        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Maritime Administration
        46 CFR Part 221
        [Docket No. MARAD-2002-12842]
        General Approval of Time Charters

          AGENCY:
          Maritime Administration, DOT.

          ACTION:
          Policy review with request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          Section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1916 requires prior approval of the Secretary of Transportation of U.S. vessel charters to persons who are not U.S. citizens. In 1992, the Maritime Administration (MARAD, we, us, or our), which is charged with responsibility for administering section 9, issued regulations that granted general prior approval of time charters and other forms of temporary use agreements to persons who are not U.S. citizens.
          Pursuant to this notice, we are requesting public comment on whether the policy of granting general approval of time charters should be changed.

          DATES:
          Interested parties are requested to submit comments on or before September 3, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2002-12842. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Edmund T. Sommer, Jr., Chief, Division of General and International Law, Office of the Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, Room 7228, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-5181.

          Comments regarding this policy review should refer to the docket number that appears at the top of this document. Written comments may be submitted to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be submitted by electronic means via the Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. All comments received will be available for examination at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1916, 46 App U.S.C. 808, requires the approval of the Secretary of Transportation (MARAD) for, inter alia, the charter to noncitizens of documented vessels owned by citizens of the United States.
        In 1989, as a result in substantial changes in the Ship Mortgage Act and amendments to section 9, MARAD began a rulemaking to amend our regulations at 46 CFR part 221—Regulated Transactions Involving Documented Vessels and other Maritime Interests.
        In view of the significant changes in the statutory provisions to which the regulations in part 221 are addressed, the interim final rule published February 2, 1989, (54 FR 5382, amended at 54 FR 8195), adopted a conservative approach to interpretation and application of the new law, pending the opportunity to obtain comments from all interested parties. It therefore continued the preexisting requirement that time charters of vessels to noncitizens for 6 months or longer be submitted for review and approval.
        After evaluation of the comments received on the first interim final rule, a number of amendments and clarifications of the rule appeared to be warranted. Mindful of Congress' admonition that MARAD should “temper the consideration of a transfer in interest or control to a [noncitizen] with a concern that the vessel may be needed in time of war or national emergency”, and in an attempt to balance this national security role with the desire of many that MARAD completely relinquish its regulatory role in these transactions, we proposed in an April 13, 1990, NPRM a regulation that would significantly relax regulation of the financing and transfer of documented vessels. One proposed change was that general approval for all charters (other than demise charters for operation in the coastwise trade) to noncitizens be granted for periods of up to five years, and that certain limited charters, such as space charters, slot charters, drilling contracts, and contracts of affreightment (except where a named vessel is dedicated to the contract), be granted general approval, regardless of their duration. Information copies of all charters granted general approval would have to be filed with MARAD.

        In the April 13, 1990 NPRM (55 FR 14040), the views of interested parties were specifically invited with regard to further liberalization of the section which granted general approvals. One possibility on which we asked for comment was general approval for transactions involving transfers of an interest in or control of citizen-owned documented vessels to persons who are noncitizens for purposes of section 2, but who, nevertheless, are eligible to document a vessel pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12102 (documentation citizens). Another possibility was general approval for transactions under section 9(c)(1) so as to place U.S. citizens on an exact par with documentation citizens, which need not apply for such approvals (section 9(c)(1) applies only to documented vessels owned by citizens of the United States, a section 2 test). In all events, we noted, bareboat/demise charters to non-section 2 citizens of vessels operating in coastwise trade would be excepted.
        While there were many specific comments on certain issues, commenters generally agreed that MARAD should provide general approval for all transfers short of a change of registry. Their position was that MARAD should recognize the distinction between the two basic classes of section 9 transfer: (1) Those involving transfer of flag for operation (whether or not involving sale to new owners), and (2) other section 9 transactions in which the vessel remains under U.S. flag. In respect to national security, commenters suggested, the two classes present risks very different in kind and degree. In the one, there may be not only a foreign owner and a foreign crew, but a new sovereign whose national interests would have to be respected. As stated by one commenter, “[i]f the ship is certifiably of present or foreseeable importance for national defense, the case for refusing approval is evidently strong.” In the other class of transfers, even in the case of a sale, the owner will remain an American corporation subject to American law (including requisition authority in time of emergency), the vessel will and must remain documented under U.S. flag, and the officers and crew will still consist of American citizens. In this case, as was pointed out, national security interests are fully preserved regardless of the form or substance of the transaction. The commenter stated that “[t]his analysis suggests an order of supervision different for each of these classes (of transfer).”
        Upon reexamination of the legislative history of Public Law 100-710 and analysis of the many comments received on this issue, we accepted the argument for different “order(s) of supervision” for the two distinct classes of transfer as not inconsistent with that legislative history or with MARAD's national security responsibilities under section 9. Accordingly, in a second interim final rule published July 3, 1991 (56 FR 30654), we provided general approval for all section 9 transactions other than transfer of registry except certain transfers to “Bowaters” corporations, sales for scrapping in a foreign country and bareboat charters of vessels operating in the coastwise trade. Consistent with MARAD's national security role, however, that general section 9 approval was not applicable during any period of national emergency nor would it apply to transactions involving certain named countries with whom trade is prohibited. The requirement that information copies of all charters be filed was eliminated, in favor of an “as requested” filing requirement.

        With the endorsement of many and the objection of none (save those who favored further liberalization), the final rule, published June 3, 1992 (57 FR 23470), incorporated the above changes. Part 221 as now written grants general approval for the sale, mortgage, lease, charter, etc. (but not transfer of registry) of citizen-owned vessels to noncitizens, so long as the country is not at war, there is no Presidential declaration of national emergency invoking Section 37 of the Shipping Act and the noncitizen is not subject to the control of a country with whom trade is prohibited.
        Reinstatement of a requirement for MARAD review and written approval of time charters to noncitizens of documented vessels would require a rulemaking proceeding to amend 46 CFR part 221.
        Commenters are requested to specifically address the question of what, if any, economic impact a return to case by case review prior to approval of time charters would cause?

          Dated: July 30, 2002.

          By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
          Joel C. Richard,
           Secretary, Maritime Administration.

      [FR Doc. 02-19593 Filed 8-1-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-81-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 79
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0071; FRL-8557-7]
        RIN 2060-AN94
        Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Revised Definition of Substantially Similar Rule for Alaska

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed interpretive rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to revise an interpretive rule defining the term “substantially similar” for unleaded gasoline as that phrase is used in section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act (the Act). To meet the current definition, fuel or fuel additives must possess, at the time of manufacture, all of the physical and chemical characteristics of an unleaded gasoline as specified in ASTM Standard D 4814-88 for at least one of the Seasonal and Geographical Volatility Classes specified in the standard. EPA proposes to amend the definition to allow some additional flexibility for the vapor/liquid ratio specification for fuel introduced into commerce in the state of Alaska. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, we are amending the “substantially similar” definition as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by May 27, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0071, by mail to Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jaimee Dong, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9672; fax number: (202) 343-2800; e-mail address: Dong.Jaimee@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule?

        This document proposes to revise the “substantially similar” interpretive rule. EPA is not statutorily obligated to conduct notice and comment rulemaking when amending this interpretive rule. See APA section 553(b)(A); CAA section 307(d). However, as it has done when previously amending this rule, EPA desires to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on this amendment. We have published a direct final rule amending the “substantially similar” interpretive rule in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule.
        If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

        We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
        II. General Information
        A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

        Entities potentially affected by this action include those involved with the production or importation of unleaded gasoline for use in Alaska. Categories and entities affected by this action include:

            Category
            NAICS codes a

            SIC codes b

            Examples of potentially regulated entities

            Industry
            324110
            2911
            Petroleum Refiners.

            Industry
            422710
            5171
            Gasoline Marketers and Distributors.

            422720
            5172

            Industry
            484220
            4212
            Gasoline Carriers.

            484230
            4213

            a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

            b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

        This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action; however, other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your entity is affected by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria of Parts 79 and 80 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have any question regarding applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

        • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
        • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
        • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
        • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
        • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
        • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
        • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
        3. Docket Copying Costs. You may be charged a reasonable fee for photocopying docket materials, as provided by 40 CFR Part 2.
        III. Statutory Background
        Section 211(f)(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for any manufacturer of a fuel or fuel additive to first introduce into commerce, or to increase the concentration in use of, any fuel or fuel additive for use in motor vehicles manufactured after model year 1974 which is not substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any model year 1975, or subsequent model year, vehicle or engine under section 206 of the Act. An EPA interpretive rule, published at 46 FR 38582 (July 28, 1981) and amended at 56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991), defines the term “substantially similar” for unleaded gasoline. Under this definition, unleaded gasoline that meets several conditions, including complying with the physical and chemical specifications of ASTM Standard D 4814-88 for at least one of the Seasonal and Geographical Volatility classes specified in the standard, is considered substantially similar. Further conditions are described in the interpretive rule and its amendment.
        IV. Need for Action
        Discussions with an Alaskan refiner have highlighted the need for an amendment to the definition of “substantially similar” for unleaded gasoline. Currently, manufacturers of gasoline for Alaska may not use a temperature below 41 degrees Celsius when testing the vapor-liquid (V/L) ratio of the fuel and still be within the current definition of “substantially similar.” This amendment would allow manufacturers producing unleaded gasoline for use only in Alaska during the winter months to use a minimum test temperature of 35 degrees Celsius when testing for a maximum V/L ratio of 20 instead of requiring a V/L test temperature of 41 degrees Celsius.
        ASTM D 2533 is a test method that covers a procedure for measuring the volume of vapor formed at atmospheric pressure from a given volume of gasoline. The ratio of these volumes is expressed as the V/L ratio of the gasoline at the temperature of the test. The tendency of a fuel to vaporize in common automobile fuel systems is indicated by the V/L ratio of that fuel at conditions approximating those in critical parts of the fuel system. Allowing a lower test temperature means that the vapor fraction of the fuel may be higher.
        The extreme cold of Alaska during the winter months increases the risk that engines using typical gasoline blends will suffer from difficulty in cold starting. A higher vapor fraction improves mixing of the fuel with air, which in turn improves cold starting. Because the automotive fuel system is closed, the lower test temperature of 35 degrees Celsius compared to 41 degrees Celsius in the winter months is unlikely to significantly increase evaporative emissions. In addition, Alaska presently does not possess ozone non-attainment areas, most likely due to the cold temperatures observed in Alaska. Therefore, in the Agency's judgment, the impact on emissions would not be significant and this increased flexibility will allow refiners to provide a fuel more suitable to the climatic conditions of Alaska.
        EPA invites comment from all interested parties on this proposed interpretive rule revision.
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        See Section V in the direct final rule amending the “substantially similar” interpretive rule in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register for a discussion of the applicable statutes and executive orders.

          Dated: April 17, 2008.
          Stephen L. Johnson,
          Administrator.

        For the reasons set forth above, EPA proposes to amend the definition of substantially similar as follows:
        Definition—Substantially Similar
        EPA will treat a fuel or fuel additive for general use in light-duty vehicles manufactured after model year 1974 as substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any model year 1975, or subsequent model year vehicle or engine, under section 206 of the Act, i.e., “substantially similar,” if the following criteria are met.
        (1) The fuel must contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur, exclusively,1
           in the form of some combination of the following:

            1 Impurities which produce gaseous combustion products (i.e., products which exist as a gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure) may be present in the fuel at trace levels. An impurity is that substance which is present through contamination, or remains naturally, after processing of the fuel is completed.

        (a) Hydrocarbons;
        (b) Aliphatic ethers;
        (c) Aliphatic alcohols other than methanol;
        (d) (i) Up to 0.3 percent methanol by volume;
        (ii) Up to 2.75 percent methanol by volume with an equal volume of butanol, or higher molecular weight alcohol;
        (e) A fuel additive 2
           at a concentration of no more than 0.25 percent by weight which contributes no more than 15 ppm sulfur by weight to the fuel.

            2 For the purposes of this interpretive rule, the term “fuel additive” refers only to that part of the additive package which is not hydrocarbon.

        (2) The fuel must contain no more than 2.0 percent oxygen by weight, except fuels containing aliphatic ethers and/or alcohols (excluding methanol) must contain no more than 2.7 percent oxygen by weight.
        (3) The fuel must possess, at the time of manufacture, all of the physical and chemical characteristics of an unleaded gasoline as specified in ASTM Standard D 4814-88 for at least one of the Seasonal and Geographical Volatility Classes specified in the standard, with the exception of fuel introduced into commerce in the state of Alaska. For fuel introduced into commerce in the state of Alaska, all of the requirements of this section (3) apply, with the exception of the test temperature for a maximum Vapor/Liquid Ratio (V/L) of 20, which shall be a minimum of 35°C (95°F) for the period from September 16 through May 31.
        (4) The fuel additive must contain only carbon, hydrogen, and any one or all of the following elements: Oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur.3

            3 Impurities which produce gaseous combustion products may be present in the fuel additive at trace levels.

       [FR Doc. E8-8945 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AI48

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arizona Distinct Population Segment of the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period for the proposal to designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for the Arizona distinct population segment of the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum), and for the draft economic analysis for the proposed designation. Additional information from the administrative record concerning the locations of pygmy-owls recently has become available to the public, and therefore we are reopening the comment period for the proposal and for the draft economic analysis to allow all interested parties additional time to review the available information and provide comments. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, because they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this reopening of the comment period, and will be fully considered in the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept comments on both the proposed critical habitat designation and the draft economic analysis until June 27, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send comments and information concerning the proposed critical habitat designation and draft economic analysis to the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. You also may send written comments by facsimile to 602/242-2513. For instructions on submitting comments by electronic mail (e-mail), see Public Comments Solicited in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

          Information from the administrative record, including the information that recently has become available to the public concerning the location of pygmy-owls, as well as comments and materials received, are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. You may also write the Field Supervisor at the address above, or call 602/242-0210 to request that a copy of material be mailed to you or made available for you to pick up at the address above. You may also obtain a copy of the draft economic analysis on the Internet at http://arizonaes.fws.gov/cactus.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor (see
            ADDRESSES), at telephone 602/242-0210; or by facsimile at 602/242-2513.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Our proposal to designate critical habitat for the Arizona distinct population segment of the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum) (pygmy-owl) was published on November 27, 2002 (67 FR 71032). In the November proposal we also announced the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of critical habitat. The public comment period on the proposal and the draft economic analysis was scheduled to close on February 25, 2003. On that date, we published a notice in the Federal Register (68 FR 8730) extending the public comment period until April 25, 2003. The extension was based on a February 3, 2003, order from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona to allow the Plaintiffs and Intervenors in National Home Builders Association v. Norton, Civ. No. 000903-PHX-SRB (D.Az.), 60 additional days to review and comment on materials used by us to develop our critical habitat determination for the pygmy-owl.

        Recently, additional information from the administrative record concerning the locations of pygmy-owls has become available to the public, in part as a result of a court ruling in National Association of Home Builders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In order to provide all interested parties adequate time to review and comment on the recently available information and other materials used by the Service to develop the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the pygmy-owl, we are reopening the comment period on the proposal and the draft economic analysis for an additional 60 days.
        Public Comments Solicited
        We are reopening the comment period in order to accept the best and most current scientific and commercial data available regarding the proposed critical habitat designation for the pygmy-owl and the draft economic analysis of the proposal. The Public Comments Solicited section of the preamble to our proposed rule (67 FR 71032) includes a list of topics for which we are particularly seeking comments. Previously submitted comments need not be resubmitted. You may submit written comments by any of several methods:

        You may mail or hand-deliver written comments to the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Office (see
          ADDRESSES section). Hand deliveries must be made during normal business hours.
        You may send comments by e-mail to cfpo_habitat@fws.gov. If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include a return address in your e-mail message.
        You may send written comments by facsimile to 602/242-2513.

        Prior to making a final determination on this proposed rule, we will take into consideration all relevant comments and additional information received during the comment period. You may inspect comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used by us in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, by appointment during normal business hours at our office listed in the ADDRESSES section.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: April 21, 2003.
          Paul Hoffman,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 03-10531 Filed 4-24-03; 12:48 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P