Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65483 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

Notice of Intent To Prepare a 

Supplemental Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for a Proposed Rule 

Limiting Discharges From Vessels in 

Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, 

and Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuaries 

AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary 

Program, National Ocean Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s (NOAA) National 

Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) is 

preparing a Supplemental Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(SDEIS) to supplement and/or replace 

information contained in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

for the Joint Management Plan Review, 

the management plan review for the 

Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, 

and Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuaries. The SDEIS will analyze 

revisions to the proposed action that 

would in effect prohibit the following 

discharges within the sanctuaries: All 

sewage from vessels 300 gross registered 

tons (GRT) or more with the capacity to 

hold sewage while within the sanctuary; 

and, in the Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary, all graywater from 

vessels 300 GRT or more with the 

capacity to hold graywater while within 

the sanctuary. 

DATES: Because the NMSP has 

previously requested (64 FR 31528 and 

71 FR 29096) and received extensive 

information from the public on issues to 

be addressed in the SDEIS, and because 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) do not require additional 

scoping for this SDEIS process (40 CFR 

1502.9(c)(4)), the NMSP is not asking for 

further public scoping information and 

comment at this time. Upon release of 

the SDEIS the NMSP will provide a 45- 

day public review/comment period. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the 2006 DEIS are 

available at NOAA offices located at 1 

Bear Valley Rd., Point Reyes Station, 

CA; West Crissy Field on the Presidio, 

991 Marine Drive, San Francisco, CA, 

299 Foam Street, Monterey, California, 

and on the Web at http:// 

sanctuaries.noaa.gov/jointplan/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Morton at (301) 713–7264 or 

sean.morton@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) has proposed 

draft revised management plans, revised 

designation documents, and revised 

regulations for the Cordell Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary (CBNMS), 

Gulf of the Farallones National Marine 

Sanctuary (GFNMS), and Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). 

The proposed regulations would revise 

and provide greater clarity to existing 

regulations. In particular, NOAA 

proposed changes to prohibitions 

regarding ‘‘discharge and deposit’’ in 

the MBNMS, and prohibiting 

discharging or depositing most matter 

from cruise ships. 

On May 11, 2007 NOAA received a 

request from the California State Water 

Resources Control Board to prohibit 

discharges from certain vessels in 

national marine sanctuaries offshore 

California. In addition, on August 10, 

2007, the California Coastal Commission 

voted to concur with the consistency 

finding the JMPR actions are consistent 

with the policies of the California 

Coastal Management Program, on the 

condition that NOAA revise the 

proposed discharge and deposit 

regulation to prohibit vessels of 300 

gross registered tons (GRT) or more from 

discharging sewage or graywater into 

the waters of the sanctuaries. After 

reviewing public comments on the 

proposed regulations, considering the 

California Coastal Commission’s federal 

consistency review (per the Coastal 

Zone Management Act; 16 U.S.C. 1451 

et seq.), and further analyzing vessel 

discharge issues, NOAA decided to 

revise the CBNMS, GFNMS, and 

MBNMS proposed discharge regulations 

to prohibit discharges of all sewage from 

vessels 300 gross registered tons (GRT) 

or more with the capacity to hold 

sewage while within the sanctuary; and 

in the MBNMS limit the exception for 

graywater discharges to vessels less than 

300 GRT and vessels 300 GRT or more 

without the capacity to hold graywater 

while within the MBNMS. The revised 

proposed regulations will include 

prohibitions satisfying the request from 

the State of California for the CBNMS, 

GFNMS, and MBNMS. 

The SDEIS, in conjunction with the 

concomitant supplemental proposed 

rule, will evaluate the revised proposed 

action and provide the public with an 

opportunity for additional review and 

comment. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. 

Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 

Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program. 

Dated: November 15, 2007. 

Elizabeth R. Scheffler, 

Associate Assistant Administrator for 

Management, Ocean Services and Coastal 

Zone Management. 

[FR Doc. E7–22710 Filed 11–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 150 

RIN 3038–AC140 

Revision of Federal Speculative 

Position Limits 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

periodically reviews the speculative 

position limits for certain agricultural 

commodities set out in Commission 

regulation 150.2 (‘‘Federal speculative 

position limits’’). In this regard, the 

Commission has reviewed the existing 

levels for Federal speculative position 

limits and is now proposing to increase 

these limits for all single-month and allmonths-combined positions in all 

commodities except oats, based on the 

formula set out in Commission 

Regulation 150.5(c). In addition, the 

Commission is also proposing to 

aggregate traders’ positions for purposes 

of ascertaining compliance with Federal 

speculative position limits when a 

designated contract market (‘‘DCM’’) 

lists for trading a futures contract that 

shares substantially identical terms with 

a Regulation 150.2-enumerated contract 

listed on another DCM, including a 

futures contract that is cash-settled 

based on the settlement prices for a 

futures contract that is already 

enumerated. The Commission is 

requesting comment on these rule 

amendments. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 21, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

submitted to David Stawick, Secretary, 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581. Comments also may be sent by 

facsimile to (202) 418–5521, or by 

electronic mail to secretary@cftc.gov. 

Reference should be made to ‘‘Proposed 

Revision of Federal Speculative Position 

Limits.’’ Comments may also be 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

65484 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1Regulation 150.2 imposes three types of position 

limits for each specified contract: A spot month 

limit, a single-month limit, and an all-monthscombined limit. The Commission most recently 

adopted amendments to levels for Federal 

speculative position limits in 2005 (see 70 FR 24705 

May 11, 2005). 

2Provisions regarding the establishment of 

exchange-set speculative position limits were 

originally set forth in CFTC regulation 1.61. In 

1999, the Commission simplified and reorganized 

its rules by relocating the substance of regulation 

1.61’s requirements to part 150 of the Commission’s 

rules, thereby incorporating within part 150 

provisions for both Federal speculative position 

limits and exchange-set speculative position limits 

(see 64 FR 24038, May 5, 1999). Section 4a(e) of the 

Act provides that a violation of a speculative 

position limit set by a Commission-approved 

exchange rule is also a violation of the Act. Thus, 

the Commission can enforce directly violations of 

exchange-set speculative position limits as well as 

those provided under Commission rules. 

submitted by connecting to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and following 

comment submission instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Heitman, Attorney, Division of Market 

Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581, telephone (202) 418–5041, 

facsimile number (202) 418–5507, 

electronic mail dheitman@cftc.gov; or 

Martin Murray, Economist, Division of 

Market Oversight, telephone (202) 418–

5276, facsimile number (202) 418–5507, 

electronic mail mmurray@cftc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Introduction 

The Commission has long established 

and enforced speculative position limits 

for futures contracts on various 

agricultural commodities. The 

Commission periodically reviews these 

Federal speculative position limits, 

which are set out in Commission 

regulation 150.2.1 In this regard, the 

Commission has reviewed the existing 

levels for Federal speculative position 

limits and is now proposing to increase 

these limits for all single-month and allmonths-combined positions in all 

commodity markets enumerated in 

Commission regulation 150.2, except 

Chicago Board of Trade (‘‘CBT’’) Oats, 

based on the formula set out in 

Commission Regulation 150.5(c). In 

particular, the Commission is proposing 

to increase levels for single-month and 

all-months-combined positions for CBT 

Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, Soybean Oil, 

and Soybean Meal; Minneapolis Grain 

Exchange (MGE) Hard Red Spring 

Wheat; Kansas City Board of Trade 

(KCBT) Hard Winter Wheat, and New 

York Board of Trade (NYBOT) Cotton 

No. 2. The spot month limits for all of 

these commodities would remain 

unchanged. In addition, the 

Commission is also proposing to 

aggregate traders’ positions for purposes 

of ascertaining compliance with Federal 

speculative position limits when a DCM 

lists for trading a futures contract that 

shares substantially identical terms with 

a Regulation 150.2-enumerated contract 

listed on another DCM, including a 

futures contract that is cash-settled 

based on the settlement prices for a 

futures contract that is already 

enumerated. 

B. Regulatory Framework 

Speculative position limits have been 

a tool for the regulation of the U.S. 

futures markets since the adoption of 

the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. 

Section 4a(a) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act (Act), 7 U.S.C. 6a(a), 

states that: 

Excessive speculation in any commodity 

under contracts of sale of such commodity 

for future delivery made on or subject to the 

rules of contract markets or derivatives 

transaction execution facilities causing 

sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or 

unwarranted changes in the price of such 

commodity, is an undue and unnecessary 

burden on interstate commerce in such 

commodity. 

Accordingly, section 4a(a) provides 

the Commission with the authority to: 

Fix such limits on the amounts of trading 

which may be done or positions which may 

be held by any person under contracts of sale 

of such commodity for future delivery on or 

subject to the rules of any contract market or 

derivatives transaction execution facility as 

the Commission finds are necessary to 

diminish, eliminate, or prevent such burden. 

This longstanding statutory 

framework providing for Federal 

speculative position limits was 

supplemented with the passage of the 

Futures Trading Act of 1982, which 

acknowledged the role of exchanges in 

setting their own speculative position 

limits. The 1982 legislation also 

provided, under section 4a(e) of the Act, 

that limits set by exchanges and 

approved by the Commission were 

subject to Commission enforcement. 

Finally, the Commodity Futures 

Modernization Act of 2000 (‘‘CFMA’’) 

established designation criteria and core 

principles with which a DCM must 

comply to receive and maintain 

designation. Among these, Core 

Principle 5 in section 5(d) of the Act 

states: 

Position Limitations or Accountability—To 

reduce the potential threat of market 

manipulation or congestion, especially 

during trading in the delivery month, the 

board of trade shall adopt position 

limitations or position accountability for 

speculators, where necessary and 

appropriate. 

As outlined above, the regulatory 

structure is administered under a twopronged framework. Under the first 

prong, the Commission establishes and 

enforces speculative position limits for 

futures contracts on a limited group of 

agricultural commodities. These Federal 

speculative position limits are 

enumerated in Commission regulation 

150.2, and apply to the following 

futures and option markets: CBT Corn, 

Oats, Soybeans, Wheat, Soybean Oil, 

and Soybean Meal; MGE Hard Red 

Spring Wheat; NYBOT Cotton No. 2; 

and KCBT Hard Winter Wheat. Under 

the second prong, individual DCMs 

establish and enforce their own 

speculative position limits or position 

accountability provisions, subject to 

Commission oversight and separate 

authority to enforce exchange-set 

speculative position limits approved by 

the Commission. Thus, responsibility 

for enforcement of speculative position 

limits is shared by the Commission and 

the DCMs.2

II. Commission Speculative Position 

Limit Levels 

The Commission is proposing several 

revisions to the Federal speculative 

position limit levels found in regulation 

150.2 based upon its experience in 

administering these limits and the open 

interest formula found in Commission 

Regulation 150.5. Under the proposed 

revisions, spot month limits would 

remain unchanged from the current 

levels, but every single-month and allmonths-combined position limit, except 

for CBT Oats, would be increased based 

upon open interest data for the most 

recent calendar year (2006). For allmonths-combined levels, the 

Commission proposes to amend the 

limits set forth in Regulation 150.2 to 

the maximum levels permitted under 

the open interest formula, and to adjust 

the single month limits to reflect the 

existing ratio of single month to allmonths-combined levels. With respect 

to the single month limits, a strict 

application of the open interest formula 

contained in regulation 150.5 would 

have resulted in somewhat lower single 

month limits for some commodities and 

higher limits for others than those 

proposed below. However, the 

Commission believes that maintaining 

the existing ratios between single-month 

and all-months-combined speculative 

position limit levels is of benefit to the 

marketplace, and thus the Commission 

is proposing to establish single-month 

limits that are consistent with that 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65485 

3The Commission used this more flexible 

approach when it last revised the Federal 

speculative position limits in 2005 (See 70 FR 

24705, May 11, 2005). 

4See 58 FR 17973 (April 7, 1993). 

5 Id. at 17979. 

6The Commission maintained parity between the 

CBT, MGE, and KCBT wheat contracts when it last 

revised the Federal speculative position limits in 

May, 2005. 

7 70 FR 24705, (May 11, 2005). 

approach.3 The open interest formula 

does not justify an increase in the CBT 

Oats single month or all-monthscombined limits, and the Commission 

does not propose any change in their 

levels at this time. 

In addition, with respect to the MGE 

and KCBT Wheat contracts, the 

Commission proposes to maintain parity 

with the levels proposed for CBT Wheat 

rather than establish different limits 

based on the open interest formula for 

each contract. The Commission first 

adopted this parity approach in an 

action to revise position limits in 1993.4

At that time the Commission concluded 

that the breadth and liquidity of the 

cash markets underlying the KCBT and 

MGE Wheat contracts justified setting 

these limits at parity with little risk of 

regulatory harm from such action.5 The 

Commission continues to believe that 

the breadth and liquidity of underlying 

cash markets, as well as continued 

growth in open interest, for the KCBT 

and MGE Wheat contracts support 

maintenance of these speculative 

position limit levels at parity with one 

another.6

Finally, the Commission is also 

proposing to aggregate traders’ positions 

for purposes of ascertaining compliance 

with Federal speculative position limits 

when a DCM lists for trading a futures 

contract that shares substantially 

identical terms with a Regulation 150.2- 

enumerated contract listed on another 

DCM, including a futures contract that 

is cash-settled based on the settlement 

prices for a futures contract that is 

already enumerated. In this regard, 

when the Commission last amended 

regulation 150.2, it clarified its practice 

of aggregating traders’ positions when a 

single DCM lists for trading two or more 

contracts with substantially identical 

terms based on the same underlying 

commodity characteristics, such as the 

CBT Corn and Mini-Corn futures 

contracts.7 At the time it adopted those 

clarifying amendments, the Commission 

noted, ‘‘that should a DCM list a 

contract that shared substantially 

identical terms with a Regulation 150.2- 

enumerated contract listed on another 

DCM, the Commission could consider at 

that time whether to amend regulation 

150.2 to likewise apply Federal limits to 

the newly-listed contract.’’ Since then, 

the New York Mercantile Exchange 

(NYMEX) has listed for trading a Cotton 

futures contract that is cash-settled 

based on the settlement price for the 

NYBOT Cotton No. 2 futures contract. 

The Commission believes that 

aggregation of traders’ positions in such 

circumstances is necessary to protect 

the integrity of the existing limits by 

removing the ability of a trader to flout 

the limits by taking a position in the 

non-encumbered market. 

Based on the criteria noted above, the 

Commission is proposing the following 

changes to the Federal speculative 

position limits (additions are 

underlined, and deletions are struck 

through). 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP21NO07.021</GPH>
65486 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

8 47 FR 18618 (April 30, 1982). 

III. Related Matters 

A. Cost Benefit Analysis 

Section 15(a) of the Act requires the 

Commission to consider the costs and 

benefits of its action before issuing a 

new regulation under the Act. By its 

terms, section 15(a) does not require the 

Commission to quantify the costs and 

benefits of a new regulation or to 

determine whether the benefits of the 

proposed regulation outweigh its costs. 

Rather, section 15(a) requires the 

Commission to ‘‘consider the costs and 

benefits’’ of the subject rule. 

Section 15(a) further specifies that the 

costs and benefits of the proposed rule 

shall be evaluated in light of five broad 

areas of market and public concern: (1) 

Protection of market participants and 

the public; (2) efficiency, 

competitiveness, and financial integrity 

of futures markets; (3) price discovery; 

(4) sound risk management practices; 

and (5) other public interest 

considerations. The Commission may, 

in its discretion, give greater weight to 

any one of the five enumerated areas of 

concern and may, in its discretion, 

determine that, notwithstanding its 

costs, a particular rule is necessary or 

appropriate to protect the public interest 

or to effectuate any of the provisions or 

to accomplish any of the purposes of the 

Act. 

The proposed rule amendments 

impose limited additional costs in terms 

of reporting requirements, particularly 

since entities trading in or holding large 

positions, which either approach or 

meet the speculative limits of the rules 

herein, already file large trader reports 

with the Commission. Moreover, the 

amendments proposed herein would 

increase Federal speculative position 

limits for some commodities and, to that 

extent, reduce the compliance costs 

associated with these speculative 

position limits. The countervailing 

benefits to any additional costs are that 

the continued inclusion of appropriate 

speculative limits will help to ensure 

the maintenance of competitive and 

efficient markets, protect the price 

discovery and risk shifting functions of 

those markets, and protect market 

participants and the public interest. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires federal 

agencies, in proposing rules, to consider 

the impact of those rules on small 

businesses. The Commission believes 

that the proposed rule amendments to 

raise Commission speculative position 

limits would only impact large traders. 

The Commission has previously 

determined that large traders are not 

small entities for purposes of the RFA.8

Therefore, the Acting Chairman, on 

behalf of the Commission, hereby 

certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 

that the action taken herein will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The Commission also notes in this 

regard that the proposed rules will raise 

speculative limit levels and thereby 

reduce the regulatory burden on all 

affected entities. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

When publishing proposed rules, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3507(d)) imposes certain 

requirements on federal agencies 

(including the Commission) in 

connection with their conducting or 

sponsoring any collection of 

information as defined by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. In 

compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, the Commission, 

through this rule proposal, solicits 

public comment to: (1) Evaluate 

whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (2) 

evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (3) enhance the 

quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 

respond through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology, e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses. 

The Commission has submitted the 

proposed rule and its associated 

information collection requirements to 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

The proposed rule is part of two 

approved information collections. The 

burdens associated with these rules are 

as follows: 

Collection Number 

[3038–0009] 

Average burden hours per response: 3. 

Number of respondents: 2946. 

Frequency of response: On occasion. 

Collection Number 

[3038–0013] 

Average burden hours per response: 3. 

Number of respondents: 9. 

Frequency of response: On occasion. 

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 150 

Agricultural commodities, Bona fide 

hedge positions, Position limits, Spread 

exemptions. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

the Commodity Exchange Act, the 

Commission hereby proposes to amend 

part 150 of chapter I of title 17 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 150—LIMITS ON POSITIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 150 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6a, 6c, and 12a(5), as 

amended by the Commodity Futures 

Modernization Act of 2000, Appendix E of 

Pub. L. 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000). 

2. Section 150.2 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 150.2 Position limits. 

No person may hold or control 

positions, separately or in combination, 

net long or net short, for the purchase 

or sale of a commodity for future 

delivery or, on a futures-equivalent 

basis, options thereon, in excess of the 

following: 

SPECULATIVE POSITION LIMITS 1

[In contract units] 

Contract Spot month Single 

month All months 

Chicago Board of Trade 

Corn and Mini-Corn 2 ............................................................................................................................... 600 26,000 42,400 

Oats ......................................................................................................................................................... 600 1,400 2,000 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65487 

SPECULATIVE POSITION LIMITS 1—Continued 

[In contract units] 

Contract Spot month Single 

month All months 

Soybeans and Mini-Soybeans 2 ............................................................................................................... 600 8,600 13,300

Wheat and Mini-Wheat 2 .......................................................................................................................... 600 11,100 14,500 

Soybean Oil ............................................................................................................................................. 540 6,600 8,600 

Soybean Meal .......................................................................................................................................... 720 5,500 7,100 

Minneapolis Grain Exchange 

Hard Red Spring Wheat .......................................................................................................................... 600 11,100 14,500 

New York Board of Trade 

Cotton No. 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 300 5,300 7,300 

Kansas City Board of Trade 

Hard Winter Wheat .................................................................................................................................. 600 11,100 14,500 

1For purposes of compliance with these limits, positions in a futures contract that shares substantially identical terms with a contract market 

enumerated herein, including a futures contract that is cash-settled based on the settlement price of an enumerated contract market, shall be aggregated with positions in the enumerated contract market. 2For purposes of compliance with these limits, positions in the regular-sized and mini-sized contracts shall be aggregated. 

Issued by the Commission this November 

15, 2007, in Washington, DC. 

David Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–22681 Filed 11–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection 

19 CFR Part 4 

[USCBP–2007–0098] 

Hawaiian Coastwise Cruises 

AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection; 

Department of Homeland Security. 

ACTION: Proposed interpretation; 

solicitation of comments. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes new 

criteria to be used by Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to determine 

whether non-coastwise-qualified vessels 

are in violation of the Passenger Vessel 

Services Act (PVSA) when engaging in 

cruise itineraries in which passengers 

board at a U.S. port, the vessel calls at 

several Hawaiian ports, and then the 

vessel proceeds to a foreign port or ports 

for a brief period, before ultimately 

returning to the original U.S. port of 

embarkation where the passengers 

disembark to complete their cruise. CBP 

believes these itineraries are contrary to 

the PVSA because it appears that the 

primary objective of the foreign stop is 

evasion of the PVSA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 21, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glen 

E. Vereb, Cargo Security, Carriers & 

Immigration Branch, Office of 

International Trade, (202) 572–8730. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Border Security Regulations 

Branch, Office of International Trade, 

Customs and Border Protection, 1300 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., (Mint 

Annex), Washington, DC 20229 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in this proposed 

interpretation by submitting written 

data, views, or arguments on all aspects 

of the proposed interpretation. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) also invites 

comments that relate to the economic, 

environmental, or federalism effects that 

might result from this proposed 

interpretation. Comments that will 

provide the most assistance to CBP in 

developing these procedures will 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposed interpretation, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include data, information, or 

authority that support such 

recommended change. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this proposed 

interpretation. All comments received 

will be posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submitted 

comments may also be inspected on 

regular business days between the hours 

of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Office of 

International Trade, Customs and 

Border Protection, 799 9th Street, NW., 

5th Floor, Washington, DC. 

Arrangements to inspect submitted 

documents should be made in advance 

by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 572–

8768. 

II. Background 

The maritime cabotage law governing 

the transportation of passengers was 

first established by section 8 of the 

Passenger Vessel Services Act of June 

19, 1886 (the ‘‘PVSA’’), 24 Stat. 81; as 

amended by section 2 of the Act of 

February 17, 1898, 30 Stat. 248, 

formerly codified at 46 U.S.C. App. 289 

(now codified at 46 U.S.C. 55103). That 

statute provided that no foreign vessel 

shall transport passengers between ports 

or places in the United States, either 

directly or by way of a foreign port, 

under a penalty of $200 (now $300, as 

promulgated in T.D. 03–11 pursuant to 

the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 

note) for each passenger so transported 

and landed. 

The intent of the maritime cabotage 

laws, including the PVSA, was to 

provide a ‘‘legal structure that 

guarantees a coastwise monopoly to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS