange among the hearing participants does not appreciably decline with the use of videoconferencing.

Finally, even before the Commission began its pilot project with videoconference hearings in 2004, 22 state parole boards reported using this procedure for parole release hearings and 17 state boards reported using this procedure for parole revocation hearings. See http://www.apaintl.org/Pub-ParoleBoardSurvey2003.html. Since 1996, Congress has authorized federal courts to conduct supervised release revocation hearings by videoconference when the releasee is incarcerated and in default on a payment of a fine or restitution. See 18 U.S.C. 3613A. The Commission is hardly breaking new ground in exploring the benefits of videoconferencing for its proceedings.

The Commission is promulgating this rule as an interim rule in order to determine the utility of the videoconference procedure for probable cause hearings and is providing a 60-day period for the public to comment on the use of the procedure for such hearings.

The amended rule will take effect October 18, 2007, and will apply to probable cause hearings for District of Columbia parolees and supervised releasees held on or after the effective date.

The U.S. Parole Commission has determined that this interim rule does not constitute a significant rule within the meaning of Executive Order 12866.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications requiring a Federalism Assessment.

The interim rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), and is deemed by the Commission to be a rule of agency practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties pursuant to Section 804(3)(c) of the Congressional Review Act.

This rule will not cause State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. No action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is necessary.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for giving notice of the enforcement date less than 30 days before the enforcement period goes into effect. Delaying notice of the enforcement date would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, support vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. However advance notification of this recurring event is being given to users of Sunset Lake via marine information broadcasts, local notice to mariners, commercial radio stations and area newspapers.

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations for the annual Sunset Lake Hydrofest on Sunset Lake, New Jersey in 33 CFR 100.536 from 8:30 a.m. on September 29, 2007, through 5:30 p.m. September 30, 2007. Annually, the Sunset Lake Hydrofest Association sponsors this event on the waters of Sunset Lake near Wildwood Crest, New Jersey. The event consists of approximately 100 inboard hydroplanes, Jersey speed skiffs and flat-bottom ski boats racing in heats counter-clockwise around an oval racecourse.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.536, except for event participants and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. Additionally, when authorized by the Patrol Commander to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.536 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of this enforcement via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, local radio stations and area newspapers.

EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we view this action as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment. For this reason, we believe that notice and comment procedures are “unnecessary”, within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. section 553 (b) and that therefore there is good cause to adopt this rule without utilizing such procedures. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to adopt the provisions in this Direct Final Rule if our assumption is incorrect and significant adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on November 19, 2007 without further notice unless we receive significant adverse comment by October 18, 2007 or a request for a public hearing by October 3, 2007. If we receive significant adverse comment on one or more distinct provisions of this rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions are being withdrawn due to adverse comment. We may address all adverse comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We are not planning to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. Any distinct provisions of today's rulemaking for which we do not receive adverse comment will become effective on the date set out above, notwithstanding any adverse comment on any other discrete provisions of today's rule.

This action will affect companies that manufacture and certify nonroad equipment powered by diesel engines in the United States.

To determine whether particular activities may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action as noted in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

You may summit comments on this direct final rule as described in this section. You should note that we are also publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , which matches the substance of this direct final rule. Your comments on this direct final rule will be considered to also be applicable to that notice of proposed rulemaking. As explained above, if we receive any adverse comments on this direct final rule or receive a request for a hearing within the time frame described above, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule, or the provisions of this rule for which we received adverse comment, will not take effect. We may then take final action in a final rule based on the accompanying proposal. We will not institute a second comment period.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0652. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. Attention Air Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0652. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in ADDRESSES above. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By Mail. Send two copies of your comments to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460., Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0652.

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room: 3334, Mail Code: 2822T, Washington, DC, Attention Air Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0652. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.

4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0652.

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Air Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0652. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-9744.

2. Electronic Access. This direct final rule is available electronically from the EPA Internet Web site. This service is free of charge, except for any cost incurred for internet connectivity. The electronic version of this final rule is made available on the date of publication on the primary web site listed below. The EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality also publishes Federal Register notices and related documents on the secondary web site listed below.

i. http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR (either select desired date or use Search features).

ii. http://www.epa.gov/otaq (look in What's New or under the specific rulemaking topic).

Please note that due to differences between the software used to develop the documents and the software into which the document may be downloaded, format changes may occur.

A. EPA is making the following technical amendments to correct a variety of regulatory provisions in the regulations establishing emission standards for nonroad diesel engines:

• 40 CFR 9.1: Adding the approved information collection for nonroad diesel engines to the summary table in 40 CFR part 9.

• 40 CFR 89.1: Correcting a typographical error.

• 40 CFR 89.101: Adding a provision to allow manufacturers to start using the provisions already adopted for Tier 4 engines in the time that Tier 2 or Tier 3 standards continue to apply. We would allow this only to the extent that it does not affect our ability to ensure that manufacturers fully comply with applicable requirements.

• 40 CFR 89.102: Clarifying the legal status for equipment using engines exempted from current standards under the Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers. The original language does not clearly exempt the equipment from the otherwise applicable prohibition in § 89.1003, which would be necessary for this whole program.

• 40 CFR 89.102: Clarifying the limitation of allowances based on engine families. Since these engines are not certified, we clarify that this term relates to the characteristics described for certifying engines in § 89.116.

• 40 CFR 89.102: Technical relief provision; discussion below in part B.

• 40 CFR 89.108: Adding a provision for engines to be adjusted outside the normal range of parameter adjustment for applications involving landfill or wellhead gas. We have already adopted this in 40 CFR part 1039 for Tier 4 engines, so this change simply allows manufacturers to implement this provision earlier.

• 40 CFR 89.115: Requiring manufacturers to name an agent for service in the United States. This simply allows us to ensure that we will have a person in the United States who is able to speak for the company and receive communication regarding any aspect of our effort to certify engines and oversee compliance of certified products.

• 40 CFR 89.205: Clarifying provisions in the nonroad diesel engine averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program. The text change is to clarify that these credits are considered to be Tier 2 credits.

• 40 CFR 89.601: Requiring importers to complete the EPA declaration form before importing engines, and to keep the forms for five years. This amendment simply restates the provisions that are already in place for the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol at 19 CFR 12.74.

• 40 CFR 89.611: Defining the initial dates for implementing emission standards for nonroad diesel engines below 37 kW. This corrects an earlier oversight in the definition of the scope of the exemption for importing engines that were built before emission standards started to apply.

• 40 CFR 1039.102: Clarifying provisions in the nonroad diesel engine averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program.

• 40 CFR 1039.104: Clarifying provisions in the nonroad diesel engine averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program. The change corrects an inconsistency with the existing regulatory text that effectively prevents the use of credit-using Tier 3 engines in the initial years of Tier 4 in certain situations.

• 40 CFR 1039.115: Specifying that crankcase requirements apply throughout an engine's useful life. Without this clarifying language, it is not clear how long this requirement applies, or whether it ever expires. We are also clarifying that the requirements of this section do not apply to engines that are subject to part 1039 requirements, but have been exempted from the emission standards for any reason.

• 40 CFR 1039.125: Correcting an inadvertent reference to nonroad equipment, which should refer instead to nonroad engines as is clear from the context.

• 40 CFR 1039.135: Adding clarifying language to describe when an engine's emission control information label is so obscured as to require the equipment manufacturer to apply a separate duplicate label. To be consistent with all other programs for nonroad engines, we specify that a label that is visible during normal maintenance is not obscured. We are also adding a specification that manufacturers keep records of the engine families for which they send duplicate labels.

• 40 CFR 1039.205: Requiring submission of emission results for each test mode if manufacturers conduct discrete-mode testing. This does not apply for ramped-modal testing. These measurements would be submitted for demonstrating compliance with not-to-exceed standards, so this should not include any additional testing or reporting burden.

• 40 CFR 1039.205: Requiring manufacturers to name an agent for service in the United States, as described above for § 89.115.

• 40 CFR 1039.205: Requiring that manufacturers make good-faith estimates of projected production volumes.

• 40 CFR 1039.210: Clarifying EPA's role in preliminary approvals to describe that we generally would not reverse a decision without new information supporting a different decision.

• 40 CFR 1039.225: Revising the language to avoid using the term “new nonroad engine,” since that defined term is not appropriate for this section.

• 40 CFR 1039.235: Clarifying that carryover of emission data is possible for engine families that have engine changes in a new model year, as long as there are no changes that might affect emissions.

• 40 CFR 1039.245: Removing a regulatory provision that was inadvertently included in two separate paragraphs.

• 40 CFR 1039.255: Narrowing the scope of recordkeeping that would subject an engine manufacturer to an action that could result in the certificate of conformity being revoked or voided, consistent with the similar provisions in our other nonroad engine programs.

• 40 CFR 1039.501: Clarifying the emission standards to which specific test procedures apply.

• 40 CFR 1039.505: Clarifying that cycle statistics for discrete-mode testing should be based on a calculation for each mode rather than the sequence of modes.

• 40 CFR 1039.605 and 40 CFR 1039.610: Amending the regulatory language to address a variety of legal and technical clarifications.

• 40 CFR 1039.625: Amending the regulatory language to specify the proper engine power lower bound.

• 40 CFR 1039.705: Amending the description for calculating emission credits to clarify the steps in making the calculation.

• 40 CFR 1039.730: Revising the description of emission credit calculations to clarify that manufacturers need consider only those families that generate or use emission credits. The emission credit program described in this subpart for these engines is not based on fleet-average compliance.

• 40 CFR 1039.735: Clarifying the recordkeeping provisions related to emission credits and adding a requirement to keep records as long as the banked credits are considered valid for demonstrating compliance with emission standards.

• 40 CFR 1039.801: Correcting various definitions to be consistent with more recent rulemakings that used somewhat different wording.

• 40 CFR 1039.810: Removing the incorporation by reference for the document that defines our rounding conventions, since we are already relying on the same reference established in 40 CFR part 1065.

• 40 CFR 1039.825: Adding a new section to summarize the information collection requirements in part 1039.

B. This rulemaking also provides nonroad diesel equipment manufacturers that are not vertically integrated with engine suppliers with a production technical relief provision for Tier 3 equipment, modeled on the comparable provision for Tier 4 equipment found in 40 CFR section 1039.625(m).

Only equipment manufacturers who do not make the engines used in the equipment for which technical relief is sought are eligible to apply for technical relief under this provision (since the engine production and equipment production segments of integrated entities would necessarily be in contact and therefore not experience the type of unexpected redesign changes which could warrant technical relief). This applies exclusively to equipment manufacturers as described in section 1039.626. Engine manufacturers and importers thus may not request this relief.

The Tier 4 nonroad diesel rule applies both to diesel engine manufacturers and to equipment manufacturers who install engines made by engine manufacturers. Equipment manufacturers are ultimately responsible for producing nonroad applications which comply with the rule's standards by the rule's compliance date. However, there can be circumstances when equipment manufacturers, through no fault of their own, receive engines from their suppliers too late to meet compliance dates. Although the Tier 4 rule contains a number of equipment manufacturer flexibility provisions which apply automatically (i.e., without any showing of need or any requirement to obtain EPA approval), we were convinced that some additional flexibility was needed to cover circumstances where (a) an equipment manufacturer has exhausted its automatic flexibilities, and (b) it demonstrates to EPA that it cannot comply with the rule because, through no fault of its own, the engine manufacturer failed to deliver a compliant engine to the equipment manufacturer in sufficient time. The provision can be used only as a last resort, so an equipment manufacturer is eligible for relief under the provision only after it exhausts all other flexibility provisions and implementation options. This provision (which we call “technical relief”  1 ) is explained in the Tier 4 nonroad preamble at 69 FR 39007-008 (June 29, 2004), and (as noted) is codified at section 1039.625(m).

The same issue can arise for producers of Tier 3 nonroad diesel equipment, but the Tier 3 rule does not contain the technical relief provision. Today's rule essentially adds the same technical relief provision to the Tier 3 rule, for the same reasons EPA adopted it in Tier 4.

Tier 3 equipment manufacturers may need this technical relief to address challenges that may occur as engine manufacturers choose to implement technical changes for Tier 3. If an engine manufacturer changes their plan late in the design implementation process, an equipment company with unique or complicated equipment designs could face challenges with their internal redesign process. If the equipment manufacturer has already used its other flexibilities, there thus may be circumstances warranting technical relief for Tier 3 equipment.

There are two principal differences between the Tier 3 technical relief provision, and the existing provision in Tier 4. The first is that the dirtier the substitute engine used if technical relief is granted for Tier 3 equipment, the more Tier 4 flexibilities (both automatically available flexibilities and potential technical relief) the equipment manufacturer must give up (further details are provided below). This encourages earlier use of Tier 4 engines (the cleanest), and ensures that the net emission reductions from Tier 3 and Tier 4 engines remain the greatest achievable, as required by section 213 of the Act. Another difference between the Tier 3 and Tier 4 technical relief provisions is that for the Tier 3 program, relief is limited to 50% of one year's production volume for each power category (as opposed to 70% under Tier 4). This allows for the transitional nature of this program to be realized, while limiting the potential for abuse beyond the need to facilitate a transition to cleaner engines.

However, for the most part, the Tier 3 technical provision mirrors that in Tier 4. As with the parallel provision in Tier 4, this technical relief provision provides a case-by-case exemption granted by EPA to an equipment manufacturer after evaluating the equipment manufacturer's application. Any engine produced utilizing this relief must be appropriately labeled to avoid the introduction into commerce of engines that are not in compliance. A clearly visible label thus must be provided which indicates the regulatory flexibility under which these engines are being produced. The provision applies to equipment that would otherwise be required to use engines certified to the Tier 3 standard (i.e., model year 2006 to 2008 equipment with 37 to 560 kW nonroad diesel engines). The equipment manufacturer would have the burden of demonstrating existence of an extreme technical or engineering hardship condition that is outside its control, i.e. is essentially due to conduct of the (nonintegrated) engine supplier and therefore out of the equipment manufacturer's control. The equipment manufacturer must also demonstrate that it has exercised reasonable due diligence to try to avoid being in the situation.

In order to meet these criteria, the equipment manufacturer needs to provide to EPA documentation, or a written explanation, addressing the following issues:

• Documentation of the technical or engineering problem that was unsolvable within the lead time provided by the Tier 3 rule.

• A description of the normal design cycle between the engine manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer and why that process did not work in this instance.

• All information (such as written specifications, performance data, prototype engines) received by the equipment manufacturer from the engine manufacturer.

• Comparison of the design process for the equipment model for which the exemption is requested versus those for which the exemption is not needed.

• A description of efforts the equipment maker has made to find other compliant engines for the model.

• Documentation that existing flexibilities will be fully utilized before the need for technical relief.

EPA would then decide on a case-by-case basis what percentage, if any, of additional relief (i.e., relief above and beyond that afforded by the automatic percent of production flexibility) would be provided.

Applicability of the Tier 3 technical relief provision is restricted to:

• Up to a maximum of an additional 50% beyond original 80% automatic percent of production technical flexibility (a change from Tier 4, as noted above).

• Full allowance is limited to the first two (2) years of Tier 3.

• Phased-in by power category.

• The Tier 3 automatic flexibility provisions continue to apply for their original seven years or until fully consumed.

• Applies to 56 to 560 kW categories only for the percent of production and only available between 37 to 75 kW for the small volume.

A significant feature of this Tier 3 technical relief provision, which has no counterpart in the Tier 4 provision, is that for every 1% of the equipment production using this relief provision in the Tier 3 timeframe (i.e., equipment that uses engines not conforming to the Tier 3 standard in the Tier 3 timeframe), a percentage of the (automatic) production equipment flexibility allowance for Tier 4 is sacrificed from the comparable Tier 4 power category (i.e., this percent of the otherwise automatic flexibility is no longer available), and an additional 1% is sacrificed from any potential Tier 4 technical relief that the Agency may grant for that power category. Please see Table 1. In other words, to utilize the Tier 3 technical relief, the equipment manufacturer must give up some amount of its otherwise automatic Tier 4 flexibility and some portion of its potential Tier 4 technical relief. The Tier 4 percent of production sacrifice is based on the percentage of earlier Tier (e.g., Tier 1 or 2) engines utilized in place of Tier 3 engines. Grant of Tier 3 technical relief thus would be linked to earlier use of Tier 4 engines.

For example, if you used 45 percent of your production flexibility for equipment using Tier 2 engines of a given power category (i.e. if in the Tier 2 timeframe you used 45% of the total 80% percent of production flexibility for that power category), you must forfeit 2 percent of the (automatic) production flexibility for Tier 4 engines of that power category for every 1 percent technical relief EPA grants for Tier 3 equipment using engines of that power category. You must also forfeit 1 percent of any potential technical relief which could be granted for Tier 4 engines (i.e. for equipment using Tier 4 engines) for every 1 percent technical relief exemption EPA grants for Tier 3 engines. If you use the Tier 3 technical relief allowances for 5 percent of your equipment for two years, you have used a total allowance of 10 percent. Therefore, as shown in Table 1, you must forfeit a total of 20 percent of production flexibility for Tier 4 engines plus 10 percent of any technical relief which could be granted for Tier 4 engines.

The technical relief will be further adjusted based on the sales volume by power category. Because the Tier 3 and Tier 4 rules have different power category ranges, today's rule specifies which power categories in Tier 4 correspond to those in Tier 3 for purposes of this rule. The Tier 3 power categories of 37kW to 75kW and 75kW to 130kW correspond to the Tier 4 power category of 56kW to 130kW. For the Tier 3 equipment in the 37kW to 75kW category, you must only use the sales volume for equipment that uses engines with a rated power greater than 56kW. For example, if you have a Tier 3 piece of equipment that uses a 40kW engine, the sales of the equipment are counted in the Tier 4 power category of 19kW to 56kW. If you have a Tier 3 piece of equipment that uses a 60kW engine, the sales of the equipment are counted in the Tier 4 power category of 56kW to 130kW. The Tier 3 power categories of 130kW to 225kW, 225kW to 450kW and 450kW to 560kW correspond to the Tier 4 power category of 130kW to 560kW. You will need to sum the sales of the Tier 3 power categories that correspond to the Tier 4 power category. Please see Table 2. If EPA grants technical relief, the sum of all the Tier 3 units that are so exempted are divided by the sum of all the Tier 3 units sold in the corresponding Tier 4 power category to determine the percentage of Tier 4 equipment affected.

For example, if you produce 50 units using Tier 3 technical relief in the range of 130kW to 225kW, and you produce 50 units using Tier 3 technical relief in the range of 225kW to 450kW, and no units are produced in the 450kW to 560kW range, and your overall sales volume for the power ranges of 130kW to 560kW in Tier 3 is 400 units, the amount of Tier 3 technical relief used is 100/400 or 25 percent. Because you forfeit 1 percent of your Tier 4 technical relief for every 1 percent of Tier 3 technical relief used (see Table 1 above), then you will lose 25 percent of your (potential) Tier 4 technical relief in the 130kW to 560kW power range category. If you used 45 percent of your production flexibility for Tier 2 engines, you must forfeit 2 percent of production flexibility for Tier 4 engines for every 1 percent of Tier 3 technical relief. Therefore, you will forfeit 50 percent of your Tier 4 production allowance in the 130kW to 560kW power range category.

Because the technical relief provision was not originally included in the Tier 3 program, we believe it is important to maintain the emission benefits of the Tier 3 rule by requiring a consistent emission trade-off with Tier 4. EPA has already found that the greatest emissions reduction achievable industry-wide for Tier 3 and Tier 4 does not include Tier 3 technical relief plus all of the other Tier 3 and Tier 4 flexibilities. The requirement that certain otherwise-available Tier 4 flexibilities be foregone is designed to ensure protection of the environment, prevent abuse, and encourage earlier introduction of Tier 4 technology. Most basically, as noted above, the linkage is designed to assure that the Tier 3 and Tier 4 rules, in combination, continue to result in the greatest emissions reduction achievable industry-wide, as required by section 213(a) of the Act.

The technical relief for small volume equipment manufacturers is similar to the equipment manufacturer technical relief with the distinction that it applies to small volume equipment manufacturers. The following criteria for small volume apply:

• 100 unit cap.

• Small volume technical relief is only available to the 37 to 56 kW range and the 56 to 75 kW range.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Agency believes this action does not impose information collection burden because this rulemaking only provides a technical relief provision for nonroad equipment manufacturers.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

Today's direct final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. Although the rule is subject to the APA, the Agency has invoked the “good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), therefore it is not subject to the notice and comment requirement.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Today's final rule contains no Federal mandates for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no new expenditure or enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector, and EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rulemaking affects only nonroad equipment manufacturers providing them a production technical relief provision. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This direct final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rulemaking affects only nonroad equipment manufacturers providing them a production technical relief provision. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, Section 5-501 of the Order directs the Agency to evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant, and does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The technical amendments on this rule do not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not cause emissions increases from these sources. The technical relief for the Tier 3 timeframe seeks to compensate for any emissions impact by encouraging earlier use of Tier 4 engines requiring the equipment manufacturer to give up specific Tier 4 flexibilities.

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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of November 19, 2007. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register .This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The statutory authority for this action comes from section 213 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7547). This action is a rulemaking subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (see Clean Air Act section 307(d)(1) final sentence).

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.

• Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.

• Food manufacturer (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.

• Pesticide manufacturer (NAICS code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov , you may access this “ Federal Register ” document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gpo/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0043 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before November 19, 2007.

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0043, by one of the following methods.

• Federal eRulemaking Portal : http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• Mail . Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Delivery . OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has developed a commodity vocabulary data base entitled “Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary.” The data base was developed to consolidate all the major OPP commodity vocabularies into one standardized vocabulary. As a result, all future pesticide tolerances issued under 40 CFR part 180 will use the “preferred commodity term” as listed in the aforementioned data base. This is the sixth in a series of documents revising the terminology of commodity terms currently in tolerances in 40 CFR part 180. Final rules, revising pesticide tolerance nomenclature, were published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2002 (67 FR 41802) (FRL-6835-2); June 21, 2002 (67 FR 42392) (FRL-7180-1); on July 1, 2003 (68 FR 39428) (FRL-7308-9); (68 FR 39435) (FRL-7316-9); and December 13, 2006 (71 FR 74802) (FRL-8064-3).

In this rule, EPA is amending tolerance commodity terms as follows:

1. The first letter of the commodity term is capitalized. All other letters, including the first letter of proper names, are changed to lower case.

2. Commodity terms are listed in the singular, although there are the following exceptions: “leaves”, “roots”, “tops”, “greens”, “hulls”, “vines”, “fractions”, “shoots”, and “byproducts”.

3. Commodity terms are amended so that generic terms precede modifying terms. Example - “Aspirated grain fractions” is replaced with “Grain, aspirated fractions”.

4. Parentheses are replaced with commas. Examples: “Almond (hulls)” is replaced with “Almond, hulls”. “Peppermint (tops)” is replaced with “Peppermint, tops”. “Sugarcane (cane)” is replaced with “Sugarcane, cane”.

5. Abbreviated terms are replaced with the appropriate commodity terms. Examples - “Cattle, mbyp”; “Goat, mbyb”; “Hog, mbyp”; “Horse, mbyp” and “Sheep, mbyp” are replaced with “Cattle, meat byproducts”; “Goat, meat byproducts”; “Hog, meat byproducts”; “Horse, meat byproducts” and “Sheep, meat byproducts”.

6. Crop group terms are revised to standardize with the Food and Feed Vocabulary. Examples of these types of changes are:

“Leafy vegetables except Brassica” is replaced with “Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4”.

“Brassica, head and stem, subgroup” is replaced with “Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A”.

“Cucurbit, vegetables (Group 9)” is replaced with “Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9”.

“Dried, shelled pea and bean, except soybean (Crop Subgroup 6C)” is replaced with “Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C”.

“Forage, fodder and straw of Grain, cereal” is replaced with “Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16”.

“Nongrass animal feed” is replaced with “Animal feed, nongrass, group 18”.

In addition to format changes to the commodity terms, this document also includes many revisions to the commodity terms. These revisions replace certain commodity terms that are no longer used by EPA with the appropriate matching term in the “Food and Feed Vocabulary”. For example:

“Dry bulb onion” and “Onion, dry bulb” are replaced with “Onion, bulb”. “Filbert” is replaced with “Hazelnut”. “Peppermint” and “Spearmint” are replaced with “Peppermint, tops” and “Spearmint, tops”. “Cotton seed” and “Cottonseed” are replaced with “Cotton, undelinted seed”. “Beet, sugar” is replaced with “Beet, sugar, roots”. “Sorghum, grain” is replaced with “Sorghum, grain, grain”. “Sugarcane, fodder” is replaced with “Sugarcane, stover”.

“Corn, fresh (inc sweet corn), kernel plus cob with husks removed”; “Corn, fresh (inc sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed)”; “Corn, fresh (inc. sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed)”; “Corn, fresh (including sweet K and corn with husks removed (CWHR)”; “Corn, fresh (including sweet kernels plus cobs with husks removed)”; “Corn, fresh (including sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed)”; “Corn, fresh, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed”; “Corn, sweet grain, kernel plus cob with husks removed”; and “Corn, sweet kernel plus cob with husks removed” are replaced with “Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed”.

“Potato processing waste”; “Potato, waste”; “Potato, waste, dried, processed”; “Potato waste, processed (wet and dry)”; and “Processed, dried potato waste”; are replaced with “Potato, processed potato waste”.

This document also deletes certain terms that are not needed to identify the tolerance commodities.

1. The terms “nutmeat” and “nutmeats” when used in association with the tree nut crops or peanut are not needed. For tree nut crops, nutmeat and almond hulls are the only edible portions of the crop consumed. Therefore, OPP's Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary uses the commodity terms “Almond”, “Pecan”, “Walnut”, etc. for the tree nuts and the commodity term “Peanut” is used in place of “Peanut, nutmeat”.

2. The term “Endive (escarole)” is changed to “Endive” since the term “Endive” includes escarole.

3. The term “Banana (includes plantains)” is changed to “Banana” since the Food and Feed Vocabulary uses the term “Banana” includes plantains.

4. The terms “Ginger, roots” and “Ginseng, roots” are changed to “Ginger” and “Ginseng” since the roots are the only edible portion of the crop generally consumed.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making today's technical amendment final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because today's action revises commodity terms listed under 40 CFR part 180, subpart C, in a manner that clearly will have no impact on the meaning of the tolerance regulations. For example, today's action revises commodity terms so that most are in singular (e.g., “Orange”) instead of the plural (e.g., “Oranges”). A complete description of the types of changes that are being made has been provided above. EPA has determined that there is no need for public comment on such ministerial changes and thus that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for dispensing with public comment. While EPA believes that it has correctly identified all instances where these above-listed revisions need to be made, the Agency would appreciate readers notifying EPA of discrepancies, omissions, or technical problems by submitting them to the address or e-mail under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . These will be corrected in a future rule.

This final rule makes technical amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations which have no substantive impact on the underlying regulations, and it does not otherwise impose or amend any requirements. As such, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that a technical amendment is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by OMB under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental organizations. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action proposes technical amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations which have no substantive impact on the underlying regulations. This technical amendment will not have any negative economic impact on any entities, including small entities. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this final rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

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 this final rule in the Federal Register . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

To be deleted from the NPL is: The Grand Street Mercury Superfund site, City of Hoboken, Hudson County, New Jersey.

A Notice of Intent to Delete for the Grand Street Mercury Site was published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2007. The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was July 28, 2007. No comments were received by EPA on the proposed deletion during the public comment period. EPA's decision to propose the site for deletion is based on the successful implementation of the remedy which included demolition of the former industrial building and excavation and restoration of contaminated soils, thereby mitigating risks to human health and the environment. The monitoring data collected, since the construction of the remedy was completed in December 2004, confirmed that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and it maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site or portion thereof deleted from the NPL remains eligible for remedial actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action in the future. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts.

This action primarily applies to the petitioner, the DLA. However, you may be potentially affected by this action if you process, distribute in commerce, or dispose of PCB waste generated by others, i.e., you are an EPA-permitted PCB waste handler. Potentially affected categories and entities include, but are not necessarily limited to:

• Waste treatment and disposal (NAICS code 5622), e.g., facilities that store or dispose of PCB waste.

• Materials recovery facilities (NAICS code 56292), e.g., facilities that process and/or recycle metals.

• Public administration (NAICS code 92), e.g., the petitioning agency (i.e., the DLA).

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR part 761. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

In the Federal Register of April 30, 2007 (Ref. 1), the Agency proposed to grant DLA’s petition to import PCB waste for disposal. The Agency received no comments on that proposal. In this final rule, the Agency is granting a petition submitted by DLA to import PCB waste for disposal. In the absence of an exemption, import of this waste would be banned by section 6(e)(3) of TSCA. The petition, dated July 21, 2005, is for an exemption to import certain foreign-generated PCBs owned by DOD that are currently in use or storage in Japan. (The term “foreign-generated PCBs” is used to identify those PCBs that DOD acquired from foreign sources and that are subject to the TSCA ban on import.)

On April 16, 2001, DLA submitted a similar petition to import over four million pounds of foreign-generated PCB waste. EPA granted that petition in a final rule document published in the Federal Register of January 31, 2003 (Ref. 2).

Section 6(e) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2605(e), generally prohibits the manufacture (which includes import) of PCBs after January 1, 1979, the processing and distribution in commerce of PCBs after July 1, 1979, and most uses of PCBs after October 11, 1977. Section 6(e)(3)(A) of TSCA prohibits the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs except for the distribution in commerce of PCBs that were sold for purposes other than resale before July 1, 1979. Section 6(e)(1) of TSCA also authorizes EPA to regulate the disposal of PCBs consistent with the provisions in TSCA section 6(e)(2) and (3).

Section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA provides that any person may petition the Administrator for an exemption from the prohibition on the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs. The Administrator may by rule grant an exemption if the Administrator finds that:

EPA's procedures for rulemaking under TSCA section 6 are found under 40 CFR part 750. This part includes Subpart B—Interim Procedural Rules for Manufacturing Exemptions, which describes the required content for manufacturing exemption petitions and the procedures EPA follows in rulemaking on these petitions. These rules are codified at 40 CFR 750.10 through 750.21.

Before granting an exemption petition, TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B)(i) requires the Administrator to find that granting an exemption would not result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment in the United States. EPA has interpreted this provision to require a petitioner to demonstrate that the activity will not pose an unreasonable risk. (See 40 CFR 750.11.)

To determine whether a risk is unreasonable, EPA balances the probability that harm will occur to health or the environment against the benefits to society from granting or denying each petition. See generally, 15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1). Specifically, EPA considers the following factors:

1. Effects of PCBs on human health and the environment . In deciding whether to grant an exemption, EPA considers the magnitude of exposure and the effects of PCBs on humans and the environment. The following discussion summarizes EPA's assessment of these factors. A more complete discussion of these factors is provided in the preamble to the 1988 PCB proposed rule document published in the Federal Register of August 24, 1988 (Ref. 3).

i. Health effects . EPA has determined that PCBs cause significant human health effects including cancer, immune system suppression, liver damage, skin irritation, and endocrine disruption. PCBs exhibit neurotoxicity as well as reproductive and developmental toxicity. PCBs are readily absorbed through the skin and are absorbed at even faster rates when inhaled. Because PCBs are stored in animal fatty tissue, humans are also exposed to PCBs through ingestion of animal products.

ii. Environmental effects . Certain PCB congeners are among the most stable chemicals known, and decompose very slowly once they are released in the environment. PCBs are absorbed and stored in the fatty tissue of higher organisms as they bioaccumulate up the food chain through invertebrates, fish, and mammals. Significantly, bioaccumulated PCBs appear to be even more toxic than those found in the ambient environment, since the more toxic PCB congeners are more persistent and thus more likely to be retained. PCBs also have reproductive and other toxic effects in aquatic organisms, birds, and mammals.

iii. Risks . Toxicity and exposure are the two basic components of risk. EPA has concluded that any exposure of humans or the environment to PCBs may be significant, depending on such factors as the quantity of PCBs involved in the exposure, the likelihood of exposure to humans and the environment, and the effect of exposure. Minimizing exposure to PCBs should minimize any eventual risk. EPA has previously determined that some activities, including the disposal of PCBs in accordance with 40 CFR part 761, pose no unreasonable risks. Other activities, such as long-term storage of PCB waste, are generally considered by EPA to pose unreasonable risks.

2. Benefits and costs . The benefits to society of granting an exemption vary, depending on the activity for which the exemption is requested. The reasonably ascertainable costs of denying an exemption vary, depending on the individual petition. As discussed in Unit IV., EPA has taken benefits and costs into consideration when evaluating this exemption petition.

Section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA also requires the Administrator to find that “good faith efforts have been made to develop a chemical substance which does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment and which may be substituted for [PCBs].” EPA has interpreted this provision to require that a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that it has made the requisite good faith efforts. (40 CFR 750.11) EPA considers several factors in determining whether good faith efforts have been made. For each petition, EPA considers the kind of exemption the petitioner is requesting and whether the petitioner expended time and effort to develop or search for a substitute. In each case, the burden is on the petitioner to show specifically what they did to substitute non-PCB material for PCBs or to show why it was not feasible to substitute non-PCBs for PCBs.

To satisfy this finding for requests for an exemption to import PCBs for disposal, a petitioner must show why such activity must occur in the United States and what steps will be taken to eliminate the need to import PCBs in the future. While requiring a petitioner to demonstrate that good faith efforts to develop a substitute for PCBs makes sense when dealing with traditional manufacture and distribution exemption petitions, the issue of the development of substitute chemicals seems to have little bearing on whether to grant a petition for exemption that would allow the import into the United States for disposal of waste generated by DOD overseas. EPA believes the more relevant “good faith” issue for such an exemption request is whether the disposal of the waste could and/or should occur outside the United States.

On July 21, 2005, DLA submitted a petition seeking a 1-year exemption to import PCBs and PCB items currently in temporary storage at U.S. military installations in Japan. In revised figures provided in November 2006 (Ref. 5), DLA estimates that as much as 1,328,482 pounds of waste contaminated with PCBs could be generated in Japan through the calendar year 2008. The material in Japan consists of liquids, electrical transformers, capacitors, switches, circuit breakers, other miscellaneous items and debris (rags, gaskets, and personal protective equipment). PCB concentrations of the waste include amounts in all regulatory concentrations (i.e., 50 parts per million (ppm), 50-499 ppm, and >500 ppm); however, 88% of the waste is at concentrations below 50 ppm PCB and less than 5% of the total shipment is liquid PCBs greater than 50 ppm. Details of the particular amounts and concentrations DLA petitioned to import are provided in Refs. 4 and 5.

DLA will package and transport, treat and dispose of this PCB waste in the same manner as waste identified in its previous petitions (Ref. 2), which EPA granted in 2003 to allow the import of over 4,000,000 pounds of waste contaminated with PCBs; DLA notes that compliance is required with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code/International Maritime Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions, the International Air Transport Association Dangerous Goods Code, the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods Code, and 49 CFR parts 100-199. DLA further notes that proper handling and shipping will include blocking, bracing, over packing, and inclusion of spill containment devices, as required by applicable transportation regulations.

DLA states that it will handle and dispose of all PCBs in conformance with the PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761. DLA notes that it has “considerable experience and expertise in awarding and administering disposal contracts for PCB waste in the U.S.” and that it will only “award contracts for treatment and disposal services with commercial firms. Contracts will be awarded in accordance with all applicable federal procurement statutes and the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).” On October 12, 2005, DLA selected Clean Harbors Environmental Services (CHES) in Coffeyville, Kansas to dispose of the PCB waste to be removed from Japan. CHES has disposed of PCBs returning from Japan at the Coffeyville Disposal Facility on four separate occasions since 2003 without incident. In addition, DLA will use shippers approved by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) when the waste materials are transported from the California port to the Coffeyville Disposal Facility. The surface commercial transport trucks and the sea vessels themselves are approved and contracted for use by the DOD Surface Deployment and Distribution Command.

1. Information regarding no unreasonable risk provided by the petitioner . DLA notes that the materials in question will be managed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Once in the United States, the PCB waste will be transported, handled, treated, and disposed of in compliance with the PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761. DLA states that it will only contract with companies with the required Federal and State-permitted storage, treatment, and disposal facilities for dealing with PCBs and PCB items. DLA notes that it and its contractors “have extensive experience in safely returning U.S.-manufactured PCBs and PCB items to the U.S. for disposal,” and that “prior to safely returning and disposing of 2.7 million pounds of foreign-generated PCB containing waste under the previously granted exemption, DLA returned 2.4 million pounds of U.S.-manufactured PCBs and PCB Items from Japan since 1991 for compliant disposal without incident.”

In contrast, DLA notes that the continued storage of PCBs at U.S. facilities in Japan is problematic. DOD currently has a considerable amount of PCB waste in storage at its facilities in Japan, and more will accumulate over the coming years as equipment is retired from use and contaminated sites are cleaned up. DLA notes that due to the unavailability of disposal capacity in Japan, much of DLA's foreign-manufactured PCB waste inventory in Japan has been in storage for years and movement of PCB waste presently in storage is frequently necessary to accommodate additional PCBs taken out of service. DLA summarizes the risks of this situation as follows:

2. Information regarding good faith efforts provided by the petitioner . DLA argues in its petition that disposal of its PCBs in Japan is not an available disposal option:

1. No unreasonable risk determination . EPA finds generally that the disposal of imported PCB waste at an EPA-approved PCB disposal facility poses no unreasonable risks as these facilities have been approved on the basis of that standard. In addition, the risks to human health and the environment associated with long-term storage of this waste far outweigh the risks associated with the transportation of this waste from Japan to an approved disposal facility in the United States.

As with the previous petition, EPA concurs with DLA's assessment that transportation of this waste will pose no unreasonable risk if conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. EPA permits the domestic processing and distribution in commerce of PCBs and PCB items for disposal in compliance with 40 CFR part 761, and in issuance of the PCB Import for Disposal Rule EPA investigated and sought comment on the risks inherent in transportation of imported PCB waste, and determined those risks to be insignificant (Ref. 6). For the following reasons, EPA finds that there is no unreasonable risk from the transport of this waste to the United States for disposal:

i. PCBs are hazardous and pose a potential risk to health and the environment. Proper disposal would reduce PCB-associated risks.

ii. Risk results from a combination of exposure (likelihood, magnitude and duration) and the probability of effects occurring under the conditions of exposure. Because the probability of a transport accident occurring is low, the likelihood of exposure to PCBs is commensurately low. Consequently, the risk of adverse effects to human health or the environment is minimal.

iii. The PCB-containing materials will be packaged in a manner consistent with Federal, State, and local regulations addressing the storage and transport of hazardous materials. In addition, PCB waste will be continuously monitored during the water transport from Japan to the United States. Contingency plans are required by the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code and DOT to be in place before and after the import of PCB-containing items to the United States. Moreover, the PCB items that will be transported to the United States are not combustible, which will make the probability of fires low. Together, these contingency measures will minimize exposure to humans and the environment in the event of an accident or emergency during ocean transport.

iv. Given the aforementioned information, the exposure likelihood, frequency, and duration are so low that even though PCBs are considered to be highly hazardous, risk (combined exposure and hazard) will not be unreasonable to human health or the environment.

v. The potential for human health risks are further mitigated by duration of exposure. PCBs are most hazardous following long-term (chronic) exposures. Under the transport scenario proposed, any exposures to humans (i.e., accidental or emergency situation) will be of very short duration. Hence, the low probability of exposure occurring combined with the short-term duration of exposure, should one occur, further supports a qualitative conclusion that there is no unreasonable risk to human health.

vi. The long-term concern is the potential for accumulation in the ecological environment. Under a worst case scenario where all of the PCBs were released due to an unforeseen and highly unlikely catastrophic event during transport, PCB-exposed biological receptors could be adversely affected. However, this scenario is highly unlikely because it would require a complete failure of all safeguards that will be in place. The DLA analyses indicate that there would be a low probability of a complete failure. The alternative of storing the PCBs indefinitely seems to pose more risk than transport. Further, should an accident occur, emergency response authorities at least within U.S. waters, would be invoked to mitigate and/or remediate exposures.

2. Good faith efforts to find substitutes met . Section 6(e)(3(B)(ii) of TSCA requires the Administrator to make an additional finding, that “good faith efforts have been made to develop a chemical substance that does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment and which may be substituted for such polychlorinated biphenyl.” EPA has interpreted this provision to require that a petitioner has the burden of demonstration that it has made the requisite good faith efforts. (See 40 CFR 750.11.)

EPA believes that DLA has demonstrated good faith efforts to find alternatives to disposal of this PCB waste in the United States. EPA is aware of the lack of adequate PCB disposal capacity in Japan. DLA has explored exporting this waste to other countries as an alternative but since this is waste owned by the United States, the waste may not be shipped to other countries in the area because the United States is not a party to the Basel Convention and does not have bilateral agreements with countries in the area. EPA also acknowledges the peculiar circumstances of DOD's PCBs, which, while present in one country, are owned by another country’s government, leading to significant difficulty in providing Basel Convention notification to third countries. Given these difficulties, EPA concurs with DLA's conclusion that disposal in a third country is not a viable alternative for this waste.

3 . Benefits of granting the petition —i. Avoiding the risks of long-term storage . EPA believes that granting the petition to import 1,328,482 pounds of waste contaminated with PCBs (88% is less than 50 ppm and less than 5% is liquid PCBs greater than 50 ppm) will benefit the United States and the environment in general in several ways. As DLA notes, the continued long-term storage of PCB waste on U.S. military facilities in Japan poses risks of exposure to U.S. personnel and the environment—risks that can be eliminated through the action finalized in the petition.

ii. Ensuring proper and safe disposal . Granting the petition allows the United States to accept responsibility for the toxic waste it generates by assuring proper and safe disposal in domestic permitted disposal facilities.

iii. Ensuring the safety of Japanese citizens . EPA considers the reduction of risk to Japanese citizens to be advantageous, especially in light of the heightened concerns over PCBs in that country and the sensitivities surrounding the U.S. military's presence in Japan. Granting the petition is the only practical mechanism to remove this waste from Japan. Otherwise the U.S. military is in the awkward position of explaining to its Japanese hosts that it cannot remove its own toxic waste from their country because U.S. law does not allow the waste to be sent to the United States.

For these reasons EPA finds DLA has satisfied the exemption criteria of TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) and is granting the petition.

1. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Manufacturing (Import) Exemption. Proposed Rule. Federal Register (72 FR 21190, April 30, 2007) (FRL-8120-6). Available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr .

2. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Manufacturing (Import) Exemptions. Final Rule. OPPT-2002-0013. Federal Register (68 FR 4934, January 31, 2003) (FRL-7288-6). Available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr .

3. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances (OTS). Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce Exemptions. Proposed Rule. OPTS-66008F. Federal Register (53 FR 32326, August 24, 1988).

4. DOD, DLA. Petition from Keith W. Lippert, Vice Admiral, SC, USN, Director to Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA. Subject: Petition to the Administrator, United Sates Environmental Protection Agency, For an Exemption Under the Toxic Substances Control Act to Import Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) and PCB Items for Disposal. July 21, 2005. 13 pp. with attachments.

5. DOD, DLA. Electronic mail dated November 2, 2006 from Miriam Alonso, Hazardous Programs, to Tom Simons, National Program Chemicals Division, OPPT, EPA. Subject: Updated Petition Data for EPA for petition submitted July 21, 2005. 2 pp.

6. EPA, OPPT. Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Import for Disposal. Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 11096, March 18, 1996) (FRL-5354-8). Available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr .

Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), because this action is not likely to result in a rule that meets any of the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” provided in section 3(f) of the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq ., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

This final rule would not impose any new information collection burden. EPA is proposing to grant the petition by DLA to import PCBs for disposal. DLA is now subject to the existing EPA regulations regarding the disposal of PCBs in 40 CFR part 761. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in 40 CFR part 761 under the provisions of PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq ., and has assigned OMB control numbers 2070-0003 (EPA ICR No. 1000.06), 2070-0008 (EPA ICR No. 1001.06), 2070-0011 (EPA ICR No. 1012.06), 2070-0021 (EPA ICR No. 0857.07), 2070-0112 (EPA ICR No. 1446.06), and 2070-0159 (EPA ICR No. 1729.02). Copies of these ICR documents may be obtained by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, by e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov or by calling (202) 566-1672. Copies may also be downloaded from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr . Include the ICR and/or OMB numbers in any correspondence.

As defined by PRA and 5 CFR 1230.3(b), “burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq ., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:

1. A small business that meets the Small Business Administration size standards codified at 13 CFR 121.201.

2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000.

3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the impacts of this final rule on small entities, EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. EPA is granting this petition by DLA to import PCBs for disposal. Only DLA, which is not a small entity, is regulated by this final rule.

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, EPA has determined that this final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. EPA is granting a petition by DLA to import PCBs for disposal. DLA is required to comply with the existing regulations on PCB disposal at 40 CFR part 761. The only mandate that is imposed by this final rule is imposed on DLA. In addition, EPA has determined that this final rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The DLA petition states that the PCBs will be disposed of in PCB-approved facilities. No new facilities, which could affect small government resources if a permit is required, are contemplated. EPA believes that the disposal of PCBs in previously approved facilities in the amounts specified in this final rule would have little, if any, impact on small governments. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205.

This action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. EPA’s final rule grants a petition from DLA to import PCBs and dispose of them in PCB-approved disposal facilities in accordance with existing regulations. EPA does not believe that this activity will have any impacts on the communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:

1. Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866.

2. Concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to the Executive order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. EPA is granting the petition from DLA to import PCBs and dispose of them in approved PCB disposal facilities in accordance with existing regulations. EPA believes that the import and disposal of the amount of PCBs specified in the exemption petitions will present little, if any, additional risk to persons living in the vicinity of the approved disposal facilities or in the communities through which the PCBs may be transported.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve any technical standards; therefore, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, entitled Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by examining the takings implications of this final rule in accordance with the Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings issued under the Executive order.

In issuing this final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, entitled Civil Justice Reform (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, codified in Title 46, Chapter 93, of the United States Code (U.S.C.), requires foreign-flag vessels and U.S.-flag vessels in foreign trade to use Federal Great Lakes registered pilots while transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes system. 46 U.S.C. 9302, 9308. The Coast Guard is responsible for administering this pilotage program, which includes setting rates for pilotage service. 46 U.S.C. 9303.

The Coast Guard pilotage regulations require annual reviews of pilotage rates and the creation of a new rate at least once every five years, or sooner, if annual reviews show a need. 46 CFR part 404. 46 U.S.C. 9303(f) requires these reviews and, where deemed appropriate, that adjustments be established by March 1 of every shipping season.

To assist in calculating pilotage rates, the three Great Lakes pilotage associations are required to submit to the Coast Guard annual financial statements prepared by certified public accounting firms. In addition, every fifth year, in connection with the full ratemaking, the Coast Guard contracts with an independent accounting firm to conduct audits of the accounts and records of the pilotage associations and to submit financial reports relevant to the ratemaking process. In those years when a full ratemaking is conducted, the Coast Guard generates the pilotage rates using Appendix A to 46 CFR Part 404. Between the five-year full ratemaking intervals, the Coast Guard annually reviews the pilotage rates using Appendix C to 46 CFR Part 404, and adjusts rates as appropriate.

The last full ratemaking was published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2006 (71 FR 16501). The first annual review following the 2006 ratemaking showed a need to adjust rates for the 2007 Great Lakes shipping season. That adjustment was the subject of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM,” 71 FR 39629, Jul. 13, 2006), followed by an Interim Rule (72 FR 8115, Feb. 23, 2007; corrected at 72 FR 13352, Mar. 21, 2007) which took effect March 26, 2007. In addition to the public comments, we received on the NPRM, we invited comments on the interim rule.

The Coast Guard received three comments in response to the interim rule. One comment was received from the legal representative of the pilot associations; one comment was received from the legal representative for the Shipping Federation of Canada; and one comment was received from the Saint Lawrence Seaway Pilots Association.

A. Comments Not Requiring Full Discussion. Several comments raised issues that have either been fully addressed by the Coast Guard in the interim rule or in preceding rulemakings, or which are not relevant to the current rulemaking. These issues include the Coast Guard's pending action on Rear Admiral J. Timothy Riker's bridge hour standards report; whether delay and detention should be included in calculating bridge hours; the use of actual versus rounded bridge hours in projecting compensation; and whether the Coast Guard is correct in calculating pilot compensation by multiplying mates' wages by 150% and then adding benefits, as opposed to multiplying mates' wages and benefits by 150%. On this last point, one commenter took issue with our statement, in the interim rule, that in 2003 the District Court for the District of Columbia upheld our method of applying the 150% multiplier. This commenter remarked that a court ruling on this issue today might reach a different result in light of the “quantitative proof” that the Coast Guard's method is less successful than the commenter's preferred method in producing the outcome intended by Congress. We disagree. No such “quantitative proof ” data has been submitted to the docket for this rulemaking. Moreover, despite this commenter's statements to the contrary, we have fully and consistently explained the rationale for our method, most recently in the interim rule at 72 FR 8117.

Finally, comments concerning surcharges are not relevant to this rulemaking inasmuch as no surcharges have been taken into consideration in establishing the current rate. In the 2006 ratemaking, we incorporated all surcharges that were determined reasonable and necessary for the provision of pilotage service into each pilot association's expense base, and terminated any further surcharges. No surcharges are currently authorized by the Coast Guard to be charged by the pilot associations and no future surcharges are contemplated. Persons interested in the Coast Guard's treatment of surcharges are referred to the 2006 ratemaking's final rule (71 FR 16501, Apr. 3, 2006).

B. Union Contracts. One of the comments stated that the Coast Guard should consider using other union contracts, besides the American Maritime Officers' (AMO) union contracts, in determining target pilot compensation. It mentioned two other maritime labor unions, the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association (MEBA) and the National Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots of North America (MMP). The comment further stated that “the Coast Guard has historically limited its review to AMO union contracts. However, the regulations require a review of all union contracts.”

We agree that the Coast Guard, since the implementation of the Great Lakes Ratemaking Methodology in 1996, has consistently used the AMO union contracts in its computation of target pilot compensation. We disagree that the regulations require a review of all union contracts. 46 CFR part 404, Appendix A, states only that “the average annual compensation for first mates is determined based on the most current union contracts.” The Coast Guard has interpreted this language to mean contracts most representative of first mates sailing on laker vessels in the Great Lakes. We disagree with the commenter that MEBA and MMP contracts should be included in our computation of rates. Research leading to the publication of the interim rule shows that AMO union contracts represent 62% of all laker tonnage compared to non-AMO union contracts, which represent approximately 38% of the tonnage. We do not know the exact percentage of laker tonnage represented by MEBA or MMP. But even with their presence, or any other union's presence, the majority of the tonnage (62%) is represented by the AMO union contracts.

Another commenter stated that the Coast Guard should use “only the most lucrative union contract in calculating target pilot compensation.” We disagree. As previously discussed, 46 CFR part 404, Appendix A, requires that the Coast Guard review “the most current contracts” in computing target pilot compensation and that is what we have done. Placing undue emphasis on a single “most lucrative” contract would inappropriately inflate compensation projections.

C. Magnitude of Rate Increase. One comment stated the Coast Guard, by raising “pilotage rates 22.62% ... over the last rulemaking completed approximately one year ago, and just under 50% since 2005” had, by that fact alone, “breached its obligation to maintain a fair and efficient pilotage system and adhere to the statutory requirement to ensure that rates accurately reflect the costs of providing pilotage services under the Great Lakes Pilotage Act.” The Coast Guard disagrees. 46 U.S.C. 9303(f) states that the “Secretary shall prescribe by regulation rates and charges for pilotage services, giving consideration to the public interest and the costs of providing the services.” 46 CFR Part 404, Appendices A and C, set out two methodologies, which were themselves the product of public rulemaking, creating fair and impartial formulas for establishing those rates and charges for pilot services. The Coast Guard has meticulously adhered to these methodologies in the creation of the rates referred to by the commenter.

This same commenter states that by switching to unrounded bridge hour projections in the interim rule, vice the rounded bridge hour projections used in the NPRM, rates actually increased by 7.2%, overall, instead of the 3% claimed by the Coast Guard. We disagree. As we stated in the preamble to the interim rule, this correction increased the rate by 3%. The remaining percentage increases are attributable to a 14.7% increase in wages and benefits under the most recent AMO union contracts, a 5% increase in projected traffic, and .5% to non-wage inflation.

D. Petition for Full Review. One commenter petitioned the Coast Guard to perform a full review of pilotage rates, to include an independent audit of each pilot association's expense records and accounts pursuant to 46 CFR 404.1(b). That section requires that the Coast Guard perform such a review and audit at least once every five years. The last time the Coast Guard conducted such an audit was following the 2002 navigation season. Accordingly, the Coast Guard will, in the ordinary course, and consistent with the commenter's request, conduct a five year review and audit at the completion of the 2007 navigation season.

This final rule finalizes the interim rule's rates that Federal Great Lakes Registered Pilots may charge for the provision of pilotage services. Because this final rule changes none of the calculations or rates contained in the interim rule, we will not repeat the rate calculations or the regulatory evaluation contained in that document (72 IR 8115, Feb. 23, 2007).

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 interim rule published in February 2007 is unchanged for this final rule. The cost and population data contained in the interim analysis is also unchanged for this final rule. In addition, there were no comments on the evaluation of the interim rule published in February 2007. Consequently, we adopt the analysis from the interim rule, available in the preamble of the interim rule, for this final rule. This rule makes final the 22.62 percent average rate adjustment for the Great Lakes system over the rate adjustment found in the 2006 final rule. The annual cost of the rate adjustment in this rule to shippers is approximately $2.3 million (non-discounted). The total five-year present value cost estimate (2007-2011) of this rule to shippers is $10.2 million discounted at a seven percent discount rate and $11.0 million discounted at a three percent discount rate. We use a five-year cost estimate because the Coast Guard is required to determine and, if necessary, perform a full adjustment of Great Lakes pilotage rates every five years.

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

The analysis of the impact to small entities in the interim rule resulted in no small entities affected by this rule. Since we received no comments pertaining to small entities and the analysis has not changed, we adopt the interim analysis for this final rule. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of U.S. small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule affects your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Mike Sakaio, Office of Great Lakes Pilotage, (CG-3PWM-2), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1538, or send him e-mail at Michael.Sakaio@uscg.mil.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each rule that contains a collection of information requirement to determine whether the practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by its collection. Collection of information requirements include reporting, record keeping, notification, and other similar requirements.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not change the burden in the collection currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB Control Number 1625-0086, Great Lakes Pilotage Methodology.

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism because there are no similar State regulations, and the States do not have the authority to regulate and adjust rates for pilotage services in the Great Lakes system.

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

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). There are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Paragraph 34(a) pertains to minor regulatory changes that are editorial or procedural in nature. This rule adjusts rates in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory mandates. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

AIDAR Notice 98-2 (63 FR 59501, November 4, 1998) proposed four separate items to amend the USAID Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR Chapter 7), or AIDAR. The AIDAR is USAID's supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1), the FAR. The following summarizes each item and the final action USAID is taking for each.

1. Item A of AIDAR Notice 98-2 proposed a new Part 712, specifically section 712.101, “Policy,” to address a potential conflict between an existing AIDAR clause, (48 CFR) 752.7008 “Use of Government Facilities or Personnel (APR 1984)” and the policy stated in (48 CFR) FAR Part 12. The latter states that the government will follow customary commercial practice when acquiring commercial items. The AIDAR clause prohibits the use of Government facilities or personnel in the performance of the contract. The AIDAR clause does not recognize situations in which the customary commercial practice may be for the purchaser to provide facilities or personnel to the vendor. At the time we proposed this new part, we considered the possibility that USAID may provide Government facilities, such as office space and equipment, to contractor employees providing commercial services such as IT support or secretarial/clerical services in USAID facilities. If commercial clients typically provide facilities and equipment for vendors providing similar services in the private sector, then that customary commercial practice would be inconsistent with the policy stated in (48 CFR) AIDAR 752.7008. The proposed part 712 would have required the contracting officer to comply with customary commercial practice unless he or she obtains a waiver in accordance with (48 CFR) FAR 12.302. However, the Agency received no comments on this proposed rule and we have no indication that if providing facilities and equipment is a common commercial practice, it has ever been a problem in a USAID commercial contract. Therefore, we are withdrawing the proposed new part.

2. Item B of the Notice proposed removing (48 CFR) Chapter 7 (AIDAR) Appendix I, “USAID's Academic Publication Policy” and adding a new part 727 and subpart 727.4 “Rights in Data and Copyrights.” The intent of this item of the proposed rule was to address four issues: (1) To make the clause at (48 CFR) FAR 52.227-14, “Rights in Data—General” apply to USAID's contracts performed overseas and awarded to U.S. organizations, (2) to provide an alternate paragraph to add to this FAR clause to reserve USAID's right to restrict release of data when release may have a negative impact on the Government's development or diplomatic relationship with the cooperating country, (3) to provide guidance on Rights in Data coverage for overseas contracts with non-U.S. entities, and (4) to incorporate some of the policies and procedures in Appendix I that would be removed with the Appendix but that should be retained, as being in the Agency's best interests.

We are withdrawing the parts of Item B that affected Appendix I and retaining the current (48 CFR) Chapter 7, Appendix I in its present form. USAID is developing a separate internal policy and regulation on intellectual property. If this policy and regulation affects USAID contracts, we will determine how the AIDAR should implement it and take the appropriate action at that time.

We are, however, finalizing other sections of the proposed (48 CFR) subpart 727.4, but we are amending the language from what appeared in the proposed rule. The only commenter on the proposed rule pointed out several instances where the wording was unclear about the intent of the proposed revision, so we have clarified the wording to address this comment.

We are finalizing the new subpart to address certain FAR requirements that must be met in order for USAID to place limits on release of data under our contracts, as originally explained in the Supplementary Information in the proposed rule.

First, 48 CFR (FAR) § 27.404(g)(3) states, “* * * agencies may, to the extent provided in their FAR supplements, place limitations or restrictions on the contractor's right to use, release to others, reproduce, distribute, or publish any data first produced in the performance of the contract, including a requirement to assign copyright to the Government or another party, either by adding a paragraph (d)(3) to the Rights in Data—General clause at 52.227-14, or by express limitations or restrictions in the contract.” Pursuant to (48 CFR) 27.404(g)(3), the final rule also includes new language, at (48 CFR) 727.404(g) and (48 CFR) 752.227-14(d)(3), under which USAID asserts the right to require contractors to assign copyright to the Government or another party. USAID contracting officers will only assert such a right in accordance with the principles as stated in (48 CFR) 27.402.

Second, the prescription for the FAR Rights in Data—General clause (48 CFR 52.227-14) does not require its use in contracts “to be performed outside the United States, its possessions, and Puerto Rico, in which cases agencies may prescribe different clauses (see paragraph (n) of this section.” 48 CFR 27.409(a)(1)(ii). Paragraph (n) states, “Agencies may prescribe in their procedures, as appropriate, a clause consistent with the policy of 27.402 in contracts to be performed outside the United States, its possessions, and Puerto Rico.” 48 CFR 27.409(n). Most USAID contracts are, in fact, performed overseas. USAID's FAR supplement, the AIDAR, does not address either of these requirements.

The proposed rule's new subpart, (48 CFR) 727.4, was intended to address these deficiencies in the AIDAR. The commenter pointed out that the wording of the proposed (48 CFR) 727.409(a) appeared to restrict USAID contracting officers to using only (48 CFR) FAR 52.227-14, even if another clause, such as (48 CFR) FAR 52.227-17 “Rights in Data—Special Works,” may apply. Since the proposed rule's intent was not to impose this kind of limitation, § 727.409 in the final rule more clearly states that contracting officers are to use whichever FAR “Rights in Data” clause best applies.

The prescriptions in the proposed rule also made distinctions between U.S. entities and non-U.S. entities, in that the proposed rule authorized contracting officers to adapt the FAR clause as necessary in contracts with the latter and performed overseas, to comply with applicable laws in the country of performance. The final rule removes any distinctions between U.S. entities and non-U.S. entities, and applies the FAR prescriptions to all contracts. The final rule constitutes Agency procedures pursuant to (48 CFR) FAR 27.409(n).

When the contracting officer incorporates (48 CFR) FAR 52.227-14, and if release, reproduction, distribution, or publication of data first produced or specifically used by the contractor may be sensitive to U.S. Government relations with the cooperating country, the new subpart also prescribes an AIDAR clause contracting officers must use. This new clause, at (48 CFR) 752.227-14, replaces the FAR clause's paragraph (d) and requires contracting officer approval before the contractor may release or reproduce such data.

3. Item C proposed a new section (48 CFR) 742.1170, “Performance monitoring and progress reporting” and clause at (48 CFR) 752.242-70, entitled “Periodic Progress Reports.” As explained in the supplementary information in the proposed rule, the purpose of the proposed sections was to provide USAID cognizant technical officers (CTOs) with a means to tailor contractors' progress reporting requirements so that the CTOs can best ensure that contractors are performing in accordance with the contract's requirements and achieving planned results. These AIDAR sections supplement (48 CFR) FAR Subpart 42.11 and internal Agency policies and procedures for monitoring the results of our implementing partners.

The Agency implemented these new sections after approving a class deviation to the AIDAR, through issuance of an internal directive, a Contract Information Bulletin (CIB) 98-21, “Contractor Progress Reports—New AIDAR Coverage,” on August 12, 1998. Since then, we have identified some areas where the language can be improved for clarity. We also received several comments on this item of the proposed rule, so this final rule includes a few non-substantive wording changes from the proposed rule.

One non-substantive comment asked that we ensure that the language in § 742.1170 and the clause at § 752.242-70 are consistent with each other and that the clause itself clearly states the Government's rights. Another commenter pointed out that in § 742.1170-4(b), the cognizant technical officer must advise the contracting officer of any “required” action, and recommended changing “required” to “recommended” to be consistent with the next sentence. We agree with this recommendation. The same commenter went on to point out that in the same section, the cognizant technical officer must provide recommendations to the contracting officer in sufficient time for the contracting officer to take necessary action, but the regulation doesn't include a definition of what is a reasonable timeframe, and recommended that we add a definition. We are including additional language to establish a typical (but non-binding) timeframe. In the same sentence, we also changed “necessary” to “appropriate” to more accurately reflect the nature of the kinds of recommendations that are likely to result from this report (the last sentence of this section makes clear that the contractor must comply with other notification requirements in the contract).

Finally, the same commenter recommended adding language to paragraph (b) in the new clause at § 752.242-70 to make clear that any withholding due to contractor delay in furnishing a progress report also ends when the contractor submits the report. We accept this recommendation.

Because none of these changes are substantive, we are finalizing the rule with minor editorial changes reflecting the above comments, as well as other minor changes from passive to active voice and for clarity.

4. Item D proposed revisions to (48 CFR) § 752.232-7, “Payments under Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts.” The current version of this AIDAR clause is a preamble to the FAR clause of the same name, at (48 CFR) § 52.232-7. We proposed to revise the AIDAR section to (a) clarify certain terms used in the FAR clause and (b) revise the clause to allow for a different withholding methodology than the FAR clause at the time allowed. Task orders were and continue to be issued by USAID contracting officers around the world and are paid by paying offices also located around the world. Because the Agency's financial management and contracting systems at that time were not able to easily support the coordinated tracking of cumulative withholdings per contract among several task order contracting officers and their respective paying offices, we determined that a new withholding methodology was in the Agency's best interests. The new methodology proposed limited the withholding to one percent per task order up to a maximum of $50,000 per task order, but with no limit for the basic contract. We received no comments about this proposed revision during the comment period, but we have received comments about the ambiguity of the existing AIDAR clause, both before and after we published the proposed rule.

The corresponding section of the FAR, (48 CFR) 52.232-7 was revised in August 2005 (Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-05, 70 FR 43580, Item III “Payment Withholding”). After considering the discussion in the supplementary information for this Item of FAC 2005-05, we concluded that the need for withholding per task order is no longer necessary. Any withholding should be the exception, not the rule, and done only when the contracting officer must take this step to protect the Government's interests. Also, the Agency has a worldwide financial management system and is in the process of acquiring a new contracting system, and these systems are better able to track withholding at the contract level, regardless of where task orders are issued or paid. For these reasons, we determined this item in the proposed rule to be unnecessary.

Further, we now consider the existing AIDAR section to be unnecessary as a supplementary preamble to the FAR clause, since the prescription for the FAR clause addresses how USAID has traditionally used this clause for payments under time-and-material and labor-hour contracts. We are therefore removing the existing AIDAR clause through this final rule.

This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, is subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

The U.S. Agency for International Development 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 does not impose any costs on either small or large businesses; therefore, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been performed. This final rule revises (48 CFR) AIDAR parts 712, 727, 742, and 752 to require contracting officers to comply with customary commercial practice or to obtain a waiver pursuant to (48 CFR) FAR Part 12 in order to prohibit contractors from using government facilities or personnel in a commercial services contract; allows contracting officers to require contractors to obtain contracting officer approval before releasing or publishing data first produced in the performance of the contract, if the release or publication may have a negative effect on the Government's development objectives or diplomatic relationship with the cooperating country; and to specify progress reporting requirements in contracts.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the AIDAR do not impose any additional information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. AIDAR Subpart 742 and the clause at § 752.242-70 supplement the progress reporting requirements already included in (48 CFR) FAR Subpart 42.11 and are consistent with any information collection requirements in the FAR.

This final rule also is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register's website at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html . Background information and documents are available at the website of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) at http://www.pcouncil.org .

The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and its implementing regulations at title 50 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 660, subpart G, regulate fishing for over 90 species of groundfish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Groundfish specifications and management measures are developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and are implemented by NMFS. On September 29, 2006, NMFS published a proposed rule (71 FR 57764) to implement Amendment 16-4 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and to establish the 2007-2008 harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the EEZ off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. NMFS accepted public comment on the proposed rule and responded to these comments in the preamble to the final rule, which published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2006 (71 FR 78638).

The 2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures added a new potential closed area, the Ocean Salmon Conservation Zone (OSCZ), in the whiting fishery that could be implemented inseason through automatic action. Regulations at § 660.373(c)(3) define the OSCZ as a closed area applying to the whiting fishery; however, it does not state in this part that the OSCZ is closed only through automatic action when NMFS projects the whiting fishery may take in excess of 11,000 Chinook salmon within a calendar year. The process for implementation of this closed area is properly described in § 660.370(d). A cross-reference to this automatic action section is added to the whiting regulations defining the OSCZ to clarify that the OSCZ is only closed after NMFS initiates an automatic management action to implement this closed area based on the projected take of Chinook salmon.

A range of Pacific whiting (whiting) harvest specifications and management measures was adopted in the 2007-2008 harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish, and final 2007 specifications and management measures for whiting were adopted in March 2007. NMFS published a final rule establishing the 2007 whiting harvest specifications and management measures on April 18, 2007 (72 FR 19390), which included the level of the acceptable biological catch (ABC), optimum yield (OY), tribal allocation, and allocations for the nontribal commercial whiting sectors. The final 2007 tribal allocation was set according to an abundance-based sliding scale method, where the tribal allocation varies with the U.S. whiting optimum yield (OY) ranging from 14 percent (or less) of the U.S. OY when OY levels are above 250,000 mt, to 17.5 percent of the U.S. OY when the OY level is at or below 145,000 mt. NMFS had explained this method in the preamble to the proposed rule for the 2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures. The tribal allocation was correctly expressed in the preamble to that final rule as 32,500 mt, however NMFS did not publish that amount in § 660.385(e), leaving the outdated 2006 tribal whiting allocation of 35,000 mt in current regulations. This rule corrects 660.385(e) by inserting the 2007 tribal allocation.

The preambles to the proposed and final rules for the 2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures described the Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Areas (YRCAs), closed areas intended to protect overfished species; however, the regulatory text published the latitude and longitude coordinates defining the Salmon Troll YRCA and the South Coast Recreational YRCA in the incorrect sequence, resulting in closed areas that are not the same size or shape as those analyzed by NMFS, recommended by the Council, and discussed in the preamble to the final rule. This correction re-publishes the YRCA latitude and longitude coordinates in the correct sequence to form the closed areas intended to protect yelloweye rockfish.

The 2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures added a new Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) boundary line approximating the 180-fm (32-m) depth contour off California with modifications to allow fishing for petrale sole. After publication of the proposed rule, the state of California requested adjustments to the latitude and longitude coordinates defining the petrale-modified 180-fm (329-m) boundary line to eliminate cross-overs with other neighboring boundary lines and to be consistent with boundaries of groundfish essential fish habitat closed areas off California. However, these changes from the proposed rule were not made and the original incorrect coordinates were published in the final rule for the 2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures. This correction publishes the latitude and longitude coordinates defining the petrale-modified 180-fm (329-m) boundary line at § 660.394(f) that the state of California proposed and the Council recommended.

The 2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures revised coordinates defining the RCA boundary line approximating the petrale-modified 250-fm (457-m) depth contour to eliminate cross-overs with neighboring RCA boundary lines. Coordinates defining this RCA boundary line, published at § 660.394(r), contained errors off the Washington coast and were published with these errors in both the proposed and final rule. The errors in the coordinates defining the RCA boundary line were introduced when transferring the latitude and longitude coordinates into the format necessary for publication in the Federal Register and eliminated a portion of petrale sole fishing grounds and opened an area of known rockfish abundance. This correction publishes the latitude and longitude coordinates defining the petrale-modified 250-fm (457-m) boundary line at § 660.394(r) that the state of Washington proposed and the Council recommended.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B); providing prior notice and opportunity for comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.

This correction document revises § 660.373(c)(3) of the CFR so that the description of the OSCZ is consistent with the automatic action regulations, at § 660.370(d), for implementing the OSCZ. Allowing inconsistencies to remain in the Federal Register would be contrary to the public interest. It would leave language in the CFR that implies that a permanent closure is in place, even though the closure only exists if it is implemented through automatic management action. This automatic action will be taken when NMFS projects that the whiting fishery may take in excess of 11,000 Chinook salmon within a calendar year. The OSCZ was analyzed in the 2007-2008 groundfish specifications and management measures environmental impact statement, and is clearly described in the preambles to the proposed and final rules (71 FR 57764, 71 FR 78638) as a closure that NMFS can implement for the whiting fishery if Chinook salmon take is anticipated to exceed acceptable levels. Prior notice and opportunity for comment was provided earlier because both the EIS and the proposed rule were made available for public comment, and no comments were received pertaining to the application of the OSCZ. Also, this correction clarifies language at § 660.373(c)(3) to make it consistent with existing regulations at § 660.370(d) and does not change the intent, meaning, or application of the OSCZ closure. Leaving inconsistencies in the regulatory language is contrary to the public interest because it is confusing to the public and would leave language in the CFR that implies that a permanent closure is in place, even though the closure only exists if it is implemented through automatic management action; therefore, NOAA finds good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This correction document revises § 660.385(e) of the CFR so that the 2007 tribal allocation of Pacific whiting is consistent with the allocation proposed by the tribal representative on the Council, recommended by the Council and that NMFS intended to implement. This correction implements an action that has already been made available for public review and comment in the preamble to the whiting ABC/OY final rule (71 FR 19390). By implementing the correct tribal allocation, NMFS is implementing the 2007 tribal whiting allocation determined by the methodology described in the preamble to the 2007-2008 harvest specifications and management measures proposed rule, and listed in the preamble to the whiting ABC/OY final rule, which was based on recommendations from the Makah tribe and the Council. The numerical allocation, however, was not changed in the regulatory text, so the 2006 tribal allocation is still listed in the CFR rather than the 2007 allocation. The interested public is aware of the current 2007 tribal whiting allocation. The Makah tribe is aware of the appropriate 2007 tribal whiting allocation and plans to stay within the 2007 allocation which they proposed; therefore, prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary.

This correction document revises § 660.390(c) and (d) of the CFR so that coordinates for the Salmon Troll and South Coast Recreational Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Areas (YRCAs) are listed in the correct sequence to form rectangular closed areas. Each of these closed areas is defined by four coordinate points. If coordinates are connected in the sequence listed prior to this correction, they form bowtie shaped polygons that close approximately half of the area of the rectangular closed areas. When these points are connected in the correct sequence, they form rectangular closed areas, as illustrated in the EIS, described in the preamble to the final rule, recommended by the Council, and approved by NMFS for this action. A public notice and comment period was available for the EIS and final rule, and no comments were received pertaining to the proposed rectangular shape of the YRCAs. The YRCAs are designed to prevent the incidental catch of yelloweye rockfish, an overfished groundfish species that co-occurs with other, more abundant groundfish stocks. Allowing the YRCA coordinates to remain in § 660.390 in the incorrect sequence actually allows, rather than prevents, fishing in areas of yelloweye rockfish abundance, which is contrary to the public interest. The yelloweye OY is very low so that if even a small amount of excess incidental catch of yelloweye rockfish were to occur, all of the commercial and recreational hook-and-line groundfish fisheries north of Cape Mendocino, California, fisheries that take yelloweye incidentally, would have to be restricted or closed early to ensure that the 2007 yelloweye rockfish OY is not exceeded. Such restrictions and/or closures could be expected to ultimately result in significant revenue and job losses in coastal communities. By implementing these corrections as early as possible in the 2007 fishery, NMFS is implementing the YRCAs it had described in the preambles to the proposed and final rules for this action, based on recommendations from the Council. This correction is intended to ensure that yelloweye rockfish catch is kept within its allowable harvest levels, so that NMFS may meet its obligations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to rebuild overfished stocks and to achieve the optimum yield from the fishery. Delay in publication of this rule could cause NMFS to fail to meet these obligations and would be contrary to the public interest.

This correction document revises § 660.394(f) and (r) of the CFR so that coordinates for the petrale-modified 180-fm (329-m) boundary line and the petrale-modified 250-fm (457-m) boundary line are published correctly to protect overfished species while allowing targeting opportunities for more abundant species. The state of California recommended revising the petrale-modified 180-fm (329-m) boundary line after NMFS had published it in the proposed rule, to improve consistency with the boundaries of other neighboring area restrictions, including essential fish habitat closed areas. These changes, however, were not included in the final rule. These modifications change some latitude and longitude coordinates, and remove some coordinate points; however, the corrected line is similar to the line that was published in the preambles to the proposed and final rule. For clarity, the petrale-modified 180-fm (329-m) boundary line is re-published in its entirety in this correction. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment would be contrary to the public interest, as it would allow regulations to remain in the CFR that are confusing due to inconsistencies and overlaps between the groundfish RCA and other area restrictions, including essential fish habitat closed areas. The petrale-modified 250-fm (457-m) boundary line was published in the proposed and final rule with 13 incorrect latitude and longitude coordinates in the portion of the line that lies off the northern Washington coast, south of Cape Alava. These incorrect coordinates moved the depth contour approximation shoreward into shallower waters, with one coordinate bringing the 250-fm (457-m) line to a depth shallower than 70-fm (128-m) which produces an irrational result. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment would be contrary to the public interest because allowing the incorrect coordinates to remain in the CFR would allow fishing in an area of shallow water seaward of the RCA, at depths associated with high occurrence of overfished species. Restricting fishing in areas where overfished species are found is one of the primary tools available for keeping fishing mortality of overfished species within the optimum yields. Allowing the incorrect RCA boundary lines to remain in § 660.394 would be contrary to the public interest as it allows, rather than prevents, fishing in areas of overfished rockfish abundance, thereby undermining the intent of the rule. Furthermore, it would create confusion due to inconsistencies between the coordinates published in the Federal Register and coordinates available on the NMFS Northwest Region website for use in navigation software. If excessive incidental catch of overfished rockfish species were to occur, commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries that take overfished groundfish species incidentally would have to be restricted and possibly be closed early to ensure that the 2007 OYs for overfished rockfish species would not be exceeded. Such restrictions and/or closures could be expected to ultimately result in significant revenue and job losses in coastal communities. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because delay in implementation of this correction could result in excess harvest of overfished species that are found in the area that should be closed, which could result in exceeding the rebuilding targets, premature closure of the fishery, or both. This would prevent NMFS from meeting its obligations to rebuild overfished species or manage the fishery to achieve optimum yield.

For the reasons discussed above, good cause also exists to waive the 30 day delay in effectiveness requirement under 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(3).

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

NMFS closed the directed fishery for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 48946, August 27, 2007).

NMFS has determined that approximately 4,888 mt of pollock remain in the directed fishing allowance. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C) and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the C season allowance of pollock in Statistical Area 630, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will be reached after 72 hours. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA, effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., September 18, 2007.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 11, 2007.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until September 28, 2007.

This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.