39776 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 139 / Friday, July 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Title 6 of the NYCRR, Chapter III, Part 

202, Subpart 202–2.4(i). Specifically, 

EPA requested that NYSDEC 

supplement the July 7, 2006 SIP 

submittal with a letter that confirms the 

trade secret provision will not restrict: 

(1) The public’s access to facility-related 

‘‘emission data’’ that is contained in 

emission statements, (2) EPA’s access to 

all information contained in emission 

statements submitted to New York, 

including any emissions related 

information claimed and/or designated 

as trade secret or as confidential 

business information, and (3) that 

confirms NYSDEC interprets 6 NYCRR 

Subpart 202–2.4(i), coupled with 6 

NYCRR Subpart 200.2, Safeguarding 

Information, to require the submission 

to EPA and release to the public of all 

information that is considered to be 

emissions data, consistent with the 

applicable state and federal laws on 

public disclosure, including the Clean 

Air Act and its implementing 

regulations. 

On April 11, 2007, NYSDEC sent a 

letter to EPA in response. EPA has 

reviewed the letter and has determined 

that NYSDEC has adequately addressed 

EPA’s concerns. 

IV. What Is EPA’s Conclusion? 

EPA has concluded that the New York 

Emission Statement rule contains the 

necessary applicability, compliance, 

enforcement and reporting requirements 

for an approvable emission statement 

program. EPA is proposing to approve 6 

NYCRR, Chapter III, Part 202, Subpart 

202–2, Emission Statements, as part of 

New York’s SIP. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed 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 

proposes to approve 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 proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve 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 proposed 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 proposed 

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.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 8, 2007. 

Alan J. Steinberg, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. E7–14061 Filed 7–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 455 

[CMS–2264–P] 

RIN 0938–AO88 

Medicaid Integrity Program; Limitation 

on Contractor Liability 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Section 6034 of the Deficit 

Reduction Act of 2005 established the 

Medicaid Integrity Program to promote 

the integrity of the Medicaid program by 

authorizing the Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services (CMS) to enter 

into contracts with contractors that will 

review the actions of individuals or 

entities furnishing items or services 

(whether fee-for-service, risk, or other 

basis) for which payment may be made 

under an approved State plan and/or 

any waiver of the plan approved under 

section 1115 of the Social Security Act; 

audit claims for payment of items or 

services furnished, or administrative 

services furnished, under a State plan; 

identify overpayments of individuals or 

entities receiving Federal funds; and 

educate providers of services, managed 

care entities, beneficiaries, and other 

individuals with respect to payment 

integrity and quality of care. This 

proposed rule would set forth 

limitations on a contractor’s liability 

while performing these services under 

the Medicaid Integrity Program. 

This proposed rule would provide for 

limitation of a contractor’s liability for 

actions taken to carry out a contract 

under the Medicaid Integrity Program. 

The proposed rule would, to the extent 

possible, employ the same or 

comparable standards and other 

substantive and procedural provisions 

as are contained in section 1157 

(Limitation on Liability) of the Social 

Security Act. 

DATES: To be assured consideration, 

comments must be received at one of 

the addresses provided below, no later 

than 5 p.m. on August 20, 2007. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 139 / Friday, July 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 39777 

ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer 

to file code CMS–2264–P. Because of 

staff and resource limitations, we cannot 

accept comments by facsimile (Fax) 

transmission. 

You may submit comments in one of 

four ways (no duplicates, please): 

1. Electronically. You may submit 

electronic comments on specific issues 

in this regulation to http:// 

www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking. Click 

on the link ‘‘Submit electronic 

comments on CMS regulations with an 

open comment period.’’ (Attachments 

should be in Microsoft Word, 

WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we 

prefer Microsoft Word.) 

2. By regular mail. You may mail 

written comments (one original and two 

copies) to the following address Only: 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Attention: CMS–2264–

P, P.O. Box 8014, Baltimore, MD 21244–

8014. 

Please allow sufficient time for mailed 

comments to be received before the 

close of the comment period. 

3. By express or overnight mail. You 

may send written comments (one 

original and two copies) to the following 

address Only: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Attention: 

CMS–2264–P, Mail Stop C4–26–05, 

7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244–1850. 

4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, 

you may deliver (by hand or courier) 

your written comments (one original 

and two copies) before the close of the 

comment period to one of the following 

addresses. If you intend to deliver your 

comments to the Baltimore address, 

please call telephone number (410) 786–

8148 in advance to schedule your 

arrival with one of our staff members. 

Room 445–G, Hubert H. Humphrey 

Building, 200 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244–1850. 

(Because access to the interior of the 

HHH Building is not readily available to 

persons without Federal Government 

identification, commenters are 

encouraged to leave their comments in 

the CMS drop slots located in the main 

lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock 

is available for persons wishing to retain 

a proof of filing by stamping in and 

retaining an extra copy of the comments 

being filed.) 

Comments mailed to the addresses 

indicated as appropriate for hand or 

courier delivery may be delayed and 

received after the comment period. 

For information on viewing public 

comments, see the beginning of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Rufo, 410–786–5589 or Crystal 

High, 410–786–8366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Submitting Comments: We welcome 

comments from the public on all issues 

set forth in this rule to assist us in fully 

considering issues and developing 

policies. You can assist us by 

referencing the file code CMS–2064–P 

and the specific ‘‘issue identifier’’ that 

precedes the section on which you 

choose to comment. 

Inspection of Public Comments: All 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period are available for 

viewing by the public, including any 

personally identifiable or confidential 

business information that is included in 

a comment. We post all comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period on the following Web 

site as soon as possible after they have 

been received: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ 

eRulemaking. Click on the link 

‘‘Electronic Comments on CMS 

Regulations’’ on that Web site to view 

public comments. 

Comments received timely will also 

be available for public inspection as 

they are received, generally beginning 

approximately 3 weeks after publication 

of a document, at the headquarters of 

the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday 

through Friday of each week from 8:30 

a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an 

appointment to view public comments, 

phone 1–800–743–3951. 

I. Background 

A. Current Law 

States and the Federal Government 

share in the responsibility for 

safeguarding Medicaid program 

integrity. States must comply with 

Federal requirements designed to ensure 

that Medicaid funds are properly spent 

(or recovered, when necessary). The 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services (CMS) is the primary Federal 

agency responsible for providing 

oversight of States’ activities and 

facilitating their program integrity 

efforts. 

B. Medicaid Integrity Program 

Section 6034 of the Deficit Reduction 

Act (DRA) of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–171, 

enacted on February 8, 2006) 

established the Medicaid Integrity 

Program (the Program), within CMS to 

combat Medicaid fraud and abuse. For 

the first time, the Program authorizes 

the Federal government to directly 

identify, recover, and prevent 

inappropriate Medicaid payments. It 

would also support the efforts of the 

State Medicaid agencies through a 

combination of oversight and technical 

assistance. 

Although individual States work to 

ensure the integrity of their respective 

Medicaid programs, the Program 

represents our first comprehensive 

national strategy to detect and prevent 

Medicaid fraud and abuse. The Program 

would provide CMS with the ability to 

more directly ensure the accuracy of 

Medicaid payments and to deter those 

who would exploit the program. 

Section 6034 of the DRA amended 

title XIX of the Social Security Act (the 

Act), (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) by 

redesignating the old section 1936 as 

section 1937; and inserting the new 

section 1936 ‘‘Medicaid Integrity 

Program.’’

The new section 1936 of the Act states 

that the Secretary promote the integrity 

of the Medicaid program by entering 

into contracts with eligible entities to 

carry out the following activities: 

1. Review of the actions of individuals 

or entities furnishing items or services 

(whether on a fee-for-service, risk or 

other basis) for which payment may be 

made under a State plan approved 

under title XIX (or under any waiver of 

this plan approved under section 1115 

of the Act) to determine whether fraud, 

waste, and/or abuse has occurred, or is 

likely to occur, or whether these actions 

have any potential for resulting in an 

expenditure of funds under title XIX in 

a manner that is not intended under the 

provisions of title XIX. 

2. Audit of claims for payment for 

items or services furnished, or 

administrative services rendered, under 

a State plan under title XIX, including 

cost reports, consulting contracts; and 

risk contracts under section 1903(m) of 

title XIX. 

3. Identification of overpayments to 

individuals or entities receiving Federal 

funds under title XIX. 

4. Education of providers of services, 

managed care entities, beneficiaries, and 

other individuals with respect to 

payment integrity and quality of care. 

Section 6034 of the DRA also 

mandated that the Secretary will by 

regulation provide for the limitation of 

a contractor’s liability for actions taken 

to carry out a contract under the 

Medicaid Integrity Program. 

II. Provisions of the Proposed Rule 

[If you wish to comment on issues in 

this section, please include the caption 

‘‘Provisions of the Proposed Rule’’ at the 

beginning of your comments.] 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
39778 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 139 / Friday, July 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Limitations on Contractor Liability 

Contractors that perform activities 

under the Medicaid Integrity Program 

(the Program), would be reviewing 

activities of providers and others 

seeking Medicaid payment for providing 

services to Medicaid beneficiaries. In an 

effort to reduce or eliminate the Program 

contractor’s exposure to possible legal 

action from entities it reviews, section 

6034 of the DRA requires that we, by 

regulation, limit the Program 

contractor’s liability for actions taken in 

carrying out its contract. We must 

establish, to the extent we find 

appropriate, standards and other 

substantive and procedural provisions 

that are the same as, or comparable to, 

those contained in section 1157 of the 

Act. 

Section 1157 of the Act states that any 

organization having a contract with the 

Secretary, its employees, fiduciaries, 

and anyone who furnishes professional 

services to these organizations are 

protected from civil and criminal 

liability in performing their duties 

under the Act or their contract, 

provided these duties are performed 

with due care. 

Following the mandate of section 

6034 of the DRA, this proposed rule, in 

§ 455.1, Basis and scope, would add a 

new paragraph (c) stating that subpart C 

implements section 1936 of the Act. 

Section 1936 of the Act establishes the 

Medicaid Integrity Program under 

which the Secretary will promote the 

integrity of the program by entering into 

contracts with eligible entities to carry 

out the activities under subpart C. In 

addition, new subpart C, § 455.200(a), 

would specify the statutory basis of 

proposed new subpart C, which would 

implement section 1936 of the Act, 

which states that the Secretary will 

promote the integrity of the Medicaid 

program by entering into contracts with 

eligible entities to carry out the 

activities under subpart C. Section 

455.200(b) would provide the scope for 

the limitation on a contractor’s liability 

to carry out a contract under the 

Medicaid Integrity Program as proposed 

under new § 455.202. Section 455.202(a) 

would protect Program contractors from 

liability in the performance of their 

contracts provided they carry out their 

contractual duties with due care. 

In accordance with section 6034 of 

the DRA, we propose to employ the 

same standards for payment of legal 

expenses as are contained in section 

1157(d) of the Act. Therefore, 

§ 455.202(b) would provide that we 

would make payment to Program 

contractors, their members, employees, 

and anyone who provides legal counsel 

or services to them, for expenses 

incurred in the defense of any legal 

action related to the performance of the 

Program contract. We also propose that 

any and all payment(s) and the amount 

of each payment(s) if any, would be 

determined exclusively by us, and 

conditioned upon (1) the reasonableness 

of the expense(s); (2) the amount of 

government funds available for 

payment(s); and (3) whether the 

payment(s) is (are) allowable under the 

terms of the contract. 

In drafting § 455.202, we considered 

employing a standard for the limitation 

of liability other than the due care 

standard. We considered whether it 

would be appropriate to provide that a 

contractor would not be civilly liable by 

reason of the performance of any duty, 

function, or activity under its contract 

provided the contractor was not grossly 

negligent in that performance. However, 

section 6034 of the DRA requires that 

we employ the same or comparable 

standards and provisions as are 

contained in section 1157 of the Act. 

This approach is consistent with a 

similar approach taken in the Medicare 

Integrity Program (see 70 FR 35204), 

which has virtually identical statutory 

limitations on contractor liability 

language. Therefore, we do not believe 

that it would be appropriate to expand 

the scope of immunity to a standard of 

gross negligence, as it would not be a 

comparable standard to that set forth in 

section 1157(b) of the Act. 

III. Collection of Information 

Requirements 

This document does not impose 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Consequently, it need not be reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget under the authority of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

IV. Response to Comments 

Because of the large number of public 

comments we normally receive on 

Federal Register documents, we are not 

able to acknowledge or respond to them 

individually. We will consider all 

comments we receive by the date and 

time specified in the DATES section of 

this preamble, and, when we proceed 

with a subsequent document, we will 

respond to the comments in the 

preamble to that document. 

V. Regulatory Impact Statement 

[If you wish to comment on issues in 

this section, please include the caption 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Statement’’ at the 

beginning of your comments.] 

We have examined the impact of this 

rule as required by Executive Order 

12866 (September 1993, Regulatory 

Planning and Review), the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 

1980, Pub. L. 96–354), section 1102(b) of 

the Social Security Act, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4), and Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

if regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety effects, distributive impacts, 

and equity). A regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) must be prepared for 

major rules with economically 

significant effects ($100 million or more 

in any 1 year). This rule would not 

reach the economic threshold and thus 

is not considered a major rule. 

The RFA requires agencies to analyze 

options for regulatory relief of small 

businesses. For purposes of the RFA, 

small entities include small businesses, 

nonprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. Most 

hospitals and most other providers and 

suppliers are small entities, either by 

nonprofit status or by having revenues 

of $6 million to $29 million in any 1 

year. Individuals and States are not 

included in the definition of a small 

entity. We are not preparing an analysis 

for the RFA because we have 

determined that this rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act 

requires us to prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis if a rule may have a 

significant impact on the operations of 

a substantial number of small rural 

hospitals. This analysis must conform to 

the provisions of section 603 of the 

RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of 

the Act, we define a small rural hospital 

as a hospital that is located outside of 

a Core-Based Statistical Area and has 

fewer than 100 beds. We are not 

preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) 

of the Act because we have determined 

that this rule would not have a 

significant impact on the operations of 

a substantial number of small rural 

hospitals. 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also 

requires that agencies assess anticipated 

costs and benefits before issuing any 

rule whose mandates require spending 

in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 

dollars, updated annually for inflation. 

That threshold level is currently 

approximately $120 million. This rule 

would have no consequential effect on 

State, local, or tribal governments or on 

the private sector. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 139 / Friday, July 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 39779 

Executive Order 13132 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a 

proposed rule (and subsequent final 

rule) that imposes substantial direct 

requirement costs on State and local 

governments, preempts State law, or 

otherwise has Federalism implications. 

Since this regulation would not impose 

any costs on State or local governments, 

the requirements of E.O. 13132 are not 

applicable. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Executive Order 12866, this regulation 

was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

List of Subjects 42 CFR in Part 455 

Fraud, Grant programs—health, 

Health facilities, Health professions, 

Investigations, Medicaid, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services would amend 42 CFR 

chapter IV as set forth below: 

PART 455—PROGRAM INTEGRITY; 

MEDICAID 

1. The authority citation for part 455 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1302). 

2. In § 455.1, add new paragraph (c) 

to read as follows: 

§ 455.1 Basis and scope. 

* * * * * 

(c) Subpart C implements section 

1936 of the Act. It establishes the 

Medicaid Integrity Program under 

which the Secretary will promote the 

integrity of the program by entering into 

contracts with eligible entities to carry 

out the activities of subpart C. 

3. New subpart C, consisting of 

§ 455.200 and § 455.202, is added to part 

455 to read as follows: 

Subpart C—Medicaid Integrity Program 

Sec. 

455.200 Basis and scope. 

455.202 Limitation on contractor liability. 

Subpart C—Medicaid Integrity Program 

§ 455.200 Basis and scope. 

(a) Statutory basis. This subpart 

implements section 1936 of the Act that 

establishes the Medicaid Integrity 

Program under which the Secretary will 

promote the integrity of the program by 

entering into contracts with eligible 

entities to carry out the activities under 

this subpart C. 

(b) Scope. This subpart provides for 

the limitation on a contractor’s liability 

to carry out a contract under the 

Medicaid Integrity Program. 

§ 455.202 Limitation on contractor liability. 

(a) A program contractor, a person, or 

an entity employed by, or having a 

fiduciary relationship with, or who 

furnishes professional services to a 

program contractor will not be held to 

have violated any criminal law and will 

not be held liable in any civil action, 

under any law of the United States or of 

any State (or political subdivision 

thereof), by reason of the performance of 

any duty, function, or activity required 

or authorized under this subpart or 

under a valid contract entered into 

under this subpart, provided due care 

was exercised in that performance and 

the contractor has a contract with CMS 

under this subpart. 

(b) CMS pays a contractor, a person, 

or an entity described in paragraph (a) 

of this section, or anyone who furnishes 

legal counsel or services to a contractor 

or person, a sum equal to the reasonable 

amount of the expenses, as determined 

by CMS, incurred in connection with 

the defense of a suit, action, or 

proceeding, if the following conditions 

are met: 

(1) The suit, action, or proceeding was 

brought against the contractor, person or 

entity by a third party and relates to the 

contractor’s, person’s or entity’s 

performance of any duty, function, or 

activity under a contract entered into 

with CMS under this subpart. 

(2) The funds are available. 

(3) The expenses are otherwise 

allowable under the terms of the 

contract. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance 

Program) 

Dated: March 15, 2007. 

Leslie V. Norwalk, 

Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services. 

Approved: April 20, 2007. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–14115 Filed 7–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 600 

[Docket No. 070607179–7312–01] 

RIN 0648–AV66 

Fishing Capacity Reduction Program 

for the Longline Catcher Processor 

Subsector of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Non-Pollock 

Groundfish Fishery, Industry Fee 

System 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement an industry fee system for 

repaying a $35 million Federal loan 

financing a fishing capacity reduction 

program in the longline catcher 

processor subsector of the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) nonpollock groundfish fishery. This action’s 

intent is to implement a fee collection 

system to ensure repayment of the loan. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by August 20, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• E-mail: 0648–

AV66.FeeSystem@noaa.gov. Include in 

the subject line the following identifier: 

‘‘Longline catcher processor buyback fee 

system proposed rule.’’ E-mail 

comments, with or without attachments, 

are limited to 5 megabytes; 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov; 

• Mail to: Leo Erwin, Chief, Financial 

Services Division, NMFS–MB5, 1315 

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910; or 

• Fax to 301–713–1306. 

Comments involving the burden-hour 

estimates or other aspects of the 

collection-of-information requirements 

contained in this proposed rule should 

be submitted in writing to Leo Erwin, at 

the above address, and to David Rostker, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), by email at 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or by fax to 

202 395 7285. 

Copies of the Environmental 

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/ 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(EA/RIR/FRFA) prepared for the 

program may be obtained from Leo 

Erwin at the above address. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS