Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

38

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

Department of Commerce, 14th and

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room 2705,

Washington, DC 20230.

■ 36. Section 754.7 is amended by

revising paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

9E002 ‘‘Technology’’ according to the

General Technology Note for the

‘‘production’’ of equipment controlled by

9A001.b, 9A004 to 9A011 or 9B (except

9B990 or 9B991).

Supplement No. 1 to Part 744—The

Commerce Control List

*

§ 754.7 Petitions for the imposition of

monitoring or controls on recyclable

metallic materials; Public hearings.

*

*

*

PART 774—[AMENDED]

■ 37. The authority citation for 15 CFR

part 774 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C.

7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 et

seq., 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u);

42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C.

1354; 46 U.S.C. app. 466c; 50 U.S.C. app. 5;

22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O.

13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p.

228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001

Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2007, 72

FR 46137 (August 16, 2007).

■ 38. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774

(the Commerce Control List), Category

1—Materials, Chemicals,

‘‘Microorganisms’’ & ‘‘Toxins’’, Export

Control Classification Number (ECCN)

1C350 is amended by revising the last

sentence of paragraph 1.e. in the

‘‘License Requirement Notes’’ section to

read as follows:

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

■ 39. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774

(the Commerce Control List), Category

2—Materials Processing, Export Control

Classification Number (ECCN) 2B999 is

19:41 Dec 31, 2007

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Jkt 214001

*

*

*

*

Dated: December 21, 2007.

Matthew S. Borman,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export

Administration.

[FR Doc. E7–25423 Filed 12–31–07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

List of Items Controlled

Unit: * * *

Related Controls: See also 0B001, 0B002,

0B004, 1B233, 2A293, 2B001.f, 2B004,

2B009, 2B104, 2B109, 2B204, 2B209, 2B228,

2B229, 2B231, 2B350.

*

*

*

*

*

■ 40. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774

(the Commerce Control List), Category

9—Aerospace and Propulsion, Export

Control Classification Number (ECCN)

9E001 is amended by revising the

Heading and ‘‘License Requirements’’

section to read as follows:

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Parts 38 and 284

[Docket Nos. RM96–1–028 and RM05–5–

004; Order No. 698–A]

Standards for Business Practices for

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines;

Standards for Business Practices for

Public Utilities

Issued December 20, 2007.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Supplement No. 1 to Part 744—The

Commerce Control List

ACTION: Order on clarification and

*

rehearing.

*

*

*

*

Category 9—Aerospace and Propulsion

*

*

*

*

*

9E001 ‘‘Technology according to the General

Technology Note for the ‘‘development’’ of

equipment or ‘‘software’’ controlled by

9A001.b, 9A004 to 9A012, 9B (except 9B990

or 9B991), or 9D (except 9D990 or 9D991).

Country chart

NS applies to ‘‘technology’’ for items

controlled by

9A001.b, 9A012,

9B001 to 9B010,

9D001 to 9D004 for

NS reasons.

License Requirement Notes

1. * * *

a. * * *

b. * * *

c. * * *

d. * * *

e. * * * The report must be sent, via

courier, to the U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of Industry and Security, 14th and

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room 2705,

Washington, DC 20230, Attn: ‘‘Report of

Sample Shipments of Chemical Precursors’’.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

*

Control(s)

1C350 Chemicals that may be used as

precursors for toxic chemical agents.

*

*

2B999 Specific processing equipment,

n.e.s., as follows (see List of Items

Controlled).

*

Category 1—Materials, Chemicals,

‘‘Microorganisms’’ & ‘‘Toxins’’

*

*

License Requirements

Reason for Control: NS, MT, AT

Supplement No. 1 to Part 744—The

Commerce Control List

*

*

Category 2—Materials Processing

*

*

*

*

(d) Address. Submit petitions

pursuant to section 7(c) of the EAA, via

courier, to: Bureau of Industry and

Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230.

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES

amended by revising the ‘‘Related

Controls’’ paragraph of the ‘‘List of

Items Controlled’’ section to read as

follows:

NS Column 1.

* * *

*

*

*

*

*

■ 41. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774

(the Commerce Control List), Category

9—Aerospace and Propulsion, Export

Control Classification Number (ECCN)

9E002 is amended by revising the

Heading to read as follows:

Supplement No. 1 to Part 744—The

Commerce Control List

*

*

*

*

*

Category 9—Aerospace and Propulsion

*

PO 00000

*

*

Frm 00038

*

Fmt 4700

*

Sfmt 4700

Commission, Department of Energy.

SUMMARY: This order denies requests for

rehearing, and provides clarification of

the final rule issued on July 16, 2007

that incorporated by reference standards

dealing with coordination of scheduling

between electric utilities and natural gas

pipelines that were promulgated by the

Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ) and the

Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) of

the North American Energy Standards

Board (NAESB), and provided policy

guidance on issues relating to such

coordination.

DATES: Effective Date: January 2, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

Winterbauer (Legal), Office of the

General Counsel, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

202–502–8329.

Susan Pollonais (Technical), Office of

Energy Market Regulation, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

202–502–6011.

Kay Morice (Technical), Office of

Energy Market Regulation, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

202–502–6507.

Before Commissioners: Joseph T.

Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly,

Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon

Wellinghoff.

E:\FR\FM\02JAR1.SGM

02JAR1

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

1. On June 25, 2007, the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission

(Commission) issued Order No. 698,1 in

which the Commission amended parts

38 and 284 of its open access

regulations governing standards for

business practices and electronic

communications with public utilities

and interstate natural gas pipelines. The

Commission incorporated by reference

certain standards promulgated by the

North American Energy Standards

Board (NAESB) 2 in order to improve

coordination between the electric and

gas industries. Specifically, the

Commission sought to improve

communications about scheduling of

gas-fired generators.

2. In addition, the Commission

provided policy guidance on issues

raised by NAESB relating to scheduling

coordination and to the possible

development of additional standards by

NAESB. First, the Commission

discussed the use of gas indices for

pricing capacity release transactions,

stating that the Commission’s

regulations permit releasing shippers to

use price indices or other formula rates

on all pipelines, regardless of whether

the pipeline has a provision allowing

the use of indices as part of its

discounting provisions, so long as the

prices are less than the maximum rate

in the pipeline’s tariff.3 Second, the

Commission discussed, but did not

modify, the shipper’s ability to choose

alternate delivery points, stating that the

ability to shift a delivery point when a

pipeline constraint occurs upstream

would make it easier for shippers to

redirect gas supplies to generators when

capacity is scarce. Lastly, the

Commission discussed possible changes

to the gas intraday nomination

schedule, clarifying that NAESB should

actively consider whether changes to

existing intra-day schedules would

benefit all shippers.

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES

I. Requests for Rehearing

3. The Interstate Natural Gas

Association of America (INGAA)

requests clarification, or in the

alternative rehearing, on the date

pipelines are required to implement

1 Standards for Business Practices for Interstate

Natural Gas Pipelines; Standards for Business

Practices for Public Utilities, Order No. 698, 72 FR

38757 (July 16, 2007) FERC Statutes and

Regulations ¶ 31,251 (June 25, 2007).

2 The standards for the Wholesale Electric

Quadrant are: Gas/Electric Coordination Standards

WEQ–011–0.1 through WEQ–011–0.3 and WEQ–

011–1.1 through WEQ–011–1.6. The standards for

the Wholesale Gas Quadrant are: Additional

Standards, Definitions 0.2.1 through 0.2.3 and

Standards 0.3.11 through 0.3.15.

3 Order No. 698, FERC Statutes and Regulations

¶ 31,251 at P 55.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

19:41 Dec 31, 2007

Jkt 214001

changes with regard to the three issues

on which the Commission provided

guidance. INGAA notes that industry

participants were required to implement

the NAESB standards by November 1,

2007, and requests that the Commission

clarify that it would be appropriate for

NAESB to propose additional standards

and then for the Commission to have

another rulemaking proceeding before

pipelines are required to implement

changes.

4. Specifically, with regard to capacity

release, INGAA notes that in the Final

Rule the Commission acknowledges that

NAESB may need to develop standards

to ensure that the terms and conditions

of a release and the means of

implementing a formula rate are clearly

set out.4 INGAA contends that prior to

Order No. 698, the Commission’s

regulations were never interpreted to

allow unrestricted pricing in capacity

release transactions. INGAA argues that

while pipelines had the ability to file

non-conforming agreements, there was

never a policy in place for releasing

shippers to file non-conforming capacity

release agreements based on indexbased rates. INGAA further contends

that pipelines are not currently

equipped to allow unrestricted pricing

in capacity release transactions, and that

requiring them to do so raises

implementation issues concerning bid

evaluation and awards, scheduling and

billing.

5. INGAA further contends that

unrestricted pricing in releases raises

scheduling priority issues. It argues that

index-based or other formula prices

raise the issue of how such prices can

be compared to a fixed, discounted rate

for scheduling purposes. INGAA adds

that the Commission should be aware

that, depending on the rate formula

utilized, there may be several

methodologies that can be used to

determine a rate for scheduling

purposes and that one methodology may

favor some shippers over others.

6. INGAA requests that the

Commission clarify the procedures

needed for pipeline billing of capacity

release transactions that use indexbased or formula rates. INGAA argues

that pipelines should not be required to

calculate the rates under such pricing

mechanisms, nor should pipelines be

placed in the position of arbitrating

disputes between a releasing shipper

and a replacement shipper about the

rate to be charged under the formula

used. INGAA requests that the

Commission clarify that (1) in any

release that does not utilize a fixed

stated rate, the releasing shipper must

inform the pipeline of the rate to be

charged to the replacement shipper in

time for the pipeline to bill such rate;

and (2) the pipeline is entitled to rely on

the rate provided by the releasing

shipper such that the only recourse a

replacement shipper has if it disagrees

with such rate is against the releasing

shipper. INGAA adds that pipelines

should not be required to determine the

rate to be charged under such releases

or be placed in the middle of disputes

between its shippers and their

replacement shippers over such rates.5

7. INGAA also requests that the

Commission clarify when pipelines are

required to implement changes

regarding intra-day scheduling, and

that, rather, it is appropriate to wait for

NAESB to consider any industry-wide

standards.6

8. INGAA requests that the

Commission clarify that Order No. 698

does not require pipelines to convey any

non-public information. As an example,

INGAA states that information

concerning a pipeline’s methods for

dealing with hourly flow variances, the

administration of operational balancing

agreements, the operation of compressor

units, and the operation of meter

stations, all on a real-time or nearly realtime basis, may be implicated by or be

part of, the required communications

discussed in the Order No. 698. INGAA

states that this information is not public

information, which pipelines do not

usually communicate.

9. The American Gas Association

(AGA) filed an answer.

II. Discussion

A. Procedural Matters

10. We reject AGA’s answer. Rule 713

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice

and Procedures does not allow answers

to requests for rehearing.7

Indexed Releases

Relation to NAESB Standards

Development

11. INGAA requests clarification or in

the alternative rehearing, arguing that

pipelines should not have to permit

shippers to use gas price indices as part

of released transactions until NAESB

develops standards for using price

indices and they are adopted by the

Commission. The Commission denies

the clarification and the alternative

rehearing request.

12. As we explained in Order No. 698,

our existing regulations already permit

releasing shippers to use price indices

5 INGAA Request for Rehearing at 6.

6 Id. at 7.

4 Id. at P 56.

PO 00000

Frm 00039

7 18 CFR 385.713(d) (2007).

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

39

E:\FR\FM\02JAR1.SGM

02JAR1

40

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

or other formula rates on all pipelines,

regardless of whether the pipeline has

included a provision allowing the use of

indices as part of its discounting

provisions, so long as the prices are less

than the maximum rate in the pipeline’s

tariff.8 Section 284.8(b) 9 of the

Commission’s regulations states that

‘‘firm shippers must be permitted to

release their capacity, in whole or in

part, on a permanent or short-term basis,

without restrictions on the terms or

conditions of the release,’’ and section

284.8(e) 10 mandates that such a release

may not be ‘‘over the maximum rate.’’

Releasing shippers are permitted under

these regulations to set the appropriate

price governing the release. In Order No.

698, we did not impose any additional

regulatory requirements on the

pipelines, and therefore we find no

basis to delay implementation of our

existing regulations.

13. INGAA maintains that the

Commission’s regulations were never

previously interpreted to permit

unrestricted pricing in capacity release

transactions. INGAA cites no support

for the proposition that the Commission

did not interpret its regulations to

permit pricing flexibility. In fact, in

Order No. 636–A, the Commission

explained that releasing shippers are not

required to rely on default provisions in

the pipeline’s tariff, but can structure

their own pricing terms:

Due to the variety of releasing conditions

that may exist, the Commission will not

establish only one methodology for

evaluating best bids, but will use the

following approach. The pipeline’s tariff

must include an objective and nondiscriminatory economic standard for

determining best bids. Releasing shippers

may rely upon this standard in structuring

their capacity releases, but are not required

to do so. If a releasing shipper does not

specify a standard, the standard in the

pipeline’s tariff will apply. Releasing

shippers may include in their offers to

release capacity reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions to

accommodate individual release situations,

including provisions for evaluating bids.11

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES

The Commission also has explained that

these regulatory provisions provide

8 In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the

Commission has proposed to lift the price ceiling

for short-term capacity releases. Promotion of a

More Efficient Capacity Release Market, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, 121 FERC ¶ 61,170 (2007).

9 18 CFR 284.8(b) (2007).

10 18 CFR 284.8(e) (2007).

11 Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to

Regulations Governing Self-Implementing

Transportation, Order No. 636–A, 57 FR 36128

(Aug.12, 1992), FERC Statutes and Regulations

January 1991—June 1996 ¶ 30,950, at 30,557 (Aug.

3, 1992). See El Paso Natural Gas Co., 61 FERC ¶

61,333, at 62,289 (1992).

VerDate Aug<31>2005

19:41 Dec 31, 2007

Jkt 214001

releasing shippers with the flexibility to

price using gas price indices.12

14. Contrary to INGAA’s implication,

the Commission did not ask NAESB to

develop standards for indexed releases

because such releases were not

previously permitted. In this

proceeding, due to the interest by

shippers in such releases, the

Commission requested NAESB to

consider developing standards to make

these releases quicker and more

efficient.13 The existing WGQ NAESB

standards recognize that non-standard

pricing terms may be included in

release transactions, but do not

necessarily permit such releases to be

accorded the same processing timeline

as standard releases.14 The Commission

requested NAESB to consider standards

that would create a standardized

indexing methodology so that the use of

indexed releases could become faster

and could compete on a more equal

footing with pipeline discounts and

negotiated rate transactions.

15. INGAA suggests that permitting

index pricing prior to the development

of the NAESB standards may create

difficulty in evaluating competing bids

or completing the bid evaluation

process in the time needed to

implement the release. We do not find

this to be a sufficient basis to delay

shippers’ ability to implement indexed

releases to compete with the pipeline’s

use of such practices. The Commission

required in Order No. 636 that the terms

and conditions of all releases, including

the methods for evaluating competing

bids, must be objective, applicable to all

shippers, and non-discriminatory.15 The

releasing shipper has the burden of

ensuring that the bid evaluation method

is clear enough for the pipeline to

administer. Further, the standard

capacity release timelines do not apply

to bid evaluation methods that are out

of the ordinary or difficult to apply.

Releasing shippers that want indexed

deals implemented expeditiously

therefore have an incentive to ensure

that their bid evaluation methodologies

are relatively simple to apply.

12 See Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., 106 FERC

¶ 61,194, P 6 (2006);

13 Order No. 698, FERC Statutes and Regulations

¶ 31,251 at P 56.

14 Standards 5.3.1 and 5.3.3 (18 CFR

284.12(a)((1)(vi)) provide that as long as releasing

shippers use defined, standard bid methodologies,

the pipelines are required to adhere to the NAESB

timelines in processing such bids. However, these

standards recognize that the releasing shipper might

elect other bid evaluation methodologies for which

pipeline processing can take longer than the

standard timelines.

15 Order No. 636–A, FERC Statutes and

Regulations January 1991–June 1996 ¶ 30,950, at

30,557.

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

16. INGAA also maintains that

allowing unrestricted pricing discretion

may cause problems for some pipelines

that use price to prioritize the

scheduling of secondary firm

transportation.16 However, the

Commission does not require that

pipelines employ such a method for

scheduling firm transportation, and we

find that a possible inconvenience to

some pipelines does not justify

prohibiting releasing shippers from

choosing pricing methods permitted by

the regulations. Those pipelines that

may have such provisions would either

need to apply their priced-based

scheduling provisions to those capacity

release transactions that use index

pricing or file under section 4 of the

Natural Gas Act to amend their tariffs to

provide for such scheduling.17

1. Billing Under Index-Priced Releases

17. INGAA requests that we clarify

that in any release that does not utilize

a fixed stated rate, the releasing shipper

must inform the pipeline of the rate to

be charged to the replacement shipper

in time for the pipeline to bill such rate;

and the pipeline is entitled to rely on

the rate provided by the releasing

shipper such that the only recourse a

replacement shipper has if it disagrees

with such rate is against the releasing

shipper.

18. We will not permit pipelines to

delay acceptance of index price deals on

this basis. Pipelines ought to be able to

calculate prices under index releases,

because, as the Commission required in

Order No. 636, the terms and conditions

of such releases must be objective and

clearly stated. Many pipelines also

currently bill shippers under their own

negotiated rate and index price

transactions, and, therefore, should be

able to calculate the rates under released

transactions in the same way. However,

if after experience with index releases,

a pipeline believes that the volume of

such releases or other conditions

warrants revisions in the method used

to bill for index releases, the pipeline

may file under section 4 of the Natural

Gas Act to propose such revisions, and

the Commission will consider those

changes after evaluating the position of

the pipeline’s shippers.

16 The Commission requires pipelines to permit

shippers, including replacement shippers, the

flexibility to temporarily schedule the receipt and

delivery of gas at points other than those listed in

their contracts if capacity is available.

17 INGAA does not explain why the same

procedures used to schedule pipeline index

discount transactions and negotiated rate

transactions, which employ a variety of pricing

techniques, cannot be applied to capacity release

transactions.

E:\FR\FM\02JAR1.SGM

02JAR1

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES

B. Intra-Day Scheduling

19. INGAA also requests that we

clarify that any changes regarding intraday scheduling need not be

implemented by November 1, 2007, and

that instead it is appropriate for NAESB

to consider and propose any industrywide standards. We agree with INGAA.

Order No. 698 did not adopt changes in

the intra-day nomination timeline, so

the November 1, 2007 deadline does not

apply to any such change. While the

Commission did not require the

pipelines to make any changes in

nomination schedules, we did indicate

that such standards could be very

beneficial to the industry and that

pipelines with gas-fired generators

should, on their own, consider the

addition of other intra-day nomination

opportunities that would be of benefit to

the shippers.18 Pipelines are free to

propose additional intra-day

nomination opportunities prior to any

proposal by NAESB if they so choose.

C. Non-Public Information

20. INGAA maintains that the

Commission should clarify that Order

No. 698 does not require pipelines to

convey any non-public information as a

result of the standards incorporated by

reference in the Final Rule. In

particular, INGAA points to information

concerning a pipeline’s methods for

dealing with hourly flow variances, the

administration of operational balancing

agreements, the operation of compressor

units, and the operation of meter

stations.

21. INGAA does not point to which,

if any, standards it believes would

require the dissemination of this

information, so we cannot provide a

definitive answer. The standards

themselves do not generally detail the

type of information that should be

provided. For example, it appears from

the examples that INGAA may be

referring to standard 0.3.12, which

states that: ‘‘The Power Plant Operator

(PPO) and the Transportation Service

Provider(s) (TSP) that is directly

connected to the PPO’s Facility(ies)

should establish procedures to

communicate material changes in

circumstances that may impact hourly

flow rates.’’ This standard does not

require the dissemination of detailed

information about why the hourly flow

rates are affected; it requires only that

the pipeline establish communication

procedures so that the power plant

operator and the pipeline are made

timely aware that such hourly flow

changes may occur. Without a more

18 Order No. 698, FERC Stats. & Regs. [Regulations

Preambles] ¶ 31,251 at P 69.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

19:41 Dec 31, 2007

Jkt 214001

detailed explanation of which other

standards would require the disclosure

of information that INGAA wishes to

keep non-public, we cannot address this

issue further. INGAA and the pipelines

may bring any specific issue to the

Commission’s attention.

The Commission orders:

The requests for rehearing and

clarification are resolved as discussed in

the body of the order.

By the Commission.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7–25121 Filed 12–31–07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG–2007–0146]

RIN 1625–AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation;

Milhomme Bayou, Stephensville, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing

the regulation governing the operation

of the Stephensville Bridge across

Milhomme Bayou, mile 12.2, (Landside

Route) at Stephensville, St. Martin

Parish, Louisiana and canceling the test

deviation concerning this bridge.

Currently the bridge opens on signal,

but due to the minimal waterway traffic,

the bridge owner requested this change.

The rule will require the draw of the

bridge to open on signal if at least one

hour of advance notice is given. During

the advance notice period, the draw

shall open on less than one hour notice

for an emergency, and shall open on

demand should a temporary surge in

waterway traffic occur.

DATES: This rule is effective February 1,

2008. The test deviation published on

October 5, 2007, 72 FR 56898 is

cancelled as of February 1, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related

materials received from the public, as

well as documents indicated in this

preamble as being available in the

docket, are part of docket USCG–2007–

0146. The docket is available at http://

www.regulations.gov and will include

any personal information you have

provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bart

Marcules, Bridge Administration

Branch, telephone (504) 671–2128. If

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

41

you have questions on viewing or

submitting material to the docket, call

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–

9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

On October 2, 2007, we published a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Operation

Regulations; Milhomme Bayou,

Stephensville, LA’’ in the Federal

Register (72 FR 56025). We received no

letters commenting on the proposed

rule. No public meeting was requested,

and none was held.

Background and Purpose

St. Martin Parish requested that the

operating regulation on the

Stephensville Bridge be changed in

order to operate the bridge more

efficiently. The Stephensville Bridge

located on Milhomme Bayou at mile

12.2 (Landside Route of the Morgan City

Port Allen Alternate Route) in

Stephensville, St. Martin Parish,

Louisiana has a vertical clearance of 5.8

feet above mean high water, elevation

3.5 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) in the

closed position and unlimited clearance

in the open position. The Stephensville

Bridge opened on signal as required by

33 CFR 117.5; however, the waterway

traffic is minimal and during the past

twelve months an average of 5 boats per

day have requested an opening. Most of

the boats requesting openings are

commercial vessels consisting of

tugboats with barges and shrimp

trawlers that routinely transit this

waterway and are able to give advance

notice.

Concurrent with the publication of

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

concerning this schedule of operation, a

Test Deviation was published on

October 5, 2007, entitled ‘‘Drawbridge

Operation Regulation; Milhomme

Bayou, Stephensville, LA’’ in the

Federal Register (72 FR 56898). This

test deviation was issued to allow St.

Martin Parish to test the proposed

schedule and to obtain data and public

comments. This deviation is being

canceled upon this final rule going into

effect because there have been no

comments or complaints, and the new

operating schedule will be permanent

upon cancellation. This deviation from

the operating regulations was

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review, and does not

E:\FR\FM\02JAR1.SGM

02JAR1