50194 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 993 

Marketing agreements, Plums, Prunes, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 993 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 993—DRIED PRUNES 

PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 993 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 993.347 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 993.347 Assessment rate. 

On and after August 1, 2008, an 

assessment rate of $0.30 per ton of 

salable dried prunes is established for 

California dried prunes. 

Dated: August 20, 2008. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–19695 Filed 8–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Part 40 

[Public Notice: 6328] 

RIN 1400–AC04 

Aliens Inadmissible Under the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, as 

Amended: Unlawful Voters 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule adopts as final the 

Department interim rule which 

amended the regulations concerning 

visa ineligibility for aliens who vote 

unlawfully. The amendment was 

necessary to comply with the provisions 

of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 26, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Penafrancia D. Salas, Legislation and 

Regulations Division, Visa Services, 

Department of State, Washington, DC 

20520–0106, (202) 663–2878. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

What is the Authority and Exception for 

this rule? 

On June 21, 2005, the Department 

published an interim rule [70 FR 35526] 

that implemented Section 201(b)(1) of 

Public Law 106–395, Child Citizenship 

Act of 2000 [February 27, 2001]. This 

Act amended Section 212(a)(10) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 

by adding an exception to the ground of 

inadmissibility, INA 212(a)(10)(D), for 

aliens who voted in violation of the U.S. 

law. Under INA 212(a)(10)(D), in 

general, an alien will continue to be 

inadmissible, and therefore, ineligible 

for a visa, if the alien has voted in 

violation of any Federal, State, or local 

constitutional provision, statute, 

ordinance, or regulation. Nevertheless, 

pursuant to the new exception, the alien 

shall not be considered to be 

inadmissible under any provision of this 

subsection based on such violation if 

each natural parent of the alien (or, in 

the case of an adopted alien, each 

adoptive parent of the alien) is or was 

a citizen (whether by birth or 

naturalization), the alien permanently 

resided in the United States prior to 

attaining the age of 16, and the alien 

reasonably believed at the time of such 

violation that he or she was a citizen. 

Were comments solicited in the 

Departments Interim rule? 

Yes, the Department solicited 

comments; however, no comments were 

received. 

The final rule is unchanged from the 

interim rule which amended the 

Departments regulations at 22 CFR 

40.104, published in the Federal 

Register on June 21, 2005 (70 FR 35526–

35527). The interim rule is hereby 

adopted as final. 

Dated: August 14, 2008. 

Janice L. Jacobs, 

Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E8–19755 Filed 8–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Part 630 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2007–0020] 

RIN 2125–AF23 

Advance Construction of Federal-Aid 

Projects 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA is revising its 

regulation for advance construction of 

Federal-aid projects by: (a) Removing 

the restriction that a State must obligate 

all of its allocated or apportioned funds, 

or demonstrate that it will use all 

obligation authority allocated to it for 

Federal-aid highways and highway 

safety construction, prior to the 

approval of advance construction 

projects; and (b) clarifying that advance 

construction procedures may be used 

for all categories of Federal-aid highway 

funds, and that any available Federalaid funds for which a project is eligible 

may be used when a project is converted 

to a Federal-aid project. These revisions 

make the regulation consistent with the 

advance construction statute, which was 

amended by a provision enacted in the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 25, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Dale Gray, Federal-aid Financial 

Management Division, (202) 366–0978, 

or Mr. Steven Rochlis, Office of the 

Chief Counsel, (202) 366–1395, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. 

to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

An electronic copy of the NPRM, the 

comments received and a copy of this 

document may be viewed at 

www.regulations.gov. A copy of this 

document may also be downloaded by 

accessing the Office of the Federal 

Register’s home page at: http:// 

www.archives.gov or the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/nara. 

Background 

Section 115 of title 23, United States 

Code, permits the Secretary to authorize 

States to advance the construction of 

Federal-aid highway projects without 

requiring that Federal funds be 

obligated at the time the FHWA 

approves a project. The State may 

proceed with an advance construction 

project using State funds as no present 

or future Federal funds are actually 

committed to the project. At any time 

the State may request that the project be 

converted to a Federal-aid project 

provided that sufficient Federal-aid 

funds and obligation authority are 

available. A State also may request a 

partial conversion where only a portion 

of the Federal share of project costs is 

obligated and reimbursed; and the 

remainder may be converted at a later 

time provided that funds and associated 

obligation authority are available. Only 

the amount converted to a Federal-aid 

project becomes an obligation of the 

Federal Government. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50195 

Section 1501 of SAFETEA–LU (Pub. 

L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144) amended 23 

U.S.C. 115 to remove a restriction that 

a State must obligate all of its allocated 

or apportioned funds, or demonstrate 

that it will use all obligation authority 

allocated to it for Federal-aid highways 

and highway safety construction, prior 

to the approval of advance construction 

projects. Section 1501 also amended the 

statute to clarify that advance 

construction procedures can be used for 

all categories of Federal-aid highway 

funds and that when a project is 

converted to a regular Federal-aid 

project, any available Federal-aid funds 

may be used to convert a project which 

is eligible for that funds class. The 

FHWA regulations concerning advance 

construction, which reflect the advance 

construction requirements prior to the 

enactment of SAFETEA–LU, are 

therefore no longer consistent with the 

statute. 

The FHWA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on March 

6, 2008, at 73 FR 12038. In the NPRM, 

the FHWA proposed to (a) remove the 

restriction that a State must obligate all 

of its allocated or apportioned funds, or 

demonstrate that it will use all 

obligation authority allocated to it for 

Federal-aid highways and highway 

safety construction, prior to the 

approval of advance construction 

projects; and (b) provide clarification 

that advance construction procedures 

may be used for all categories of 

Federal-aid highway funds, and that any 

available Federal-aid funds for which a 

project is eligible may be used when a 

project is converted to a Federal-aid 

project. 

Discussion of Comments 

We received comments from the West 

Virginia Department of Transportation 

and Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation (PennDOT) who 

supported the proposed revisions in the 

NPRM. Both respondents noted that the 

proposal would result in increased 

flexibility in the use of Federal-aid 

highway funds. Additionally, PennDOT 

mentioned increased cash flow 

possibilities, removal of the restrictions 

on the use of funds, clarification that 

advance construction may be used for 

all categories of Federal-aid highway 

funds, and the ability to convert projects 

using any available Federal-aid funds 

which a project may be eligible, as 

additional benefits resulting from the 

changes proposed in the NPRM. 

The docket did not receive any 

comments opposing the language in the 

NPRM. The FHWA is adopting the 

revisions as proposed in the NPRM as 

final. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

The FHWA has determined that this 

action is not a significant regulatory 

action within the meaning of Executive 

Order 12866 and would not be 

significant within the meaning of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. This 

final rule will not adversely affect, in a 

material way, any sector of the 

economy. This action would revise the 

regulation for advance construction of 

Federal-aid projects by removing the 

restriction that a State must obligate all 

of its allocated or apportioned funds, or 

demonstrate that it will use all 

obligation authority allocated to it for 

Federal-aid highways and highway 

safety construction, prior to the 

approval of advance construction 

projects. This action also clarifies that 

advance construction procedures may 

be used for all categories of Federal-aid 

highway funds, and that any available 

Federal-aid funds for which the project 

is eligible may be used when a project 

is converted to a Federal-aid project. 

There will not be any additional costs 

incurred by any affected group as a 

result of this final rule. In addition, 

these changes will not interfere with 

any action taken or planned by another 

agency and will not materially alter the 

budgetary impact of any entitlements, 

grants, user fees or loan programs. 

Consequently, a regulatory evaluation is 

not required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C. 

601–612), we have evaluated the effects 

of this final rule on small entities and 

have determined that the action would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The FHWA certifies that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, and the FHWA has determined 

that this action would not warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism assessment. 

The FHWA has determined that this 

action would not affect the States’

ability to discharge traditional State 

government functions. 

Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Program Number 20.205, 

Highway Planning and Construction. 

The regulations implementing Executive 

Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to 

this program. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501), Federal 

agencies must obtain approval from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. The FHWA 

has determined that this final rule does 

not contain collection of information 

requirements for the purposes of the 

PRA. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule would not impose unfunded 

mandates as defined by the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, 109 Stat. 48). This rule will not 

result in the expenditure by State, local 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $128.1 

million or more in any one year. (2 

U.S.C. 1532) 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This action 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. 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children) 

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. The FHWA certifies that this 

action would not cause any 

environmental risk to health or safety 

that may disproportionately affect 

children. 

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

The FHWA has analyzed this final 

rule under Executive Order 12630, 

Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate 

that this action would affect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50196 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347) and has 

determined that this action will not 

have any effect on the quality of the 

environment. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

under Executive Order 13175, dated 

November 6, 2000, and believes that the 

final rule would not have substantial 

direct effects on one or more Indian 

tribes; would not impose substantial 

compliance costs on Indian tribal 

governments; and will not preempt 

tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary 

impact statement is not required. 

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) 

We have analyzed this final 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. Therefore, a Statement of Energy 

Effects is not required. 

Regulation Identification Number 

A regulation identification number 

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 

section listed in the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory 

Information Service Center publishes 

the Unified Agenda in April and 

October of each year. The RIN contained 

in the heading of this document can be 

used to cross-reference this section with 

the Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 630 

Reimbursement, Grants programs—

transportation, Highways and roads. 

Issued on: August 15, 2008. 

James D. Ray, 

Acting Federal Highway Administrator. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

FHWA amends Chapter I of title 23, 

Code of Federal Regulations, by revising 

Part 630, as set forth below. 

PART 630—PRECONSTRUCTION 

PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 630 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 106, 109, 112, 115, 

315, 320, and 402(a); Sec. 1501 and 1503 of 

Public Law 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144; Public 

Law 105–178, 112 Stat. 193; Public Law 104–

59, 109 Stat. 582; Public Law 97–424, 96 Stat. 

2106; Public Law 90–495, 82 Stat. 828; Public 

Law 85–767, 72 Stat. 896; Public Law 84–

627, 70 Stat. 380; 23 CFR 1.32 and 49 CFR 

1.48(b). 

■ 2. Revise § 630.703 to read as follows: 

§ 630.703 Eligibility. 

(a) The State Department of 

Transportation (DOT) may proceed with 

a project authorized in accordance with 

title 23, United States Code: 

(1) Without the use of Federal funds; 

and 

(2) In accordance with all procedures 

and requirements applicable to the 

project other than those procedures and 

requirements that limit the State to 

implementation of a project—

(i) With the aid of Federal funds 

previously apportioned or allocated to 

the State; or 

(ii) With obligation authority 

previously allocated to the State. 

(b) The FHWA, on the request of a 

State and execution of a project 

agreement, may obligate all or a portion 

of the Federal share of a project 

authorized to proceed under this section 

from any category of funds for which 

the project is eligible. 

§ 630.709 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 630.709 by removing the 

term ‘‘SHA’’ in each place it appears, 

and add in its place the term ‘‘State 

Department of Transportation.’’

[FR Doc. E8–19636 Filed 8–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0823] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone: Rocket Launch, NASA 

Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), Wallops 

Island, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U. S. Coast Guard is 

establishing a security zone extending 

12 nautical miles offshore from the MidAtlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) 

Pad 0B launch complex for the launch 

of a large suborbital test rocket by the 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). The NASA 

rocket launch is scheduled to occur 

between 2 a.m. and 4 p.m. on August 

21, 2008, on Wallops Island, VA. If the 

launch is postponed because of 

inclement weather or technical 

difficulties, it will be attempted between 

2 a.m. and 4 p.m. on each subsequent 

day after August 21, 2008, until the 

launch takes place or until 4 p.m. 

August 30, 2008. After August 30, 2008, 

the rule will no longer be in effect. This 

action is necessary to ensure the safety 

of persons and property, and to prevent 

terrorist acts or incidents on U.S. 

navigable waters during the rocket 

launch. This rule prohibits vessels and 

people from entering the security zone 

and requires vessels and persons in the 

security zone to depart the security 

zone. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 2 a.m. 

on August 21, 2008, through 4 p.m. on 

August 30, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2008–

0823 and are available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov. They are 

also available for inspection or copying 

in two locations: the Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays; and the Sector 

Hampton Roads, Norfolk Federal 

Building, 200 Granby St., 7th Floor, 

Norfolk, VA 23510 between 9 a.m. and 

2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call LT Tiffany Duffy, Chief 

Waterways Management Division, 

Sector Hampton Roads at (757) 668–

5580. If you have questions on viewing 

the docket, call Renee V. Wright, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, 

telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule without prior 

notice and opportunity to comment 

pursuant to authority under section 4(a) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because any 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES