On September 17, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published an interim rule at 72 FR 53014 establishing the requirements and procedures for aliens seeking U nonimmigrant status. The SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of the interim rule made contradictory statements regarding whether there is a filing fee for Form I-918, “Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status,” and Form I-918, Supplement A. The regulation text itself contained an amendment to 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1) and language in new 8 CFR 214.14(c) reflecting that USCIS would charge a filing fee for Form I-918 and Form I-918, Supplement A. As correctly stated in the Supplementary Information (page 53031, third column, paragraph D.), USCIS will charge no fee for Forms I-918 and I-918, Supplement A, but will charge the established fee for biometric services for each person ages 14 through 79 inclusive with each U nonimmigrant status petition.

The Federal Reserve Banks make primary and secondary credit available to depository institutions as a backup source of funding on a short-term basis, usually overnight. The primary and secondary credit rates are the interest rates that the twelve Federal Reserve Banks charge for extensions of credit under these programs. In accordance with the Federal Reserve Act, the primary and secondary credit rates are established by the boards of directors of the Federal Reserve Banks, subject to the review and determination of the Board.

The Board approved requests by the Reserve Banks to decrease by 50 basis points the primary credit rate in effect at each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, thereby decreasing from 5.75 percent to 5.25 percent the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions of primary credit. As a result of the Board's action on the primary credit rate, the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions of secondary credit automatically decreased from 6.25 percent to 5.75 percent under the secondary credit rate formula. The final amendments to Regulation A reflect these rate changes.

The 50-basis-point decrease in the primary credit rate was associated with a similar decrease in the target for the federal funds rate (from 5.25 percent to 4.75 percent) approved by the Federal Open Market Committee (Committee) and announced at the same time. A press release announcing these actions indicated that:

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Board certifies that the new primary and secondary credit rates will not have a significantly adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the final rule does not impose any additional requirements on entities affected by the regulation.

The Board did not follow the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice and public participation in connection with the adoption of these amendments because the Board for good cause determined that delaying implementation of the new primary and secondary credit rates in order to allow notice and public comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest in fostering price stability and sustainable economic growth. For these same reasons, the Board also has not provided 30 days prior notice of the effective date of the rule under section 553(d).

On July 3, 2007, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class E airspace at Hulett, WY, (72 FR 36397). This action would improve the safety of IFR aircraft executing this new RNAV GPS IAP at Hulett Municipal Airport, Hulett, WY. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Hulett, WY. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft executing a new RNAV (GPS) IAP at Hulett Municipal Airport, Hulett, WY.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes additional controlled airspace at Hulett Municipal Airport, Hulett, WY.

On December 20, 1995 (60 FR 65832), the FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register , better known as “the commuter rule”, that established the requirements for certain management officials in parts 121 and 135. Although the FAA clearly stated in the preamble to this final rule that “In addition to other requirements, these candidates will have to have three years of experience (within their respective fields) within the past six years to be eligible for a Director position,” the specific years of experience in the rule language in part 135 was incorrect. The part 121 experience requirement of § 119.67 correctly states this “3 years within 6 years” experience requirement; however the part 135 requirement in § 119.71 was incorrectly stated as “3 years within 3 years.”

By petition for rulemaking dated September 5, 2007, the Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA) asked the FAA to correct this technical error. The RACCA correctly pointed out that it makes no sense to have an experience requirement in part 135 that is more stringent than the same requirement in part 121.

This technical amendment will correct an unintentional error in the years of experience requirement in § 119.71 to make it consistent with § 119.67.

Because this action corrects an unintentional error in rule language for § 119.71, the FAA finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this rule effective upon publication.

The Commission is amending its garage door operator standard, 16 CFR part 1211, to incorporate changes made to Underwriter Laboratories, Inc. (“UL”) standard UL 325, third edition, “Door, Drapery, Louver and Window Operators and Systems.” In 1991, Congress mandated the entrapment protection provisions of the UL 325 standard as a consumer product safety standard. Sec 203 of Public Law 101-608. Congress also required the Commission to incorporate into part 1211 any revisions that UL proposed to the entrapment protection requirements of UL 325, unless the Commission notified UL that the revision does not carry out the purposes of Public Law 101-608.

Recently, UL revised some provisions of UL 325 to address the hazard of children becoming entrapped if a child becomes stuck under a partially open door and the door moves down when a bystander presses the wall control button. The Commission determined that the entrapment related revisions incorporated into the UL standard do carry out the purposes of Public Law 101-608. On January 18, 2007, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”) to revise part 1211 to reflect the changes UL made to UL 325. 72 FR 2217. The Commission received no comments on the proposal and is now making the revisions final.

UL set an effective date of February 21, 2008 for the changes to the entrapment protection requirements in the UL standard. The Commission is specifying the same effective date for these provisions in the CPSC standard.

UL also added to its standard a requirement that the statement “Never go under a stopped partially open door” be added to garage door operator instruction manuals. The Commission is making this change in the CPSC standard as well. UL set an effective date of September 14, 2004 for this provision in UL 325. The instruction manual provision in the CPSC standard would become effective when published as a final rule in the Federal Register .

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), in the NPR the Commission certified that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission also certified in the NPR that this rule will have no environmental impact.

Public Law 101-608 contains a preemption provision. It states: “those provisions of laws of States or political subdivisions which relate to the labeling of automatic residential garage door openers and those provisions which do not provide at least the equivalent degree of protection from the risk of injury associated with automatic residential garage door openers as the consumer product safety rule” are subject to preemption under 15 U.S.C. 2075. Public Law 101-608, section 203(f).

1. On October 19, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a Final Rule in Order No. 686  1 amending Part 157, Subpart F, of its regulations to expand the scope and scale of activities that may be undertaken pursuant to blanket certificate authority by (1) Broadening the types of natural gas projects permitted under blanket certificate authority to include certain mainline, storage, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) and synthetic gas pipeline facilities, and (2) increasing the blanket certificate project cost limits from $8,200,000 to $9,600,000 for automatic authorization projects and from $22,700,000 to $27,400,000 for prior notice projects. 2 In addition, Order No. 686 clarified that a natural gas company is not necessarily engaged in an unduly discriminatory practice if it charges different customers different rates for the same service when those customers commit to service on different dates. The revised blanket certificate regulations are intended to allow interstate natural gas companies to employ the streamlined blanket certificate procedures for larger projects and additional types of projects, thereby increasing efficiencies and decreasing the time and cost associated with the construction and maintenance of the nation's natural gas infrastructure. On June 22, 2007, the Commission issued an order in response to motions seeking rehearing and clarification of the October 2006 Final Rule. 3 In this order, for the reasons discussed below, the Commission grants a request for rehearing of the June 2007 Order.

2. New § 157.210 permits companies to rely on blanket certificate authority to “acquire, construct, modify, replace, and operate natural gas mainline facilities, including compression and looping.” Revised § 157.216(b)(2) provides for the abandonment of such facilities. The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) asked the Commission to clarify whether the Final Rule's revised § 157.216(b)(2) abandonment provisions would apply exclusively to mainline facilities put in place under the new § 157.210 or would also apply to mainline facilities already in place.

3. In its June 2007 Order, the Commission stated that facilities which were constructed under case-specific certificate authorization, but which would have met the criteria for construction under the current blanket certificate program, may be abandoned pursuant to the provisions § 157.216(b). The Commission stated that in considering whether existing facilities would have met the criteria for blanket certificate authorization, “the facilities must have been installed subsequent to the Commission's implementation of the blanket certificate program and the facilities' original cost must have met the § 157.208 project cost cap in effect at the time of their construction.”

4. INGAA requests rehearing of the June 2007 Order to ask the Commission to remove this qualification because it precludes § 157.216 abandonment of facilities put in place prior to 1982, i.e. , the year the blanket certificate program was initiated. INGAA notes that the Commission did not impose the qualification that the project cost not exceed the blanket certificate cost cap in effect at the time of construction with respect to its 1999 expansion of the blanket certificate abandonment provisions to cover gas supply facilities and services. 4 INGAA contends rather than comparing the per project cost cap in effect at the time a facility was constructed with the facility's actual original cost, to determine whether the blanket certificate abandonment provisions might apply to an existing facility, the Commission should compare the per project cost cap currently in effect with the estimated cost to duplicate the facility today. INGAA states this approach will permit facilities put in place prior to the 1982 initiation of the blanket certificate program to qualify for abandonment under the blanket program.

5. The Commission will grant INGAA's request for rehearing. Instead of restricting § 157.216 abandonments to facilities put in place after the effective date of the blanket certificate program and comparing a facility's original cost to the cost cap in effect at the time the facility was placed in service, companies will be required to compare the estimated current cost to replicate an existing facility to the current § 157.208(d) per project cost cap. This will permit companies to employ blanket certificate authority to abandon a facility put in place under case-specific authority, provided the existing facility could qualify for authorization under the current blanket program

6. To effect this expansion of abandonment authority, the Commission will revise § 157.216(c)(1) and (d)(1) to specify that a company seeking to rely on its blanket certificate to abandon a facility which was not initially constructed or acquired under blanket certificate authority must estimate the current cost to replicate the facility. Provided the estimated current cost to replicate the facility would not exceed the currently-effective § 157.208(d) project cost cap, and provided the existing facility would qualify for authorization under the currently-effective blanket regulations, the company may rely on abandonment authority under § 157.216. Note that in calculating an estimated cost, the Commission anticipates a company will account for the current values of a facility's various component costs, such as land acquisition, public outreach, agency involvement, materials, labor, and environmental mitigation and remediation. 5 In addition, the Commission will revise § 157.216(a)(2) and (b)(2) to clarify that any existing facility that could be constructed or acquired under the currently-effective blanket certificate program criteria can be abandoned under blanket certificate authority, provided that, as is currently the case, the blanket certificate holder obtains the written consent of each customer served using the facility during the past 12 months.

7. In view of the above described revisions to the June 2007 order and blanket certificate abandonment regulations, INGAA's request for rehearing is granted.

8. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require that OMB approve certain information collection requirements imposed by an agency. 6 The Final Rule's revisions to the information collection requirements for blanket certificate projects were approved under OMB Control Nos. 1902-0128 and 1902-0060. While this order on rehearing clarifies aspects of the existing information collection requirements for the blanket certificate program, it does not add to these requirements. Accordingly, a copy of this order will be sent to OMB for informational purposes only.

9. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Web site ( http://www.ferc.gov ) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426. User assistance is available for FERC's Web site during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday to Friday) from FERC's Online Support at 202-502-6652, toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or by e-mail at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov , and from the Public Reference Room at 202-502-8371, TTY at 202-502-8659, or by e-mail at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov .

10. The modifications made in this request for rehearing will become effective October 29, 2007. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 801 regarding Congressional review of rulemaking do not apply to this order on rehearing, since it clarifies agency procedure and practice.

The collection of information contained in these final regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-1965.

The collection of information in these final regulations is in § 1.1297-3(c)(5)(ii). This information is required to enable the IRS to verify that a taxpayer is reporting the correct amount of income or gain or is claiming the correct amount of losses, deductions or credits from that taxpayer's interest in the foreign corporation.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents might become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

On December 8, 2005, the IRS and the Treasury Department published final regulations under section 1298(b)(1) and removal of temporary regulations (TD 9231) in the Federal Register (70 FR 72914). The final regulations provided rules for a shareholder of a former PFIC (as defined in § 1.1291-9(j)(2)(iv)) to make a deemed dividend or deemed sale election to purge the PFIC taint of the stock of the foreign corporation (that is, to end treatment of the stock of the foreign corporation as PFIC stock with respect to the shareholder). On December 8, 2005, the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department also published temporary regulations (TD 9232) under sections 1291(d)(2), 1297(e) and 1298(b)(1) in the Federal Register (70 FR 72908). A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-133446-03) cross-referencing the temporary regulations was published in the Federal Register for the same day (70 FR 72952). The temporary and proposed regulations provided guidance to shareholders of section 1297(e) PFICs (as defined in § 1.1291-9(j)(2)(v)) on making a deemed sale or deemed dividend election to purge the PFIC taint of the stock of the foreign corporation. The temporary and proposed regulations also provided guidance to shareholders of section 1297(e) PFICs and shareholders of former PFICs on making late purging elections (provided certain requirements are met).

No public hearing was requested or held. A comment responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking was received. After consideration of the comment, the proposed regulations are adopted as amended by this Treasury decision, and the corresponding temporary regulations are removed. The comment and revision is discussed in this preamble.

Sections 1.1297-3 and 1.1298-3 provide guidance for a shareholder of a section 1297(e) PFIC and a shareholder of a former PFIC, respectively, to make a deemed sale or a deemed dividend election to purge the PFIC taint of the stock of the foreign corporation. A section 1297(e) PFIC is a foreign corporation that qualifies as a PFIC under section 1297(a) on the first day of the qualified portion of the shareholder's holding period under section 1297(e), and is treated as a PFIC with respect to the shareholder under section 1298(b)(1) because at any time during the shareholder's holding period of the stock, other than the qualified portion, the foreign corporation was a PFIC that was not a qualified electing fund (QEF) under section 1295. (The “qualified portion” is the portion of the shareholder's holding period which is after December 31, 1997, and during which the shareholder is a U.S. shareholder (as defined in section 951(b)) and the foreign corporation is a controlled foreign corporation.) A former PFIC is a foreign corporation that satisfies neither the income nor the asset test of section 1297(a), but whose stock held by a shareholder is treated as stock of a PFIC, pursuant to section 1298(b)(1), because the corporation was a PFIC that was not a QEF at some time during the shareholder's holding period of the stock.

Sections 1.1297-3(e) and 1.1298-3(e) provide rules for making late purging elections when the time prescribed for making timely purging elections under §§ 1.1297-3(b)(3) or (c)(4) and 1.1298-3(b)(3) or (c)(4) has elapsed.

One commentator requested that the final regulations clarify whether multiple late purging elections can be made under §§ 1.1297-3(e) and 1.1298-3(e). The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that multiple late purging elections should be allowed to the same extent such multiple purging elections could have been made if filed timely. The final regulations are amended to clarify this rule.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based upon the fact that these regulations affect only U.S. persons with stock ownership in a PFIC. There are not a substantial number of U.S. persons that are small entities that own stock in a PFIC. Further, the economic costs necessary to comply with the rule for the small entities that may be impacted are not significant. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this final regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Paul J. Carlino of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

On June 26, 2006 (71 FR 36294), a proposed rule was published in the Federal Register with an invitation to comment. No comments were received. This final rule contains corrections to typographic errors appearing in the proposed rule and a revised justification for the exemption claimed from subsection (e)(3), found at (h)(6). The revised justification more specifically addresses the Privacy Act's notice requirement of subsection (e)(3) and, therefore increases the accuracy and clarity of the final rule.

This rule relates to individuals rather than to small business entities. Nevertheless, pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The AML Program was established by Title IV of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ) in response to concerns over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. The program is funded by a reclamation fee collected on each ton of coal that is produced. The money collected is used to finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and Indian Tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity within the State or on Indian lands. In order to assume this responsibility, the States or Indian Tribes must develop and submit to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) for approval, a program (often referred to as a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 884 specify the content requirements of the State reclamation plan and the criteria for plan approval. Under these regulations, the Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement is required to review the plan and solicit and consider comments of other Federal agencies and the public. If the State plan is not approved, the State may submit a revised reclamation plan at any time. If the Secretary determines that a State has developed and submitted a program for the reclamation of abandoned mine lands and has the ability and necessary State legislation to implement the provisions of Title IV, the Secretary may approve the State program and grant to the State exclusive authority to implement the provisions of the approved program. The Mississippi Plan can be approved if:

1. The public has been given adequate notice and opportunity to comment and the record does not reflect major unresolved controversies.

2. The views of other Federal agencies have been solicited and considered.

3. The State has the legal authority, policies, and administrative structure to carry out the plan.

4. The plan meets all the requirements of our AML program provisions.

5. The State has an approved regulatory program.

6. The plan is in compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.

Upon approval of the State reclamation plan, the State may submit to us on an annual basis an application for funds to be expended in that State on specific reclamation projects which are necessary to implement the State's reclamation plan as approved. Such annual requests are reviewed and approved by us in compliance with the requirements of 30 CFR Part 886.

By letter dated April 5, 2006 (Administrative Record No. MS-0402), Mississippi sent us its AML plan statutes. Mississippi revised and added statutes to the Mississippi Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Law at Sections 53-9-3, 53-9-7, 53-9-89, 53-9-89(1)(c), 53-9-89(1)(c)(i) through (v), 53-9-101, 53-9-103, 53-9-105, 53-9-107, 53-9-109, 53-9-111, 53-9-113, 53-9-115, 53-9-117, 53-9-119, 53-9-121, 53-9-123. We approved Mississippi's revised and added statutes on August 25, 2006, thereby, granting partial approval of its AML plan (71 FR 50339).

Mississippi's current AML plan submission addresses the policies and procedures the State will follow in administering the Mississippi Plan.

By letter dated June 11, 2007 (Administrative Record Nos. MS-0417-01 through MS-0417-06), and at its own initiative, Mississippi sent us the proposed policies and procedures of the Mississippi Plan under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ).

We announced receipt of the submission in the July 24, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 40266). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the plan. The public comment period closed on August 23, 2007. Because no one requested a public hearing or meeting, we did not hold one. We received comments from one Federal and one State agency.

1. In accordance with section 405 of SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.14, we find that Mississippi has submitted a plan for reclamation of abandoned mine lands and we have determined that:

(a) The public has been given adequate notice and opportunity to comment and the record does not reflect any unresolved controversies.

(b) The views of other Federal agencies having an interest in the plan have been solicited and considered. These agencies include the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wild Life Services, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

(c) The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Geology has the legal authority, policies, and administrative structure to implement the plan.

(d) The Mississippi Plan meets all the requirements of 30 CFR Chapter VII, Subchapter R.

(e) Mississippi has an approved State regulatory program under Title V of SMCRA.

(g) The Mississippi Plan is in compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.

We asked for public comments on the Mississippi Plan, but did not receive any.

On July 6, 2007, under 30 CFR 884.14(a)(2), we requested comments from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Mississippi Plan (Administrative Record No. MS-0417-10). We received a comment from the U.S. Forest Service stating that it had no comments (Administrative Record No. MS-0417-16). We also received a comment from the Mississippi Department of Archives and History stating that Mississippi's proposed reclamation plan will have no effect on cultural resources (Administrative Record No. MS-0417-17).

Based on the above findings, we approve the Mississippi Plan policies and procedures sent to us on June 11, 2007, and as revised on July 31, 2007. Furthermore, this approval, together with our approval of Mississippi's AML statutes on August 25, 2006 (71 FR 50339), constitute the final and full approval of the Mississippi Plan.

To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 924, which codify decisions concerning the Mississippi program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.

This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations.

This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.

This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. This determination is based on the fact that the Mississippi program does not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Mississippi program has no effect on Federally-recognized Indian tribes.

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) Considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq. ).

The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.

This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulations did not impose an unfunded mandate.

On April 6, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) entitled Regattas and Marine Parades; Great Lake Annual Marine Events in the Federal Register (72 FR 17062). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

This rule will remove the specific entries from table 1 found in 33 CFR 100.901, Great Lakes annual marine events that apply to regattas and marines parades in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone and list each regatta or marine parade as a subpart. This rule will also add several regattas and marine parades not previously listed in 33 CFR Part 100 and remove several events that no longer occur annually or are not regattas or marine parades.

This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with regattas and marine parades. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that regattas and marine parades pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, and alcohol use could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Restricting and controlling vessel movement around the regattas and marine parades will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events, and help minimize the associated risks.

No comments were received regarding this rule.

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 this rule under that Order.

The Coast Guard's use of these special local regulations will be periodic, of short duration, and designed to minimize the impact on navigable waters. These special local regulations will only be enforced immediately before, during, and immediately after the time the marine events occur. Furthermore, these special local regulations have been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the waterways not affected by the special local regulations. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of these special local regulations.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the areas designated in special local regulations in this rule during the dates and times the special local regulations are being enforced.

These special local regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The special local regulations in this rule would be in effect for short periods of time and only once per year. The special local regulations have been designed to allow traffic to pass safely around the zone whenever possible, and vessels will be allowed to pass through the zones with the permission of the Captain of the Port.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

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

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

The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34 (h) of the Instruction from further environmental documentation. This rule establishes a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade regulated, and as such is covered by this paragraph.

A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

Regulatory Information

On August 21, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations”; Quinnipiac River, Connecticut, in the Federal Register (72 FR 46586). We received no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

The bridge repairs scheduled to begin on September 28, 2007, are necessary repairs that must be performed with all due speed to assure the continued safe and reliable operation of the bridge. Any delay in making this rule effective would not be in the best interest of public safety and the marine interests that use the Quinnipiac River.

The recreational vessels that normally use this waterway are small enough in size that they can either pass under the spans without a bridge opening or safely pass through the bridge with a single span opening.

The Street Bridge, across the Quinnipiac River, mile 0.7, at New Haven, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 25 feet at mean high water and 31 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.213.

In early 2007, the Connecticut Department of Transportation requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled structural repairs and bridge painting at the Ferry Street Bridge at New Haven, Connecticut. In order to perform the structural repairs, one bascule bridge span had to remain in the closed position while the other span could remain in the full open position at all times for the passage of vessel traffic.

As a result of the above request, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations in the Federal Register (72 FR 18884), on April 16, 2007, in effect from April 16, 2007 through September 27, 2007.

On June 22, 2007, the Coast Guard was notified that the scheduled repairs authorized under the temporary deviation listed above would not be completed by the end of the effective period scheduled to end on September 27, 2007.

As a result of the above information, Connecticut Department of Transportation requested a temporary regulation to allow the repair work to continue at the bridge through April 30, 2008, in order to complete the remaining work.

Under this temporary final rule, in effect from September 28, 2007 through April 30, 2008, the Ferry Street Bridge across the Quinnipiac River, mile 0.7, at New Haven, Connecticut, will keep one of the two bascule bridge spans in the closed position at all times while keeping the second bascule span in the fully open position for the passage of vessel traffic at all times.

The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking and as a result, no changes have been made to this temporary final rule.

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.

This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open for vessel traffic with a single moveable span which is sufficient for the present needs of navigation.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open for vessel traffic with a single moveable span which is sufficient for the present needs of navigation.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

No small entities requested Coast Guard assistance and none was given.

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not affect 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 concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have 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 M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation considering that it relates to the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.

On June 15, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Marine City Maritime Festival Fireworks, St. Clair River, Marine City, MI, in the Federal Register (72 FR 33184) and received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property.

This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined fireworks launches in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks.

There were no comments received with regards to this rule.

A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Marine City Maritime Festival Fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 9:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., September 22, 2007. If this event does not take place at the scheduled time and date due to adverse weather, the fireworks display will occur between 9:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., September 23, 2007.

The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of the St. Clair River enclosed by a line connecting the following points: 42-42-51.5N/082-29-13.97W; 42-43-07.55N/082-29-08.12W; 42-43-04.93N/082-28-54.11W; 42-42-48.58N/082-29-00.81W. This safety zone is located in the St. Clair River, east of the lighthouse in Marine City, MI, near the center of the river. (DATUM: NAD 83).

All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the safety zone and the safety zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the safety zone's activation.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the St. Clair River from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on September 22, 2007. If this event does not take place at the scheduled time and date due to adverse weather, this rule will affect the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the St. Clair River from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on September 23, 2007.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only 2 hours; vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone; and in the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. There were no comments received for this section.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. There were no comments received for this section.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. There were no comments received for this section.

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. There were no comments received for this section.

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. There were no comments received for this section.

The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these special local regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this rule or options for compliance are encourage to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . There were no comments received for this section.

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. There were no comments received for this section.

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. There were no comments received for this section.

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.

A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

Regulatory Information

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective fewer than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. This temporary safety zone should have minimal negative impact on the public and navigation because it will be enforced for only a one and one half hour period on one day. In addition, the area restricted by the safety zone is minimal, allowing vessels to transit around the safety zone to pass.

This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks.

A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Schoenith Family Foundation Fireworks. The fireworks display will occur between 8 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on September 23, 2007.

The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of the Detroit River within a 210' radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 42°21.2′ N; 82°58.4′ W. (DATUM: NAD 83).

All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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.

This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Detroit River near Detroit, MI between 7:30 p.m. and 9 p.m. on September 23, 2007.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only one and one half hours for one event; vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event; and in the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

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

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

The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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 procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.

A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

Parking violations on Federal parkland administered by the NPS in the National Capital Region are regulated by 36 CFR 4.12 (traffic control devices). This section provides that “Failure to comply with the directions of a traffic control device is prohibited unless otherwise directed by the superintendent.” Prohibitions included within 36 CFR 4.12 are violations of handicapped parking signs, no parking, parking times limitations, and parking outside of marked parking spaces. This regulation is routinely used by United States Park Police officers and National Park Service law enforcement commissioned rangers. When a citation is issued and the operator is not identified on the notice, it results in the violation being dismissed if the registered owner fails to appear at trial and the court declines to proceed.

Parking spaces on parkland are limited in number and are intended to provide visitors with safe, convenient, and legal areas to park while they visit the parks. In urbanized areas of parks in the National Capital Region, violation notices have been dismissed because the operator has not been identified. This is a concern as the U.S. Park Police have documented instances of operators repeatedly parking illegally without consequence, which denies others the ability to legally use the parking places.

In response to this problem, the National Park Service is amending the National Capital Region special regulations to establish an enforcement process for parking violation notices issued under 36 CFR 4.12. The rule:

1. Provides that a parking violation notice is subject only to a fine;

2. Provides that the violation notice will name the registered owner if the operator is not present; and

3. Creates a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the illegally parked vehicle was the person who committed the violation.

The prima facie presumption, however, remains rebuttable if the owner comes forward with evidence that someone else was operating the vehicle. This rule is similar to provisions that already exist in the parking laws of many jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland (DC Code Ann. § 50-2303.03(c)(2004); Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-1220 (2004); Md. Trans. Code Ann. § 26-302(b)(2002)).

Prima facie presumption is a reasonable and standard provision found in parking codes of many jurisdictions. The connection between the registered owner of an automobile and its operation is a natural one. Indeed, courts have noted, not only the practical impossibility of a police agency to keep a watch over all parked vehicles to ascertain who in fact operates them, but that a traffic regulation's prima facie presumption of responsibility on the registered owner is reasonable, and places neither too great an inconvenience nor an unreasonable hardship if the owner desires to make an explanation. This presumption has been generally upheld by the courts if, as the Park Service proposes here, it also allows the owner to come forward with evidence that someone else was operating the vehicle in order to rebut the inference that the registered owner was responsible. Such parking regulation presumptions have also been upheld as consistent with due process.

The National Park Service is amending 36 CFR 7.96 by adding a new paragraph (f)(5), that provides that a violation of a traffic control device regulating parking under 36 CFR 4.12 is punishable by a fine. Proof that the described vehicle was parked in violation, together with proof that the defendant was at the time the registered owner of the vehicle, shall constitute a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person who committed the violation. This presumption allows the owner to come forward with evidence that someone else was operating the vehicle in order to rebut the presumption that the registered owner was responsible.

On March 21, 2007 the National Park Service published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) governing parking violations in the National Capital Region (72 FR 13224). The comment period was open for 60 days. No public comments were received.

In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget makes the final determination as to the significance of this regulatory action and it has determined that this document is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. This rule will only affect those drivers who park illegally in areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, and are issued a citation as a result. Based upon the number of parking violation citations currently being issued, and the nominal fine associated with a citation, there will not be an annual economic effect of $100 million or more. This rule will not adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government since the rule will have no impact at all for those drivers parking legally in these areas.

(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This rule will result in establishing consistency with other agencies' actions, since it is similar to provisions already existing in the parking laws of many jurisdictions, including District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland law.

(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients. This rule has no effect on entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.

(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. The rule provides that a parking citation is subject only to a fine, that the citation will name the registered owner if the operator is not present, as well as create a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the illegally parked vehicle was the person who committed the violation. The prima facie presumption, however, remains rebuttable if the owner comes forward with evidence that someone else was operating the vehicle. Since the prima facie presumption is both a reasonable and standard provision found in the parking codes of many jurisdictions, this rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues.

The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .). The primary purpose of this rule is to establish consistency between the parking laws already existing in the local jurisdictions, and the parking laws in adjoining parklands administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region. There will not be a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, since the rule will only affect those drivers who park illegally in areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, and are issued a citation as a result. All parties have the ability to completely avoid any economic effect simply by parking legally in these areas.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This rule will only affect those drivers who park illegally in areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, and are issued a violation notice as a result. Based upon the number of parking violation notices currently being issued, and the nominal fine associated with a violation, there will not be an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. No costs will be incurred by any parties unless a parking violation is issued for parking illegally in areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region. All parties have the ability to completely avoid any increase in cost simply by parking legally in these areas.

c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The primary purpose of this rule is to establish consistency between the parking laws already existing in the local jurisdictions, and the parking laws in adjoining parklands administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region. This rule will not change the ability of United States based enterprises to compete in any way.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This rule does not impose any unfunded mandate on industry, state, local or tribal governments, or the private sector. This rule applies only to Federal parkland administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, and no costs will be incurred by any parties unless a parking violation notice is issued for parking illegally in these areas. This rule will establish consistency between the parking laws already existing in the local jurisdictions, and the parking laws in adjoining lands administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region. As a result, there will not be any “significant or unique” affect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. Since this rule does not apply to private property, or cause a compensable taking, there are no takings implications.

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions of this rule apply to land under the jurisdiction of the United States. This rule does not relate to the structure and role of the States, nor will it have direct, substantial, and significant effects on States. This rule imposes no requirements on any governmental entity other than the National Park Service.

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

This regulation does not require an information collection from 10 or more parties and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. An OMB form 83-I is not required.

We have analyzed the rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and 516 DM. It does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and can be Categorically Excluded under NPS exclusion 3.4 A (8) “Modifications or revisions to existing regulations, or the promulgation of new regulations for NPS-administered areas, provided the modifications, revisions, or new regulations do not:

(a) Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the area or cause physical damage to it.

(b) Introduce non-compatible uses that might compromise the nature and characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it.

(c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses.

(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.”

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government to Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2:

We have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. As this rule only applies to parkland administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, there will not be any effect on Federally recognized Indian tribes.

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to read if it were divided into more, but shorter sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble helpful in understanding the rule? What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.

Drafting Information: The primary authors of this regulation were Sean Doyle, Park Ranger, National Park Service, National Capital Region, and Jerry Case and Jennifer Lee, Regulations Program, WASO.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

This action applies to all stationary sources located in areas designated nonattainment for ozone.

Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires each state to submit revisions to its SIP to require that the owner or operator of each stationary source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), in areas designated nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, prepare and submit emission statements each year showing actual emissions of those pollutants. This requirement applies to all ozone nonattainment areas covered under subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the Act, regardless of classification (marginal, moderate, etc.) In such nonattainment areas, facilities which emit VOCs or NO X (on a plant-wide basis) in amounts of 25 tons per year or more into the ambient air must submit an emission statement to the State.

On April 30, 2004, EPA published its Phase 1 rule to implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951). On this same date, EPA set forth nonattainment and attainment designations for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858).

EPA has determined that the emission statement program requirements previously applicable for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS apply in the same manner for the 8-hour NAAQS. See May 3, 2006, memorandum from Thomas C. Curran, Director, Air Quality Assessment Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, entitled “Emission Statement Requirement Under 8-hour Ozone NAAQS implementation.” Thus, the requirement for emission statements under section 182(a)(3)(B) applies to newly-designated subpart 2 nonattainment areas. Also, those areas designated nonattainment for ozone under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and then designated nonattainment under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, regardless of classification under subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the Act, remain subject to the emission statement requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B).

On October 13, 1994, EPA approved several rules in Chapter 3745-24 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) as meeting the “Emission Statement” program requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA. Chapter 3745-24 of the OAC included rules 3745-24-01 to 3745-24-04.

The first section of the rule, 3745-24-01, is entitled “Definitions.” Unless otherwise provided in this rule, definitions in rule 3745-24-01 apply.

The second section of the rule, 3745-24-02, which is entitled “Applicability,” states that the requirements of this chapter apply to stationary sources, specifically, located in the Cincinnati-Hamilton (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren Counties) area designated ozone nonattainment. Facilities emitting 25 tons per year VOCs or NO X (on a plant-wide basis) during any calendar year are required to submit an emission statement. This requirement started with calendar year 1992. Sources in counties redesignated to attainment for ozone are exempt from reporting.

Under 3745-24-02, stationary sources located in a total of 24 counties designated nonattainment for ozone covered under subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the Act were required to submit emission statements. See 59 FR 51863. Subsequently, EPA redesignated a number of counties subject to the emission statement program to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. See, e.g., 60 FR 22289 (Dayton-Springfield Area), 60 FR 39115 (Toledo Area), 61 FR 3319 (Canton, and Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Areas), 61 FR 3591, and 61 FR 20458 (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain Area). On March 23, 1998, EPA approved a revision to rule 3745-24-02 to reflect these changes. See 63 FR 13787. As a result, the emission statement program requirements applied to stationary sources only in the Cincinnati-Hamilton (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren Counties) ozone nonattainment area.

Section 3745-24-03, which is entitled “Deadlines for the submission of the emissions statements,” requires that the 1992 emissions statements be submitted by July 1, 1994. For calendar year 1993 and beyond, emission statements are due by November 15th of the following calendar year.

Rule 3745-24-04, entitled “Emission statement requirements,” requires affected owners that meet the applicability requirements specified in rule 3745-24-02 to submit emissions statements to Ohio EPA by the required deadline specified in rule 3745-24-03, and certification of accuracy of the statement. The certification of accuracy of the information must be submitted by an appropriate facility official.

Ohio is requesting that EPA approve several revisions to its existing emission reporting rules contained in Chapter 3745-24 of the OAC to be consistent with the emission statement program requirements for stationary sources in section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA. Because the revisions to OAC 3745-24 are necessary, and change or eliminate over half of each rule, to satisfy the requirements of section 119.032 of the Ohio Revised Code (5-Year Rule Review), Ohio EPA rescinded OAC rule 3745-24-01 (Definitions), 3745-24-02 (Applicability), and 3745-24-03 (Deadline for the submission of the emission statements), and promulgated them as new rules. The rule revisions are as follows:

In section 3745-24-01 (Definitions), Ohio EPA is requesting approval of the removal of several definitions. Certain definitions are provided in the instructions accompanying the emission statement form to be filed as prescribed by the Director of Ohio EPA. Thus, the revision to this rule would allow enough flexibility for the emission statement form to change so long as the data needed is collected. The emission statement requirements are outlined in OAC rule 3745-24-04.

In section 3745-24-02 (Applicability), Ohio EPA is requesting approval to make the applicability of the rule more general, rather than area specific, to include any county designated nonattainment of the NAAQS for ozone. Currently, the rule specifies that the emission statement requirements apply to stationary sources located in the Cincinnati-Hamilton (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren Counties) ozone nonattainment area. The revision would provide Ohio EPA more flexibility to apply the emission statement program to develop a complete and accurate emission inventory for air quality planning purposes at the State, and also meet EPA's emission reporting requirements for all counties designated nonattainment of the NAAQS for ozone.

In section 3745-24-03 (Deadlines for the submission of the emissions statements), Ohio EPA is requesting approval to change the due date for the emission statements to be the same as for Ohio's emission fee report, April 15, following the year covered by the reporting period. Thus, to align the reporting due dates for both the emission statement and fee emission, the rule revision would streamline reporting of emissions and provide more timely reporting than the previous SIP-approved rules.

EPA is approving the State's request that concurrently rescinds and revises portions of the Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-24 [rule 3745-24-01 (Definitions), 3745-24-02 (Applicability), and 3745-24-03 (Deadline for the submission of the emission statements)] to be consistent with the CAA emission statement program reporting requirements for stationary sources. EPA has determined that the Ohio emission statement program contains the necessary applicability, and reporting provisions to meet the requirements for an emission statement program as part of the SIP. The revision makes the rule more general to apply to all counties designated nonattainment for ozone, and not to a specific list of counties.

We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective November 26, 2007 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by October 29, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective November 26, 2007.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

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

This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ).

Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

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

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

The Commission published a document in the Federal Register of July 20, 2007, (72 FR 39756). That document summarized the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in WT Docket No. 02-55, adopted on May 24, 2007, and released on May 30, 2007. The Second Memorandum Opinion and Order included inconsistent language regarding the deadline for the submission of the Puerto Rico band plan that the 800 MHz Transition Administrator must file with the Commission. This inconsistency was reflected in the summary of the order published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2007. On July 26, 2007, the Commission published an erratum correcting the inconsistency, and confirming that the deadline for submission of the Puerto Rico band plan is 60 days from the effective date of the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order. Today's document corrects the inconsistency contained in the Federal Register summary of the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order published on July 20, 2007. In rule FR Doc. E7-14099 published on July 20, 2007 (72 FR 39756) make the following correction on page 39758, in the first column paragraph number 8, fifth sentence correct to read as follows:

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS. Where there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) permits a nonconforming motor vehicle to be admitted into the United States if its safety features comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence as the Secretary of Transportation decides to be adequate.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1), import eligibility decisions may be made “on the initiative of the Secretary of Transportation or on petition of a manufacturer or importer registered under [49 U.S.C. 30141(c)].” The Secretary's authority to make these decisions has been delegated to NHTSA. The agency publishes notice of eligibility decisions as they are made.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(b)(2), a list of all vehicles for which import eligibility decisions have been made must be published annually in the Federal Register . On October 1, 1996, NHTSA added the list as an appendix to 49 CFR Part 593, the regulations that establish procedures for import eligibility decisions (61 FR 51242). As described in the notice, NHTSA took that action to ensure that the list is more widely disseminated to government personnel who oversee vehicle imports and to interested members of the public. See 61 FR 51242-43. In the notice, NHTSA expressed its intention to annually revise the list as published in the appendix to include any additional vehicles decided by the agency to be eligible for importation since the list was last published. See 61 FR 51243. The agency stated that issuance of the document announcing these revisions will fulfill the annual publication requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30141(b)(2). Ibid .

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations about whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. This rule will not have any of these effects and was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The effect of this rule is not to impose new requirements but to provide a summary compilation of decisions on import eligibility that have already been made and does not involve new decisions. This rule will not impose any additional burden on any person. The agency believes that this impact is minimal and does not warrant the preparation of a regulatory evaluation.

We have not conducted an evaluation of the impacts of this rule under the National Environmental Policy Act. This rule does not impose any change that would result in any impacts to the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is required.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered the impacts of this rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the context of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The following is our statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This rule will not have any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses because the rule merely furnishes information by revising the list in the Code of Federal Regulations of vehicles for which import eligibility decisions have previously been made. Accordingly, we have not prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA 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.” E.O. 13132 defines the term “Policies that have federalism implications” 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.” Under E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation.

This rule will have no 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 as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. This rule will not result in additional expenditures by State, local or tribal governments or by any members of the private sector. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This rule does not impose any new collection of information requirements for which a 5 CFR Part 1320 clearance must be obtained. DOT previously submitted to OMB and OMB approved the collection of information associated with the vehicle importation program in OMB Clearance No. 2127-0002.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” we have considered whether this rule has any retroactive effect. We conclude that it will not have such an effect.

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” This rule does not require the use of any technical standards.

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

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and does not concern an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

NHTSA finds that prior notice and opportunity for comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) because this action does not impose any regulatory requirements. This rule merely revises the list of vehicles not originally manufactured to conform to the FMVSS that NHTSA has decided to be eligible for importation into the United States since the last list was published in September, 2006.

In addition, so that the list of vehicles for which import eligibility decisions have been made may be included in the next edition of 49 CFR Parts 400 to 599, which is due for revision on October 1, 2007, good cause exists to dispense with the requirement in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for the effective date of the rule to be delayed for at least 30 days following its publication.