Notices. Notice of proposed rulemaking

16,312 words·~74 min read·/register/2007/04/09/07-1728

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05-07-010] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Patapsco River, Northwest and Inner Harbors, Baltimore, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent safety zone upon certain waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor, and Inner Harbor during the movement of the historic sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION, annually, on the Friday following Labor Day.

This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the tow of the vessel from its berth at the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, Maryland, to a point on the Patapsco River near the Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine in Baltimore, Maryland, and return. This action will restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor, and Inner Harbor during the event. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 8, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland, 21226-1791. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Commander, U.

S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland, 21226-1791 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at

(410)576-2674 or

(410)576-2693. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-07-010), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose Each year, the USS CONSTELLATION Museum conducts a “turn-around” ceremony involving the sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION in Baltimore, Maryland on the Friday following Labor Day. The annual turning of the USS CONSTELLATION aids in the maintenance of the historic ship by ensuring even weathering of her hull. Planned events include a three-hour, round-trip tow of the CONSTELLATION in the Port of Baltimore, with an onboard salute with navy pattern cannon while the historic vessel is positioned off Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Site. The historic sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION will be towed “dead ship,” which means that the vessel will be underway without the benefit of mechanical or sail propulsion. The return dead ship tow of the CONSTELLATION to its berth in the Inner Harbor is expected to occur immediately upon execution of a tug-assisted turn-around of the CONSTELLATION on the Patapsco River near Fort McHenry. The Coast Guard anticipates a large recreational boating fleet during this event. Operators should expect significant vessel congestion along the planned route. The purpose of this rule is to promote maritime safety and protect participants and the boating public in the Port of Baltimore immediately prior to, during, and after the scheduled event. The rule will provide for a clear transit route for the participating vessels, and provide a safety buffer around the participating vessels while they are in transit. The rule will impact the movement of all vessels operating upon certain waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor and Inner Harbor. Discussion of Proposed Rule The historic sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION is towed “dead ship” annually on the Friday following Labor Day, from its berth at Pier 1 in Baltimore's Inner Harbor to a point on the Patapsco River near Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, Baltimore, Maryland. The voyage takes place along a planned route of approximately four nautical miles one-way, which includes waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor and Inner Harbor. After being turned-around, the USS CONSTELLATION is returned to its original berth at Pier 1, Inner Harbor, Baltimore, Maryland. The safety of dead ship tow participants requires that persons and vessels be kept at a safe distance from the intended route during this evolution. The Coast Guard proposes to establish a moving safety zone around the USS CONSTELLATION dead ship tow participants annually, between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m., local time, on the Friday following Labor Day, to ensure the safety of participants and spectators immediately prior to, during, and following the dead ship tow. Interference with normal port operations will be kept to the minimum considered necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and after the scheduled event. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to operate, remain or anchor within certain waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor and Inner Harbor, in Baltimore, Maryland, from 2 p.m. through 7 p.m., local time, annually on the Friday following Labor Day. Because the zone is of limited size and duration, it is expected that there will be minimal disruption to the maritime community. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river and harbors to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the affected areas. In addition, smaller vessels not constrained by their draft, which are more likely to be small entities, may transit around the safety zone. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule 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. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because the rule establishes a safety zone. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.512 to read as follows: § 165.512 Safety Zone; Patapsco River, Northwest and Inner Harbors, Baltimore, MD.

(a)*Definitions.* For the purposes of this section:

(1)*Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland* means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland to act on his or her behalf.

(2)*USS CONSTELLATION “turn-around” participants* means the USS CONSTELLATION, its support craft and the accompanying towing vessels.

(b)*Location.* The following area is a moving safety zone: all waters, from surface to bottom, within 200 yards ahead of or 100 yards outboard or aft of the historic sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION, while operating in the Inner Harbor, the Northwest Harbor or the Patapsco River.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)The general regulations governing safety zones, found in § 165.23, apply to the safety zone described in paragraph

(b)of this section.

(2)With the exception of USS CONSTELLATION “turn-around” participants, entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.

(3)Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the moving safety zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland can be contacted at telephone number

(410)576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF Channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, persons or vessels shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons or vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland, and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone.

(d)*Enforcement.* The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State and local agencies.

(e)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 2 p.m. through 7 p.m., local time, annually on the Friday following Labor Day. Dated: March 22, 2007. Jonathan C. Burton, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. [FR Doc. E7-6537 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0772; FRL-8296-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Minnesota AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Minnesota State Implementation Plan

(SIP)for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). Specifically, the revisions involve Flint Hills Resources, L.P. (Flint Hills) of Dakota County, Minnesota. In these revisions, Flint Hills is expanding operations at its petroleum refinery. To account for the increased SO 2 emissions from the expansion, Flint Hills is closing its sulfuric acid plant. An analysis of the revisions shows that the area air quality will be protected. Minnesota has also included additional monitoring requirements in the revisions. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0772, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *mooney.john@epa.gov.* • Fax: (312)886-5824. • Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0772. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6524, *rau.matthew@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. What Is EPA Proposing? III. What Is the Background for This Action? IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission? V. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action? VI. What Action Is EPA Taking? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? When submitting comments, remember to: 1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). 2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Is EPA Proposing? EPA is proposing approval of revisions to SO 2 emission limits at the Flint Hills facility. Minnesota submitted its Findings and Order Amendment Eight on July 24, 2006. Flint Hills is expanding operations at its petroleum refinery. This expansion includes adding a new heater, emissions unit 25H-4. Modifications to two heaters, 25H-1 and 25H-3, are also allowed. Potential SO 2 emissions from the new heater and the two modified heaters are restricted by the 878 tons per year facility-wide limit on fuel gas combustion units. Minnesota is also requiring Flint Hills to install a continuous monitor on either the fuel gas from the 45 mix drum or the heater firing that fuel gas. The monitor will measure reduced sulfur in the fuel gas or SO 2 emissions exhausting from the heater. III. What Is the Background for This Action? Flint Hills operates a petroleum refinery in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area. Flint Hills is expanding its crude oil processing operations. The expansion will increase the crude oil unit's gasoline production capacity from 100,000 to 150,000 barrels per day. Minnesota amended its Findings and Order to allow the revisions necessary for the expansion. This is the eighth amendment to the Flint Hills Findings and Order. Minnesota held a public hearing regarding Findings and Order Amendment Eight on May 25, 2006. No comments on the Flint Hills revisions were received at the public meeting or during the 30-day public comment period. IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission? Minnesota included air dispersion modeling results in its submission. The modeling analysis includes all Flint Hills SO 2 emissions sources, including the additional and modified sources. Other significant SO 2 sources in the area were also included. The modeling analysis examined the impact of the revisions on the SO 2 air quality standards. The primary SO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) has both an annual and 24-hour averaging period. The secondary NAAQS has a 3-hour averaging period. Flint Hills used the ISCST3 dispersion model in the regulatory mode. Five years of surface meteorological data from the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport and upper air data from Saint Cloud were used. Building downwash effects from the new and existing structures were accounted for in the modeling. The analysis found that the predicted annual SO 2 concentration is 38.5 μg/m 3 compared to the standard of 80 μg/m 3 . The modeled 24-hour level of 266.8 μg/m 3 is under the 365 μg/m 3 NAAQS. Similarly, the predicted 3-hour average is 726.2 μg/m 3 which is under the secondary standard of 1300 μg/m 3 . V. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action? Sulfur dioxide causes breathing difficulties and aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease. It is also a precursor of acid rain and fine particulate matter formation. Sulfate particles are a major cause of visibility impairment in America. Acid rain damages lakes and streams impairing aquatic life and causes damage to buildings, sculptures, statues, and monuments. Sulfur dioxide also causes the loss of chloroform leading to vegetation damage. The expansion of the Flint Hills facility includes an additional source and revised limits on several sources that results in higher SO 2 emissions. The projected increase in SO 2 emissions from this project is 315 tons per year. However, overall SO 2 emissions from Flint Hills have been reduced. When considering all sources at the facility there is no increase in SO 2 emissions, in fact there is a projected decrease of 99.6 tons per year. Therefore, the “net emissions increase” is below the Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)significant threshold for SO 2 of 40 tons per year. This project is not subject to PSD requirements. The effects of the expansion were analyzed. Both the projected SO 2 emissions from the Flint Hills facility and the reductions from other area facilities were considered. That analysis showed that the maximum predicted ambient SO 2 concentrations are below the primary and secondary NAAQS. This indicates that public health and welfare in Dakota County, Minnesota should be protected. The additional monitoring requirements placed on the heater combusting the fuel gas from the 45 mix drum will also help protect the air quality. VI. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is proposing to approve revisions to SO 2 emissions regulations for Flint Hills Resources, L.P. of Dakota County, Minnesota. The revisions authorize adding a new heater, modifying two heaters, and additional monitoring. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Act 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.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act 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.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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). Executive Order 13132: Federalism 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. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 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). Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks 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. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant regulatory action,” 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). National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Dated: March 19, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-6619 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7713] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations

(BFEs)and proposed BFEs modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The comment period is ninety

(90)days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community. ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. *National Environmental Policy Act* . This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act* . As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification* . This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism* . This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform* . This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation *Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+Elevation in feet

(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground. Effective Modified Communities affected Letcher County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas North Fork Kentucky River Approximately 0.29 miles downstream of Hazard Road None +1124 Letcher County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.14 miles downstream of the CSX Railroad (City of Whitesburg Corporate Limits) None +1137 Approximately 0.16 miles downstream of State Route 15 near Piedmont Drive (City of Whitesburg Corporate Limits) None +1161 Approximately 0.14 miles upstream of State Route 15 near the confluence with Pert Creek None +1176 *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. #Depth in feet above ground. +North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Letcher County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 156 Main Street, Whitesburg, KY 41858 Send comments to The Honorable Jim Ward, Letcher County Judge Executive, 156 Main Street, Suite 107, Whitesburg, KY 41858 Trimble County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Ohio River Oldham County Line None +457 Trimble County (Unincorporated Areas) City of Milton Corporate Limits None +463 Trimble County Limits (Downstream) *464 +463 City of Milton Corporate Limits None +464 Carroll County Line None +464 Trimble County Limits (Upstream) *465 +464 *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. #Depth in feet above ground. +North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Milton Maps are available for inspection at 10179 U.S. Highway 421 North, Milton, KY 40045 Send comments to The Honorable Donald Oakley, Mayor, City of Milton, 10179 U.S. Highway 421 North, Milton, KY 40045 Trimble County (Unincorporated Areas): Maps are available for inspection at 123 Church Street, Bedford, KY 40006 Send comments to The Honorable Randy Stevens, Trimble County Judge Executive, P.O. Box 251, Bedford, KY 40006 Collin County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas Cottonwood Creek 1 Approximately 200 feet downstream from Oxbow Creek Lane *552 +550 City of Allen. City of McKinney. Approximately 600 feet upstream from Ash Lane None +712 City of Parker. City of Plano. Doe Branch Approximately 2070 feet downstream from County Rd 51 None +624 City of Celina. Collin County. County Road 94 None +741 (Unincorporated Areas). East Fork Trinity River Approximately 3500 feet downstream from Union Pacific Railroad None +524 City of Mckinney. City of Melissa. Approximately 1600 feet upstream from County Road 279 None +570 Collin County (Unincorporated Areas). Muddy Creek (Upper Reach) Approximately one mile downstream from FM 544 *486 +487 City of Wylie. Collin County. Just upstream from Stinson Road *573 +569 (Unincorporated Areas). Rowlett Creek McDermott Drive (FM 2170) *609 +606 City of Allen. Approximately 3000 feet upstream from Exchange Parkway *626 +627 Stewart Creek Tributary Approximately 2500 feet downstream from Fossil Ridge Drive *659 +660 City of Frisco. Approximately 2800 feet upstream from Woodstream Drive None +718 Watters Branch Approximately 2250 feet downstream from Bethany Drive *586 +585 City of Allen. State Hwy 121 *698 +691 West Rowlett Creek Confluence with Rowlett Creek *611 +609 City of Allen. Approximately 1000 feet downstream from State Hwy 121 *638 +633 City of Plano Collin County (Unincorporated Areas). *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. #Depth in feet above ground. +North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Allen Maps are available for inspection at One Butler Circle, Allen, TX 75013 Send comments to The Honorable Stephen Terrell, Mayor, City of Allen, 305 Century Parkway, Allen, TX 75013 City of Celina Maps are available for inspection at City of Celina, 320 West Walnut, Celina, TX 75009 Send comments to The Honorable Corbett Howard, Mayor, City of Celina, 302 West Walnut, Celina, TX 75009 City of Frisco Maps are available for inspection at City of Frisco, 6891 Main Street, Frisco, TX 75034 Send comments to The Honorable Michael Simpson, Mayor, City of Frisco, 6101 Frisco Square Blvd, Frisco, TX 75034 City of Lucas Maps are available for inspection at 151 Country Club Road, Lucas, TX 75002 Send comments to The Honorable Bob Sanders, Mayor, City of Lucas, 151 Country Club Road, Lucas, TX 75002 City of McKinney Maps are available for inspection at City of McKinney, 222 North Tennessee Street, McKinney, TX 75070 Send comments to The Honorable Bill Whitfield, Mayor, City of McKinney, 222 North Tennessee, McKinney, TX 75070 City of Melissa Maps are available for inspection at City of Melissa, 109 U.S. Hwy 121, Melissa, TX 75454 Send comments to The Honorable David Dorman, Mayor, City of Melissa, P.O. Box 409, Melissa, TX 75454 City of Parker Maps are available for inspection at City of Parker, 5700 East Parker Road, Parker, TX 75002 Send comments to The Honorable Jerry Tartaglino, Mayor, City of Parker, 5700 East Parker Road, Parker, TX 75002 City of Plano Maps are available for inspection at City of Plano, 1520 Avenue K, Plano, TX 75086 Send comments to The Honorable Pat Evans, Mayor, City of Plano, P.O. Box 860358, Plano, TX 75086 City of Wylie Maps are available for inspection at City of Wylie, 114 North Ballard Avenue, Wylie, TX 75098 Send comments to The Honorable John Mondy, Mayor, City of Wylie, 2000 Hwy 78 North, Wylie, TX 75098 Collin County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Collin County Department of Public Works, 210 South McDonald Street, McKinney, TX 75069 Send comments to The Honorable Ron Harris, Judge, Collin County, 210 South McDonald, McKinney, TX 75069 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated March 26, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7-6555 Filed 4-6-07; 845 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 544 [Docket No.: NHTSA-2007-27240] RIN 2127-AJ98 Insurer Reporting Requirements; List of Insurers Required To File Reports AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend Appendices A, B, and C of 49 CFR Part 544, insurer reporting requirements. The appendices list those passenger motor vehicle insurers that are required to file reports on their motor vehicle theft loss experiences. An insurer included in any of these appendices would be required to file three copies of its report for the 2004 calendar year before October 25, 2007. If the passenger motor vehicle insurers remain listed, they must submit reports by each subsequent October 25. We are proposing to add and remove several insurers from relevant appendices. DATES: Comments must be submitted not later than June 8, 2007. Insurers listed in the appendices are required to submit reports on or before October 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number: NHTSA- 2007-27240 and/or RIN number: 2127-AJ98, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Agency Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Docket Management System. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Dockets, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Plaza Level Room 401, (PL #401), of the Nassif Building, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. *Telephone:* 1-800-647-5527. You may visit the Docket from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, by electronic mail to *rosalind.proctor@dot.gov.* Ms. Proctor's telephone number is

(202)366-0846. Her fax number is

(202)493-2290. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33112, Insurer reports and information, NHTSA requires certain passenger motor vehicle insurers to file an annual report with the agency. Each insurer's report includes information about thefts and recoveries of motor vehicles, the rating rules used by the insurer to establish premiums for comprehensive coverage, the actions taken by the insurer to reduce such premiums, and the actions taken by the insurer to reduce or deter theft. Under the agency's regulation, 49 CFR Part 544, the following insurers are subject to the reporting requirements:

(1)Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose total premiums account for 1 percent or more of the total premiums of motor vehicle insurance issued within the United States;

(2)Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose premiums account for 10 percent or more of total premiums written within any one state; and

(3)Rental and leasing companies with a fleet of 20 or more vehicles not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of motor vehicles, other than any governmental entity. Pursuant to its statutory exemption authority, the agency exempted certain passenger motor vehicle insurers from the reporting requirements. A. Small Insurers of Passenger Motor Vehicles Section 33112(f)(2) provides that the agency shall exempt small insurers of passenger motor vehicles if NHTSA finds that such exemptions will not significantly affect the validity or usefulness of the information in the reports, either nationally or on a state-by-state basis. The term “small insurer” is defined, in Section 33112(f)(1)(A) and (B), as an insurer whose premiums for motor vehicle insurance issued directly or through an affiliate, including pooling arrangements established under state law or regulation for the issuance of motor vehicle insurance, account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States. However, that section also stipulates that if an insurance company satisfies this definition of a “small insurer,” but accounts for 10 percent or more of the total premiums for all motor vehicle insurance issued in a particular state, the insurer must report about its operations in that state. In the final rule establishing the insurer reports requirement (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987), 49 CFR Part 544, NHTSA exercised its exemption authority by listing in Appendix A each insurer that must report because it had at least 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums nationally. Listing the insurers subject to reporting, instead of each insurer exempted from reporting because it had less than 1 percent of the premiums nationally, is administratively simpler since the former group is much smaller than the latter. In Appendix B, NHTSA lists those insurers required to report for particular states because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those states. In the January 1987 final rule, the agency stated that it would update Appendices A and B annually. NHTSA updates the appendices based on data voluntarily provided by insurance companies to A.M. Best . 1 A.M. Best, publishes in its State/Line Report each spring. The agency uses the data to determine the insurers' market shares nationally and in each state. 1 A.M. Best Company is a well-recognized source of insurance company ratings and information. 49 U.S.C. 33112(i) authorizes NHTSA to consult with public and private organizations as necessary. B. Self-Insured Rental and Leasing Companies In addition, upon making certain determinations, NHTSA grants exemptions to self-insurers, i.e., any person who has a fleet of 20 or more motor vehicles (other than any governmental entity) used for rental or lease whose vehicles are not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of passenger motor vehicles, 49 U.S.C. 33112(b)(1) and (f). Under 49 U.S.C. 33112(e)(1) and (2), NHTSA may exempt a self-insurer from reporting, if the agency determines:

(1)The cost of preparing and furnishing such reports is excessive in relation to the size of the business of the insurer; and 33112(e)(1) and (2),

(2)the insurer's report will not significantly contribute to carrying out the purposes of Chapter 331. In a final rule published June 22, 1990 (55 FR 25606), the agency granted a class exemption to all companies that rent or lease fewer than 50,000 vehicles, because it believed that the largest companies' reports sufficiently represent the theft experience of rental and leasing companies. NHTSA concluded that smaller rental and leasing companies' reports do not significantly contribute to carrying out NHTSA's statutory obligations and that exempting such companies will relieve an unnecessary burden on them. As a result of the June 1990 final rule, the agency added Appendix C, consisting of an annually updated list of the self-insurers subject to Part 544. Following the same approach as in Appendix A, NHTSA included, in Appendix C, each of the self-insurers subject to reporting instead of the self-insurers which are exempted. NHTSA updates Appendix C based primarily on information from Automotive Fleet Magazine and Auto Rental News. 2 2 Automotive Fleet Magazine and Auto Rental News are publications that provide information on the size of fleets and market share of rental and leasing companies. C. When a Listed Insurer Must File a Report Under Part 544, as long as an insurer is listed, it must file reports on or before October 25 of each year. Thus, any insurer listed in the appendices must file a report before October 25, and by each succeeding October 25, absent an amendment removing the insurer's name from the appendices. II. Proposal 1. Insurers of Passenger Motor Vehicles Appendix A lists insurers that must report because each had 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums on a national basis. The list was last amended in a final rule published on September 5, 2006 (71 FR 52291). Subsequent to publishing the listing, the agency was informed that Travelers Property Casualty Corporation merged with St Paul Companies, officially becoming St Paul Travelers Companies on April 1, 2004. Therefore, the agency proposes to remove Travelers PC Group and add St Paul Travelers Companies to Appendix A. Each of the 18 insurers listed in Appendix A are required to file a report before October 25, 2007, setting forth the information required by Part 544 for each State in which it did business in the 2004 calendar year. As long as these 18 insurers remain listed, they will be required to submit reports by each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before. Appendix B lists insurers required to report for particular States for calendar year 2004, because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those States. Based on the 2004 calendar year data for market shares from A.M. Best, we propose to remove Arbella Mutual Insurance (Massachusetts) and add the Farm Bureau of Idaho Group (Idaho) to Appendix B. The nine insurers listed in Appendix B are required to report on their calendar year 2004 activities in every State where they had a 10 percent or greater market share. These reports must be filed by October 25, 2007, and set forth the information required by Part 544. As long as these nine insurers remain listed, they would be required to submit reports on or before each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before. 2. Rental and Leasing Companies Appendix C lists rental and leasing companies required to file reports. Based on information in Automotive Fleet Magazine and Auto Rental News for 2004, NHTSA proposes to add Emkay Inc. Each of the 8 companies (including franchisees and licensees) listed in Appendix C would be required to file reports for calendar year 2004 no later than October 25, 2007, and set forth the information required by Part 544. As long as those 8 companies remain listed, they would be required to submit reports before each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before. III. Regulatory Impacts 1. Costs and Other Impacts This notice has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. NHTSA has considered the impact of this proposed rule and determined that the action is not “significant” within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This proposed rule implements the agency's policy of ensuring that all insurance companies that are statutorily eligible for exemption from the insurer reporting requirements are in fact exempted from those requirements. Only those companies that are not statutorily eligible for an exemption are required to file reports. NHTSA does not believe that this proposed rule, reflecting current data, affects the impacts described in the final regulatory evaluation prepared for the final rule establishing Part 544 (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987). Accordingly, a separate regulatory evaluation has not been prepared for this rulemaking action. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for 2006 (see *http://www.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost* ), the cost estimates in the 1987 final regulatory evaluation were adjusted for inflation. The agency estimates that the cost of compliance is $100,800 for any insurer added to Appendix A, $40, 320 for any insurer added to Appendix B, and $11,632 for any insurer added to Appendix C. If this proposed rule is made final, for Appendix A, the agency would propose to remove one company and add one company; for Appendix B, the agency would propose to remove one company and add one company; and for Appendix C, the agency would propose to add one company. The agency estimates that the net effect of this proposal, if made final, would be a cost increase to insurers, as a group of approximately $11,632. Interested persons may wish to examine the 1987 final regulatory evaluation. Copies of that evaluation were placed in Docket No. T86-01; Notice 2. Any interested person may obtain a copy of this evaluation by writing to NHTSA, Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or by calling

(202)366-4949. 2. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule were submitted and approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). This collection of information is assigned OMB Control Number 2127-0547 (“Insurer Reporting Requirements”) and approved for use through August 31, 2009, and the agency will seek to extend the approval afterwards. 3. Regulatory Flexibility Act The agency also considered the effects of this rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for the certification is that none of the companies proposed for Appendices A, B, or C are construed to be a small entity within the definition of the RFA. “Small insurer” is defined, in part under 49 U.S.C. 33112, as any insurer whose premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States, or any insurer whose premiums within any State, account for less than 10 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the State. This notice would exempt all insurers meeting those criteria. Any insurer too large to meet those criteria is not a small entity. In addition, in this rulemaking, the agency proposes to exempt all “self insured rental and leasing companies” that have fleets of fewer than 50,000 vehicles. Any self-insured rental and leasing company too large to meet that criterion is not a small entity. 4. Federalism This action has been analyzed according to the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined that the proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 5. Environmental Impacts In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NHTSA has considered the environmental impacts of this proposed rule and determined that it would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. 6. Regulation Identifier Number

(RIN)The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number

(RIN)to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading, at the beginning, of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda. 7. Plain Language Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions: • Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs? • Are the requirements in the proposal clearly stated? • Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? • Would more (but shorter) sections be better? • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? • What else could we do to make the proposal easier to understand? If you have any responses to these questions, you can forward them to me several ways: a. *Mail:* Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; b. *E-mail: rosalind.proctor@dot.gov* ; or c. *Fax:*

(202)493-2290. IV. Comments Submission of Comments 1. How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Proposed Rule? In developing our rules, NHTSA tries to address the concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We invite you to provide views on our proposal, new data, a discussion of the effects of this proposal on you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all aspects of this proposed rule. Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below: • Explain your views and reasoning clearly. • Provide solid technical and cost data to support your views. • If you estimate potential costs, explain how you derived the estimate. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. • Offer specific alternatives. • Include the name, date, and docket number with your comments. 2. How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments? Your comments must be written in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not exceed 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments concisely. You may attach necessary documents to your comments. We have no limit on the attachments' length. Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES . Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Click on “Help & Information” or “Help/Info” to obtain instructions for filling the document electronically. 3. How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received? If you wish Docket Management to notify you, upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will mail the postcard. 4. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information? If you wish to submit any information under a confidentiality claim, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim as confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES . When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter addressing the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512). 5. Will the Agency Consider Late Comments? NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider, in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action. 6. How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People? You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES . The hours of the Docket are indicated above, in the same location. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps: 1. Go to the Docket Management System

(DMS)Web page of the Department of Transportation ( *http://dms.dot.gov/* ). 2. On that page, click on “search.” 3. On the next page ( *http://dms.dot.gov/search/* ), type in the four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number was “NHTSA 1998-1234,” you would type “1234.” After typing the docket number, click on “search.” 4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. The “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable. V. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to amend Appendices A, B, and C of 49 CFR 544, Insurer Reporting Requirements. We are also amending § 544.5 to revise the example given the recent update to the reporting requirements. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 544 Crime insurance, insurance, insurance companies, motor vehicles, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 544 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 544—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 544 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33112; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Paragraph

(a)of § 544.5 is revised to read as follows: § 544.5 General requirements for reports.

(a)Each insurer to which this part applies shall submit a report annually before October 25, beginning on October 25, 1986. This report shall contain the information required by § 544.6 of this part for the calendar year 3 years previous to the year in which the report is filed (e.g., the report due by October 25, 2007, will contain the required information for the 2004 calendar year). 3. Appendix A to Part 544 is revised to read as follows: Appendix A—Insurers of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policies Subject to the Reporting Requirements in Each State in Which They Do Business Allstate Insurance Group American Family Insurance Group American International Group Auto-Owners Insurance Group CNA Insurance Companies Erie Insurance Group Berkshire Hathaway/GEICO Corporation Group Hartford Insurance Group Liberty Mutual Insurance Companies Metropolitan Life Auto & Home Group Mercury General Group Nationwide Group Progressive Group Safeco Insurance Companies State Farm Group St Paul Travelers Companies 1 USAA Group Farmers Insurance Group 1 Indicates a newly listed company, which must file a report beginning with the report due October 25, 2007. 4. Appendix B to Part 544 is revised to read as follows: Appendix B—Issuers of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policies Subject to the Reporting Requirements Only in Designated States Alfa Insurance Group (Alabama) Auto Club (Michigan) Commerce Group, Inc. (Massachusetts) Farm Bureau of Idaho Group (Idaho) 1 Kentucky Farm Bureau Group (Kentucky) New Jersey Manufacturers Group (New Jersey) Safety Group (Massachusetts) Southern Farm Bureau Group (Arkansas, Mississippi) Tennessee Farmers Companies (Tennessee) 5. Appendix C to Part 544 is revised to read as follows: Appendix C—Motor Vehicle Rental and Leasing Companies (Including Licensees and Franchisees) Subject to the Reporting Requirements of Part 544 Cendant Car Rental Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group EmKay, Inc. 1 Enterprise Rent-A-Car Enterprise Fleet Services Hertz Rent-A-Car Division (subsidiary of The Hertz Corporation) U-Haul International, Inc. (Subsidiary of AMERCO) Vanguard Car Rental USA 1 Indicates a newly listed company, which must file a report beginning with the report due October 25, 2007. Issued on: March 30, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-6519 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 070323069-7069-01;I.D. 031907A] RIN 0648-AV46 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule to establish catch accounting requirements for persons who receive, buy, or accept Pacific whiting (whiting) deliveries of 4,000 pounds

(lb)(1.18 mt) or more from vessels using mid-water trawl gear during the primary whiting season. This action would improve NMFS's ability to effectively monitor the whiting fishery such that catch of whiting and incidentally caught species, including overfished groundfish species, do not result in a species' optimum yield (OY), harvest guideline, allocations, or bycatch limits being exceeded. This action would also provide for timely reporting of Chinook salmon take as specified in the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)Section 7 Biological Opinion for Chinook salmon catch in the Pacific groundfish fishery. This action is consistent with the conservation goals and objectives of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). DATES: Comments must be received by April 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by I.D. 031907A by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *HakeProcessors.nwr@noaa.gov* : Include I.D 031907A in the subject line of the message. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Becky Renko • Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Becky Renko Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from the Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the Northwest Region (see Addresses) and by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to

(202)395-7285 Send comments on collection-of-information requirements to the NMFS address above and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington DC 20503 (Attn: NOAA Desk Officer). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Renko, phone: 206-526-6110, fax: 206-526-6736, or e-mail: *becky.renko@noaa.gov* . *Electronic Access:* This proposed rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the **Federal Register** 's Web site at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html* . Background information and documents are available at the NMFS Northwest Region Web site at *http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/index.cfmand* at the Council's Web site at *http://www.pcouncil.org* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action is to provide for electronic catch accounting and other monitoring improvements for the shore-based sector of the whiting fishery. The proposed action defines requirements for recordkeeping, reporting, catch sorting, and scale use for persons who receive, buy, or accept unsorted deliveries (generally processors or transporters) of 4,000 lb (1.8 mt) or more of whiting from vessels using midwater trawl gear during the primary season for the shore-based sector. This action is intended to address difficulties that occurred during the 2006 whiting season that could compromise the ability to account for the catch of target, incidental and prohibited species, and which could compromise the ability to manage groundfish species OYs, trip limits, bycatch limits, and Chinook salmon take in relation to Biological Opinion specifications. The shore-based whiting fishery needs to have a catch reporting system in place that: provides timely reporting of catch data so that whiting, overfished species and Chinook salmon can be adequately monitored and accounted for inseason; and, specifies catch sorting and weight requirements necessary to maintain the integrity of fish ticket values used to manage groundfish species OYs, trip limits, and bycatch limits. This proposed rule is part of an ongoing process to develop a maximized retention program for the shoreside whiting sector. The rule is intended to address shoreside monitoring that will be implemented in 2007 in conjunction with the issuance of exempted fishing permits

(EFPs)to vessels. At its April 2007 meeting, the Council will consider recommending a rulemaking for 2008 and beyond for a related action titled “A Maximized Retention and Monitoring Program for the Whiting Shoreside Fishery.” Each year since 1992, EFPs have been issued to vessels in the whiting shoreside fishery to allow unsorted catch to be retained and landed at shoreside processing facilities. The EFPs have specified the terms and conditions that participating vessels must follow to be included in the EFP program. The EFPs have routinely required vessels to deliver EFP catch to state-designated processors. Designated processors were identified by each of the states and were processors that had signed written agreements that specified the standards and procedures they agreed to follow when receiving EFP catch. The whiting fishery is managed under a “primary” season structure where vessels harvest whiting until the sector allocation is reached and the fishery is closed. This is different from most West Coast groundfish fisheries, which are managed under a “trip limit” structure, where catch limits are specified by gear type and species (or species group) and vessels can land catch up to the specified limits. Incidental catch of groundfish in the whiting fishery, however, is managed under a trip limit structure. Vessels fishing under the whiting EFPs are allowed to land unsorted catch at shoreside processing facilities, including species in excess of the trip limits and species such as salmon that would otherwise be illegal to have on board the vessel. Without an EFP, groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.306(a)(2) and (a)(6) require vessels to sort their catch at sea and discard as soon as practicable all prohibited species (including salmon and halibut), protected species, and groundfish species in excess of cumulative limits at sea. Overall management of the salmon and groundfish fisheries has significantly changed since the early 1990's, when EFPs were first used in the whiting fishery. Since the beginning of the shore-based whiting fishery in 1992, new salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit

(ESUs)have been listed under the ESA, and several groundfish species that are incidentally taken in the whiting fishery have been declared overfished. In addition, “bycatch limit” management of overfished species has been used to allow the whiting fishery full access to the whiting OY. With the bycatch limit management approach, a bycatch limit amount is specified for an overfished species and the whiting fishery is allowed incidental catch of that species up to that amount. If a bycatch limit for any one of the species limits is reached before the whiting allocations are attained, all non-tribal commercial sectors of the whiting fishery must be closed. The Shoreside Whiting Observation Program (SHOP), a coordinated monitoring effort by the States of Oregon, Washington, and California, was established to provide catch data from vessels fishing under the EFPs. Although the program's structure and priorities have changed over the years, the SHOP has had the primary responsibility of monitoring the shore-based whiting fishery and providing catch data to NMFS for management of the fishery. In 2006, SHOP experienced ongoing difficulties in obtaining timely catch reports from some designated processors. Delays in catch reports can compromise the ability to adequately monitor the catch of whiting, bycatch limits, and in particular the bycatch limits for the overfished species that are most frequently encountered in the whiting fishery. Having the ability to closely monitor bycatch limits and close the whiting fishery if a limit is reached prevents the whiting fishery from affecting the other groundfish fisheries and reduces the risk of exceeding overfished species OYs. In 2007, the shore-based whiting fishery will be managed under an EFP, similar to what was in place in 2006. Therefore, NMFS believes that it is necessary to implement this rule to prevent catch accounting difficulties experienced in 2006. During 2007, NMFS and the Council will continue to develop the Maximized Retention and Monitoring Program for the whiting Shoreside Fishery, which is intended to be implemented by regulation before the 2008 fishery. This proposed rule would require persons called “first receivers” who receive, buy, or accept whiting deliveries of 4,000 lb (1.8 mt) or more from vessels using mid-water trawl gear during the primary whiting season (generally, these are whiting shoreside processing facilities, but also include entities that truck whiting to other facilities) to have and use a NMFS-approved electronic fish ticket program and to send daily catch reports to the Pacific States Marine Fish Commission (PSMFC). The electronic fish tickets are used to collect information similar to the information currently required in state fish receiving tickets or landing receipts (state fish tickets). The daily reports would be used to track catch allocations, bycatch limits and prohibited species catch. First receivers would provide the computer hardware, software (Microsoft Office with Access 2003 or later,) and internet access necessary to support the electronic fish ticket program and daily e-mail transmissions. Electronic fish tickets must be submitted within 24 hours from the date the catch is received upon landing. Because 2007 will be the first year that the electronic fish ticket program will be used, the proposed action includes waiver provisions and defines alternative means for submitting fish tickets to meet the daily reporting needs of the fishery, should there be performance issues with software or other system failures beyond a receiver's control. Federal regulations would not replace any state recordkeeping or reporting requirements. Regulations at 50 CFR 660.303 would continue to require vessels to make and/or file, retain, or make available any and all reports (i.e., logbooks, fish tickets, etc.) of groundfish harvests and landings as required by the applicable state law. At this time, only the State of Oregon allows printed and signed copies of the electronic fish tickets to be submitted as the official state fish ticket. The States of Washington and California could continue to require the submission of paper forms as issued by the state. In addition to the sorting requirements specified at §§ 660.306(a)(7) and 660.370(h)(6)(i), sorting requirements would be specified for whiting catch received by first receivers, since these deliveries may contain groundfish in excess of trip limits, unmarketable groundfish, prohibited species, and protected species that are not addressed by current groundfish regulations. In addition, Federal groundfish regulations would be revised to require that deliveries from vessels participating in the whiting shoreside fishery must be adequately sorted by species or species group and the catch weighed following offloading from the vessel and prior to transporting the catch. If sorting and weighing requirements specified in Federal regulation are more specific than state fish ticket requirements, the first receivers would be required to record the species that are sorted and weighed on all electronic fish ticket submissions. First receivers would be required to report, on electronic fish tickets, actual and accurate weights derived from scales. Though there are considerable differences in the requirements between states, each state has requirements for scale performance and testing established by state agencies for weights and measures. How these requirements apply to seafood processors varies between states. Classification NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and has preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA)was prepared, as required by section 603 of the RFA (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows: The whiting shoreside fishery has been managed under an EFPs since 1992. However, an EFP is supposed to be a short-term, temporary and exploratory response to issues that potentially should be addressed by permanent regulations. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would be the first step towards replacing the EFP with permanent regulations as it would put in place new Federal catch accounting requirements. Although EFPs will continue to be issued in 2007, the proposed regulations are intended to supplement EFP activities with regulations that mainly affect the processors or other first receivers of whiting EFP catch. The proposed regulations will require the submission of electronic fish tickets within 24 hours of landing, the sorting of catch at time of offload and prior to transporting catch from the port of fish landing, the use of state approved scales with appropriate accuracy ranges for the amount of fish being weighed, and that all weights reported on the electronic fish tickets be from such scales. The proposed Federal regulations mirror or enhance existing state regulations and associated paper-based fish ticket systems or put into Federal regulation provisions associated with current EFP management. This action is expected to provide more timely reporting and improved estimates of the catch of whiting, ESA listed salmon species, and overfished groundfish species. The whiting shoreside fishery needs to have a catch reporting system in place to: adequately track the incidental take of Chinook salmon as required in the ESA Section 7 Biological Opinion for Chinook salmon catch in the whiting fishery; and to track the catch of target and overfished groundfish species such that the fishing industry is not unnecessarily constrained and that the sector allocation and bycatch limits are not exceeded. This action is intended to address catch accounting concerns that occurred during the 2006 season that compromised the ability to account for the catch of target, incidental and prohibited species. In 2006 there were 23 processors that purchased whiting from fishermen with ten of these processors purchasing from 4 lb (2 kg) to 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) of whiting. The other thirteen processors all processed at least 1 million lb (454 mt) of whiting each. During 2006 these thirteen processors purchased 280 million lb (127,007 mt) of whiting worth $17.4 million ex-vessel, and 110 million lb (49,896 mt) of other fish and shellfish worth $78.5 million. Over the 2000-2006 period there were seventeen different facilities that processed at least 1 million lb (454 mt) in any one year. These processors can be classified into “Main” and “Other” plants. Over this period there were eight “Main” processors that processed 1 million lb (454 mt) in at least seven of the eight years during this period. Because of entry and exit of the processors, the composition of the “Other” processor group changes significantly in most years. In 2005, there were no “Other” processors while in 2006, five new processors entered, only one of which had operated before. Over the 2000-2006 period, the “Main” processors typically harvest 90 to 100 percent of the whiting. The Small Business Administration

(SBA)has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesting entities, for-hire entities, fish processing businesses, and fish dealers. A business involved in fish harvesting is a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in the field of operation (including its affiliates) and if it has combined annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. For-hire vessels are considered small entities, if they have annual receipts not in excess of $6 million. A seafood processor is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and employs 500 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations world wide. Finally, a wholesale business servicing the fishing industry (fish dealer) is a small business if it employs 100 or few persons on a full time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide. The SBA has established “principles of affiliation” to determine whether a business concern is “independently owned and operated.” In general, business concerns are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party controls or has the power to control both. The SBA considers factors such as ownership, management, previous relationships with or ties to another concern, and contractual relationships, in determining whether affiliation exists. Individuals or firms that have identical or substantially identical business or economic interests, such as family members, persons with common investments, or firms that are economically dependent through contractual or other relationships, are treated as one party with such interests aggregated when measuring the size of the concern in question. The SBA counts the receipts or employees of the concern whose size is at issue and those of all its domestic and foreign affiliates, regardless of whether the affiliates are organized for profit, in determining the concern's size. Based on the SBA criteria and a review of West Coast processor company websites, state employment websites, newspaper articles, personal communications, and the “Research Group” publications (2006), it appears that the thirteen major whiting processors can be grouped into nine businesses under the SBA criteria based on analysis of affiliates. Three of the nine businesses generated at least $500 million in sales in 2003. One of these businesses reported employing 4,000 people, and it is presumed that the other two companies have employment levels much higher than 500 employees. Four of the nine businesses have employment estimates that range from 100-250 employees, while the remainder appear to be in the 50-100 range (because of missing data, one of these relatively small businesses may have less than 50 employees). In terms of the SBA size standard of 500 employees, there are six “small” businesses that participated in the shorebased whiting processing sector in 2006. Annual sales information for these “small” businesses is unavailable. Total ex-vessel revenues (the value of the fish purchased from fisherman) is available. In 2006, these six businesses purchased approximately $40 million in whiting and other fish and shellfish from West Coast fishermen. This compares to the $60 million in whiting and other fish and shellfish purchased by the three large businesses. In sizing up all the potential impacts, implementation of these rules will require firms to bear minimal costs in reporting data electronically that they already are required to report on paper. In terms of equipment purchases, it is expected that there will be few if any instances where processors have to purchase computers or software because this is equipment that most business already have. It is also not expected that processors will need to purchase scale equipment as the presumption about this rule is that it enhances existing state regulations that already require processors to use scales in conducting their businesses but may not specifically require the use of scale weights in reporting fisheries data to state agencies. There may be some interest by a few small processors to weigh and count fish at locations other than the point of first landing, but these instances appear to be few. In light of the recent economic improvement going on in the whiting fisheries, the proposed regulations are reasonable and affordable and do not appear to place small businesses at a competitive disadvantage to large businesses. The major benefits of this program from a conservation and management context is an allowance for more liberal management to obtain better and quicker data for use in quota monitoring and a potential reduction in costs of monitoring, and to move management measures for monitoring whiting from a temporary “EFP” to formal regulations. In the short term, from an industry and fishing community perspective, better management of the whiting shoreside fishery minimizes the risk that sector quotas and bycatch limits are not exceeded in ways that may lead to closure of other fisheries thus affecting other small businesses. In the medium term, the proposed rule will aid development of an Individual Fishing Quota

(IQ)catch accounting system. IQs are expected to increase profitability in the fishing industry and improve the sustainability of fishing communities. In the long term, the entire fishing industry and its communities including associated small businesses will benefit by reducing the risk of overfishing and increasing the potential that the rebuilding schedules for the overfished species are maintained, thus increasing the chances that current levels of groundfish ex-vessel revenues of $70 million can be restored to levels above $100 million which were consistently seen in the early to mid 1990's. There were no other alternatives to the proposed action that would have accomplish the stated objectives. Under Status Quo, general catch sorting requirements and prohibited actions would continue to be specified for limited entry trawl vessel; each state would continue to specify requirements for landing reports. This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements approved under OMB control number 0648-0203, as well as a new collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for preparing and submitting electronic fish tickets is estimated to average ten minutes per individual response for whiting shoreside processors/first receivers in the states of California and Washington, and two minutes per individual response for whiting shoreside processors/first receivers in the State of Oregon, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the Northwest Region at the ADDRESSES above, and by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* or fax to

(202)395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the ESA on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999 pertaining to the effects of the Pacific Coast groundfish FMP fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal), coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, California Central Valley, south/central California, northern California, southern California). These biological opinions have concluded that implementation of the FMP for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery was not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. NMFS reinitiated a formal section 7 consultation under the ESA in 2005 for both the whiting midwater trawl fishery and the groundfish bottom trawl fishery. The December 19, 1999 Biological Opinion had defined an 11,000 Chinook incidental take threshold for the whiting fishery. During the 2005 whiting season, the 11,000 fish Chinook incidental take threshold was exceeded, triggering reinitiation. Also in 2005, new data from the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program became available, allowing NMFS to complete an analysis of salmon take in the bottom trawl fishery. NMFS prepared a Supplemental Biological Opinion dated March 11, 2006, which addressed salmon take in both the whiting midwater trawl and groundfish bottom trawl fisheries. In its 2006 Supplemental Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded that catch rates of salmon in the 2005 whiting fishery were consistent with expectations considered during prior consultations. Chinook bycatch has averaged about 7,300 over the last 15 years and has only occasionally exceeded the reinitiation trigger of 11,000. Since 1999, annual Chinook bycatch has averaged about 8,450. The Chinook ESUs most likely affected by the whiting fishery have generally improved in status since the 1999 section 7 consultation. Although these species remain at risk, as indicated by their ESA listing, NMFS concluded that the higher observed bycatch in 2005 does not require a revision of its prior “no jeopardy” conclusion with respect to the fishery. For the groundfish bottom trawl fishery, NMFS concluded that incidental take in the groundfish fisheries is within the overall limits articulated in the Incidental Take Statement of the 1999 Biological Opinion. The groundfish bottom trawl limit from that opinion was 9,000 fish annually. NMFS will continue to monitor and collect data to analyze take levels. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination that implementation of the Groundfish FMP, including this current action, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected ESUs. Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and the Southern Distinct Population Segment

(DPS)of green sturgeon (71 FR 17757, April 7, 2006) were recently listed as threatened under the ESA. As a consequence, NMFS has reinitiated its Section 7 consultation on the PFMC's Groundfish FMP. After reviewing the available information, NMFS concluded that, in keeping with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, the proposed action would not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures. Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials from the area covered by the FMP. At the Council=s September and November 2006 meetings, NMFS informed the Council, which includes a tribal representative, of the intent to evaluate and implement catch accounting requirements for whiting shoreside processors. This action does not alter the treaty allocation of whiting, nor does it affect the prosecution of the tribal fishery. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries. Dated: April 3, 2007. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 660.302, the definitions for “Electronic Monitoring System,” “Pacific whiting shoreside or shore-based fishery,” “Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver,” and “Pacific whiting shoreside vessel” are added to read as follows: § 660.302 Definitions. *Electronic Monitoring System (EMS)* means a data collection tool that uses a software operating system connected to an assortment of electronic components, including video recorders, to create a collection of data on vessel activities. *Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers* means persons who receive, purchase, take custody, control, or possession of Pacific whiting onshore directly from a Pacific whiting shoreside vessel. *Pacific whiting shoreside or shore-based fishery* means Pacific whiting shoreside vessels and Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers. *Pacific whiting shoreside vessel* means any vessel that fishes using midwater trawl gear to take, retain, possess and land 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) or more of Pacific whiting per fishing trip from the Pacific whiting shore-based sector allocation for delivery to a Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver during the primary season. 3. In § 660.303, paragraph

(a)is revised and paragraph

(e)is added to read as follows: § 660.303 Reporting and recordkeeping.

(a)This subpart recognizes that catch and effort data necessary for implementing the PCGFMP are collected by the States of Washington, Oregon, and California under existing state data collection requirements.

(e)*Participants in the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery.* Reporting requirements defined in the following section are in addition to reporting requirements under applicable state law and requirements described at § 660.303(b).

(1)*Reporting requirements for any Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver* —(i) *Responsibility for compliance.* The Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver is responsible for compliance with all reporting requirements described in this paragraph.

(ii)*General requirements.* All records or reports required by this paragraph must: be maintained in English, be accurate, be legible, be based on local time, and be submitted in a timely manner as required in paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section.

(iii)*Required information.* All Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers must provide the following types of information: date of landing, delivery vessel, gear type used, first receiver, round weights of species landed listed by species or species group including species catch with no value, number of salmon by species, number of Pacific halibut, and any other information deemed necessary by the Regional Administrator as specified on the appropriate electronic fish ticket form.

(iv)*Electronic fish ticket submissions.* The Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver must:

(A)Sort catch, prior to first weighing, by species or species groups as specified at § 660.370 (h)(6)(iii).

(B)Include as part of each electronic fish ticket submission, the actual scale weight for each groundfish species as specified by requirements at § 660.373 (j)(2)(i) and the catcher vessel identification number.

(C)Use for the purpose of submitting electronic fish tickets, and maintain in good working order, computer equipment as specified at § 660.373 (j)(2)(ii)(A);

(D)Install, use, and update as necessary, any NMFS-approved software described at § 660.373 (j)(2)(ii)(B);

(E)Submit a completed electronic fish ticket for every landing that includes 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) or more of Pacific whiting (round weight equivalent) no later than 24 hours after the date the fish are received, unless a waiver of this requirement has been granted under provisions specified at paragraph (e)(1)

(vii)of this section.

(v)*Revising a submitted electronic fish ticket submission.* In the event that a data error is found, electronic fish ticket submissions may be revised by resubmitting the revised form. Electronic fish tickets are to be used for the submission of final catch data. Preliminary data, including estimates of catch weights or species in the catch, shall not be submitted on electronic fish tickets.

(vi)*Retention of records.* [Reserved]

(vii)*Waivers for submission of electronic fish tickets.* On a case-by-case basis, a temporary waiver of the requirement to submit electronic fish tickets may be granted by the Assistant Regional Administrator or designee if he/she determines that circumstances beyond the control of a Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver would result in inadequate data submissions using the electronic fish ticket system. The duration of the waiver will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

(viii)*Reporting requirements when a temporary waiver has been granted.* Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers that have been granted a temporary waiver from the requirement to submit electronic fish tickets must submit on paper the same data as is required on electronic fish tickets within 24 hours of the date received during the period that the waiver is in effect. Paper fish tickets must be sent by facsimile to NMFS, Northwest Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 206-526-6736 or by delivering it in person to 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. The requirements for submissions of paper tickets in this paragraph are separate from, and in addition to existing state requirements for landing receipts or fish receiving tickets.

(2)[Reserved] 4. In § 660.306, paragraphs (b)(4) and (f)(6) are added to read as follows: § 660.306 Prohibitions.

(b)* * *

(4)Fail to comply with all requirements at § 660.303 (d); or to fail to submit, submit inaccurate information, or intentionally submit false information on any report required at § 660.303

(d)when participating in the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery.

(f)* * *

(6)*Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers.*

(i)Receive for transport or processing catch from a Pacific whiting shoreside vessel that does not have a properly functioning EMS system as required by Federal regulation or by an EFP, unless a waiver for EMS coverage was granted by NMFS for that trip.

(ii)Fail to sort catch from a Pacific whiting shoreside vessel prior to first weighing after offloading as specified at § 660.370 (h)(6)(iii) for the Pacific whiting fishery.

(iii)Process, sell, or discard groundfish catch that has not been weighed on a scale that is in compliance with requirements at § 660.373 (j)(1)(i) and accounted for on an electronic fish ticket with the identification number for the catcher vessel that delivered the catch.

(iv)Fail to weigh catch landed from a Pacific whiting shoreside vessel prior to transporting any fish from that landing away from the point of landing. 5. In § 660.370, paragraph (h)(6)(iii) is added to read as follows: § 660.370 Specifications and management measures.

(h)* * *

(6)* * *

(iii)*Sorting requirements for the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery.* Catch delivered to Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers (including shoreside processing facilities and buying stations that intend to transport catch for processing elsewhere) must be sorted, prior to first weighing after offloading from the vessel and prior to transport away from the point of landing, to the species groups specified in paragraph (h)(6)(i)(A) of this section for vessels with limited entry permits. Prohibited species must be sorted according to the following species groups: Dungeness crab, Pacific halibut, Chinook salmon, Other salmon. Non-groundfish species must be sorted as required by the state of landing. 6. In § 660.373, paragraph

(j)is added to read as follows: § 660.373 Pacific whiting (whiting) fishery management.

(j)*Additional requirements for participants in the Pacific Whiting Shoreside fishery* —(1) *Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver responsibilities* —(i) *Weights and measures.* All groundfish weights reported on fish tickets must be recorded from scales with appropriate weighing capacity that ensures accuracy for the amount of fish being weighed. For example: amounts of fish less than 1,000 lb (454 kg) should not be weighed on scales that have an accuracy range of 1,000 lb-7,000 lb (454 - 3,175 kg) and are therefore not capable of accurately weighing amounts less than 1,000 lb (454 kg).

(ii)*Electronic fish tickets* —(A) *Hardware and software requirements.* First receivers using the electronic fish ticket software provided by Pacific States Marine Fish Commission are required to meet the hardware and software requirements below. Those whiting first receivers who have NMFS-approved software compatible with the standards specified by Pacific States Marine Fish Commission for electronic fish tickets are not subject to any specific hardware or software requirements. ( *1* ) A personal computer with Pentium 75-MHz or higher. Random Access Memory

(RAM)must have sufficient megabyte

(MB)space to run the operating system, plus an additional 8 MB for the software application and available hard disk space of 217 MB or greater. A CD-ROM drive with a Video Graphics Adapter(VGA) or higher resolution monitor (super VGA is recommended). ( *2* ) Microsoft Windows 2000 (64 MB or greater RAM required), Windows XP (128 MB or greater RAM required) or later operating system. ( *3* ) Microsoft Access 2003 or newer for.

(B)*NMFS Approved Software Standards and Internet Access.* The Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver is responsible for obtaining, installing and updating electronic fish tickets software either provided by Pacific States Marine Fish Commission, or compatible with the standards specified by Pacific States Marine Fish Commission and for maintaining internet access sufficient to transmit data files via email.

(C)*Maintenance.* The Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver is responsible for ensuring that all hardware and software required under this subsection are fully operational and functional whenever the Pacific whiting primary season deliveries are accepted.

(2)Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers and processors that receive groundfish species other than Pacific whiting in excess of trip limits from Pacific whiting shoreside vessels fishing under an EFP issued by the Assistant Regional Administrator are authorized to possess the catch.

(3)Vessel owners and operators, or shoreside processor owners, or managers may contact NMFS in writing to request assistance in improving data quality and resolving monitoring issues. Requests may be submitted to: Attn: Frank Lockhart,National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region Sustainable Fisheries Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, or via email to *frank.lockhart@noaa.gov* . [FR Doc. E7-6643 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 67 Monday, April 9, 2007 Notices U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Notice of Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for Review SUMMARY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has submitted the following information collections to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Comments should be sent via e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* or fax to 202-395-7285. Copies of submission may be obtained by calling

(202)712-1365. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Number:* OMB 0412-0012. *Form Number:* 282. *Title:* Supplier's Certificate Agreement with the U.S. Agency for International Development Invoice-and-Contract Abstract. *Type of Submission:* Renewal of Information Collection. *Purpose:* The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) finances goods and related services under its Commodity Import Program which are contracted for by public and private entities in the countries receiving the USAID Assistance. Since USAID is not a party to these contracts, USAID needs some means to collect information directly from the suppliers of the goods and related services and to enable USAID to take an appropriate action against them in the event they do not comply with the applicable regulations. USAID does this by securing from the suppliers, as a condition for the disbursement of funds a certificate and agreement with USAID which contains appropriate representations by the suppliers. *Annual Reporting burden:* *Respondents:* 800. *Total annual responses:* 2,400. *Total annual hours requested:* 1,200 hours. Dated: March 30, 2007. Joanne Paskar, Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Administrative Services, Bureau for Management. [FR Doc. 07-1728 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 18

Traces to 18 documents