Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

42,344 words·~192 min read·/register/2007/04/20/07-1946

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

BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27926; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-050-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Airplanes; and Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to all Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (collectively called A300-600) series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of frame 47, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would reduce inspection thresholds and repetitive intervals, and add related investigative and corrective actions. This proposed AD also would provide an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections only for airplanes with cracking that is within certain limits. This proposed AD results from reports of additional cracking in airplanes that were inspected in accordance with the existing AD. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the left and right upper radius at frame 47, which could propagate and result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1622; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-27926; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-050-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On March 18, 2003, we issued AD 2003-06-04, amendment 39-13091 (68 FR 14894, March 27, 2003), for all Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes, and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (collectively called A300-600) series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of frame 47, and repair if necessary. That AD resulted from issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a civil airworthiness authority. We issued that AD to detect and correct such fatigue cracking, which could result in propagation of the cracking to the rear fitting and reduced structural integrity of fuselage frame 47. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2003-06-04, cracks were found on the left and right upper radius at frame 47 at 48,000 simulated flights, and at 18,000 total flights on an in-service airplane. In-service experience up to 2001 showed there was no propagation of cracking between 30 millimeters

(mm)and 40 mm in size. In mid-2001, a crack of 110 mm in size was found on a scrapped Model A300 B4-200 airplane with 23,700 total flights. Further sampling inspections revealed two Model A300 airplanes with cracks greater in size than the defined limit of 50 mm. Based on these last investigation results, Airbus established a revised inspection program that: • Redefines the threshold and repetitive interval values; and • Introduces corrective measures in the event of abnormal load events (e.g., hard landing and flight with turbulence). Definitions of abnormal load events are in the applicable airplane maintenance manual. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued the service bulletins described in the following table. Airbus Service Bulletins Service bulletin type For model A300 airplanes For model A300-600 series airplanes Inspection service bulletins A300-53-0246, Revision 06, including Appendix 01, dated October 19, 2005 A300-53-6029, Revision 08, including Appendix 01, dated October 19, 2005. Optional terminating service bulletins A300-53-0370, including Appendix 01, dated July 16, 2004 A300-53-6144, including Appendix 01, dated July 16, 2004. The inspection service bulletins are newer revisions of the service bulletins that were referenced as the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the actions required by AD 2003-06-04. The newer revisions take into account the latest investigation results from Airbus, described above, and establish a revised inspection program. The inspection service bulletins specify reporting all inspection results to Airbus. The inspection service bulletins describe procedures for repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of frame 47, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions, as described in the following table. Related Investigative and Corrective Actions Following Eddy Current Inspection Finding or occurrence Corrective action Related investigative action No crack Modify the fairing attachment profile by cutting and removing the fairing attachment profile between frame 47 and frame 48, and trimming the keel beam at frame 47. This action is specified only after the first eddy current inspection Eddy current inspection for cracking of the upper radius (after the keel beam has been trimmed and while the attachment profile is removed). More than one crack Contact Airbus for repair instructions Detailed visual inspection for cracking of the aft fitting around the fasteners. Crack less than or equal to 8 mm in size Do the repetitive eddy current inspection at a reduced interval None. Crack greater than 8 mm in size, but less than or equal to 20 mm in size Remove, modify, and reinstall the sealing fitting and sealing shim. This action is specified only after the first eddy current inspection with a crack finding of this size. Do the repetitive eddy current inspection at a reduced interval Ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the forward fitting. Crack greater than 20 mm in size, but less than or equal to 50 mm in size Contact Airbus for repair instructions if any crack is found during the detailed visual inspection; if no further cracking is found, do the repetitive eddy current inspection at a reduced interval Detailed visual inspection for cracking of the aft fitting around the fasteners. Crack greater than 50 mm in size Repair in accordance with the optional terminating service bulletins and contact Airbus for repair instructions None. Abnormal load event on an airplane with any crack finding Report the event to Airbus and do the next repetitive eddy current inspection within 3 months after the event; or, if the first eddy current inspection has not yet been done, contact Airbus before further flight None. As noted in the table above, the repetitive intervals for the special detailed inspection vary according to the crack finding. The following table is a summary of the repetitive intervals given in Figure 1, Sheet 1, of the inspection service bulletins. Repetitive Intervals Based on Crack Finding Finding Repetitive interval No crack 4,150 flight cycles. Crack less than or equal to 30 mm 1,400 flight cycles. Crack greater than 30 mm but less than or equal to 40 mm 750 flight cycles. Crack greater than 40 mm but less than or equal to 50 mm 250 flight cycles. The optional terminating service bulletins apply only if a crack is greater than 30 mm but less than or equal to 50 mm in size. The optional terminating service bulletins specify contacting Airbus for repair instructions, special tooling, and the use of trained personnel for accomplishing the repair because of the high risk of serious damage to the frame 47 forward fitting, which could lead to a repair beyond the economical limit. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2006-016, dated January 18, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2003-06-04, and would continue to require repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of frame 47, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would also continue to require the report to Airbus that was required by the existing AD. This proposed AD would reduce inspection thresholds and repetitive intervals, and add related investigative and corrective actions. This proposed AD also would provide an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections only for airplanes with cracking that is within certain limits. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Among the Proposed AD, the Service Information, and the French Airworthiness Directive.” Differences Among the Proposed AD, the Service Information, and the French Airworthiness Directive The inspection service bulletins referenced by the French airworthiness directive specify contacting Airbus for certain instructions. This proposed AD would require doing those actions according to a method that we or the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)(or its delegated agent) approve. In light of the actions that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have determined that, for this proposed AD, a method we or the EASA approve would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD. The French airworthiness directive does not specify repair instructions for crack findings of greater than 50 mm, and the inspection service bulletins specify doing actions in the optional terminating service bulletins and contacting Airbus for repair instructions. This proposed AD would instead require repairing those conditions using a method that we approve. Where the optional terminating service bulletins specify sending a geometrical plan to Airbus after doing the repair, this proposed AD would require providing a post-repair inspection program to us for approval within 6 months after doing the repair. These differences have been coordinated with EASA. Flight With Cracking Operators should note that this proposed AD permits further flight with cracking within certain limits. While it is not the FAA's policy to allow flight with known cracking, we have determined that, for the purposes of this proposed AD, repair may be deferred for certain crack lengths. In making this determination, we considered that long-term continued operational safety in this case will be adequately ensured by repetitive inspections to detect cracking before it represents a hazard to the airplane, and by repair if the crack exceeds the specified limit. We also considered that cracks that are less than 30 mm in size are not physically accessible and would require removing frame 47 to repair, which is not economically viable. The proposed inspection program will mitigate any safety concerns for cracks of this size. Cracks of 30 mm to 50 mm in size are also acceptable for flight, but this proposed AD would require a more rigorous inspection program for cracks of this size. If operators strictly observe the crack size limits and perform repetitive inspections at required intervals, operators can detect any cracks that grow beyond the limits and take corrective action before the crack size creates an unacceptable risk of structural failure. The DGAC concurs with these findings. In consideration of these findings and the FAA's criteria for flight with known cracking, further flight with cracking within certain limits is permissible for an interim period in this case. Changes to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2003-06-04. Since AD 2003-06-04 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2003-06-04 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD Paragraph

(a)paragraph (f). Paragraph

(b)paragraph (g). Paragraph

(c)paragraph (h). Paragraph

(d)paragraph (i). Paragraph

(e)paragraph (q). We have also clarified the applicability of the proposed AD in the following ways: • To match more closely the applicability of the parallel French airworthiness directive. • To identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. We have revised this proposed AD to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Costs of Compliance There are about 163 U.S.-registered airplanes that would be affected by this proposed AD. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost Actions required by AD 2003-06-04 9 $0 $720, per inspection cycle $117,360, per inspection cycle. Inspection (new proposed action) 1 0 $80, per inspection cycle $13,040, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13091 (68 FR 14894, March 27, 2003) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27926; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-050-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 21, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2003-06-04. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 airplanes; and all Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of additional cracking in airplanes that were inspected in accordance with AD 2003-06-04. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the left and right upper radius at frame 47, which could propagate and result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Requirements of AD 2003-06-04 Model A300-600: Inspection

(f)For Model A300-600 series airplanes: At the earlier of the times specified by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, perform an eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the upper radius of the left and right forward fitting of frame 47, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 02, dated November 7, 1994; Revision 05, dated April 11, 2001; or Revision 08, including Appendix 01, dated October 19, 2005. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 08 of the service bulletin may be used.

(1)Before the accumulation of 17,300 total flight cycles, or within one year after October 16, 1996 (the effective date of AD 96-18-18, amendment 39-9744), whichever occurs later.

(2)At the later of the times specified by paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i)Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles or 26,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(ii)Within 750 flight cycles or 1,900 flight hours, whichever occurs first after May 1, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-06-04). Model A300-600: Follow-On (Repetitive) Inspections

(g)For Model A300-600 series airplanes on which no cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, repeat the inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD at the applicable times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD until the inspection required by paragraph

(j)of this AD is done.

(1)If the initial inspection was accomplished before May 1, 2003, repeat the inspection at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 6,100 flight cycles or 15,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(i)Re-inspect within 6,100 flight cycles after the initial inspection.

(ii)Re-inspect within 750 flight cycles or 1,900 flight hours, whichever occurs first after May 1, 2003.

(2)If the initial inspection was not accomplished before May 1, 2003, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,100 flight cycles or 15,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first. Model A300-600: Corrective Action

(h)For Model A300-600 series airplanes on which any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD: Before further flight, contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile

(DGAC)(or its delegated representative), or the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)(or its delegated agent); for instructions regarding repair or for an applicable re-inspection interval, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6029, Revision 05, dated April 11, 2001; or Revision 08, including Appendix 01, dated October 19, 2005. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 08 may be used. Repair and/or re-inspection accomplished before May 1, 2003, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(h)of this AD. Model A300 B2 and B4: Repetitive Inspections and Follow-On Actions

(i)For Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, perform repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of frame 47, left and right sides, per Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 03, dated April 11, 2001; or Revision 06, including Appendix 01, dated October 19, 2005. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 06 may be used. Accomplishing this requirement terminates the corresponding inspection requirement of the A300 Supplemental Structural Inspection Document

(SSID)for Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes. (That SSID is mandated by AD 96-13-11, amendment 39-9679.)

(1)For Model A300 B2 series airplanes: Perform the initial inspection at the later of the times specified by paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10,400 flight cycles or 13,300 flight hours, whichever occurs first, until the inspection in paragraph

(j)of this AD is done.

(i)Before the accumulation of 16,500 total flight cycles or 21,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(ii)Within 1,000 flight cycles or 1,300 flight hours after May 1, 2003, whichever occurs first.

(2)For Model A300 B4-100 series airplanes: Perform the initial inspection at the later of the times specified by paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8,500 flight cycles or 16,400 flight hours, whichever occurs first, until the inspection in paragraph

(j)of this AD is done.

(i)Before the accumulation of 10,300 total flight cycles or 19,800 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(ii)Within 750 flight cycles or 1,500 flight hours after May 1, 2003, whichever occurs first.

(3)For Model A300 B4-200 series airplanes: Perform the initial inspection at the later of the times specified by paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,000 flight cycles or 13,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first, until the inspection in paragraph

(j)of this AD is done.

(i)Before the accumulation of 11,000 total flight cycles or 21,200 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(ii)Within 750 flight cycles or 1,500 flight hours after May 1, 2003, whichever occurs first. New Requirements of This AD Inspections and Corrective Actions

(j)At the applicable time in paragraph

(k)or

(l)of this AD: Except as provided by paragraphs

(n)and

(p)of this AD, do an eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of frame 47, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by accomplishing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Where the service bulletins specify to contact Airbus for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Doing the inspections required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (f), (g), and

(i)of this AD.

(1)For Airbus Model A300 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 06, including Appendix 01, dated October 19, 2005.

(2)For Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 08, including Appendix 01, dated October 19, 2005.

(k)For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (f), (g), or

(i)of this AD, as applicable, has not been done prior to the effective date of this AD: Do the initial inspection required by paragraph

(j)of this AD before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,400 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable interval specified in Figure 1, Sheet 1, of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.

(l)For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (f), (g), or

(i)of this AD, as applicable, has been done prior to the effective date of this AD: Inspect at the applicable times specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable interval specified in Figure 1, Sheet 1, of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.

(1)For airplanes on which no cracking was found during any inspection required by this AD: Do the next inspection at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (l)(1)(ii) of this AD.

(i)At the next repetitive interval specified in the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, or within 1,400 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(ii)At the next repetitive interval specified in paragraph

(g)or

(i)of this AD, as applicable.

(2)For airplanes on which any crack was found during any inspection required by this AD, and the crack is 30 millimeters

(mm)(1.181 inch) or less in length: Do the next inspection at the applicable times specified in paragraph (l)(2)(i) or (l)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i)For Airbus Model A300 airplanes: At the next repetitive interval specified in the service bulletin specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(ii)Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes: At the next repetitive interval specified in the service bulletin specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Abnormal Load Events

(m)For airplanes on which any abnormal load event occurs after the effective date of this AD, do the actions in paragraph (m)(1), (m)(2), or (m)(3) of this AD, as applicable, at the time specified in the applicable paragraph.

(1)Within 3 months after the event, or at the next applicable repetitive interval required by paragraph

(k)or

(l)of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do the next repetitive inspection required by paragraph

(j)of this AD.

(2)Before further flight following any additional abnormal load event that occurs following the first event but before the next repetitive inspection required by paragraph

(k)or

(l)of this AD: Contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, or the EASA (or its delegated agent) for further instructions.

(3)Within 3 months after any abnormal load event: Report the event to Airbus in accordance with the requirements of paragraph

(q)of this AD. Optional Terminating Action (Repair) for Certain Cracks

(n)Repairing any crack greater than 30 mm but less than or equal to 50 mm in size in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0370, including Appendix 01, dated July 16, 2004; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6144, including Appendix 01, dated July 16, 2004; as applicable; terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph

(k)or

(l)of this AD for that area only. Where the service bulletins specify to contact Airbus for repair instructions: Repair the crack using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Repetitive Inspections Following Optional Terminating Action

(o)Within 6 months after repair in accordance with paragraph

(n)of this AD: Submit a post-repair inspection program for monitoring the repair to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, for approval. Repair of Any Crack Greater than 50 mm in Size

(p)If any crack that is greater than 50 mm in size is found during any inspection required by paragraph (j), (k), or

(l)of this AD: Before further flight, repair according to a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116. Reporting Requirement

(q)At the applicable time specified in paragraph (q)(1) or (q)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of all results of each inspection required by this AD to Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, Attention: Jacques Leborgne, fax 33-5-61-93-36-14. The report must include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Information collection requirements contained in this AD have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

(1)For airplanes on which the inspection is accomplished after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after performing the inspection.

(2)For airplanes on which the inspection has been accomplished before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Issues of Service Bulletins

(r)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs

(i)and

(j)of this AD. Table 1.—Previous Issues of Service Bulletins Model Airbus Service Bulletin Revision level Date A300 airplanes A300-53-0246 03 April 11, 2001. A300-53-0246 04 November 12, 2002. A300-53-0246 05 January 19, 2004. A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes A300-53-6029 05 April 11, 2001. A300-53-6029 06 November 12, 2002. A300-53-6029 07 January 19, 2004. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (s)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.

(3)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2003-06-04 are approved as AMOCs with this AD until paragraph

(j)of this AD is accomplished. Related Information

(t)French airworthiness directive F-2006-016, dated January 18, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 12, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-7516 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27927; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-182-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Airbus A300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1622; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27927; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-182-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. The Joint Aviation Authorities

(JAA)has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference

(ECAC)representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. The EASA advises that Airbus has issued new fuel airworthiness limitations

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Differences Between the Proposed AD and EASA Airworthiness Directive For airplanes that have exceeded 34,000 total flight hours as of effective date of the EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0200, the EASA airworthiness directive states that Task 28-18-00-03-1, “Operational check of lo-level/underfull/calibration sensors,” must be done within 6 years or 20,000 flight hours after the effective date. This AD, however, would require accomplishing Task 28-18-00-03-1 at the later of the following compliance times:

(1)Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total flight hours, or

(2)within 72 months or 20,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. The EASA is considering further rulemaking to implement this change in the compliance time. EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0200 states that the defined intervals for the FALs have to be counted from the effective date of the EASA airworthiness directive. This proposed AD would instead start counting the first interval of the FALs from the later of the following compliance times:

(1)The effective date of this AD, or

(2)the date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness. The EASA also is considering further rulemaking to implement this change in the compliance time. Clarification of Service Information EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0200 requires adherence to certain maintenance and inspection tasks in “* * * Airbus ALS Part 5, Fuel Airworthiness Limitations as defined in document A300 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, 95A.1928/05 at Issue 1 * * * ”. However, Airbus has not yet published a document titled, “Airbus ALS Part 5, Fuel Airworthiness Limitations,” for Model A300 series airplanes. This proposed AD instead refers only to Airbus A300 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1928/05, Issue 1; the maintenance and inspections tasks are found in Section 1 of that document. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 30 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $4,800, or $160 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27927; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-182-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 21, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, except Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with the operator maintenance documents is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections and CDCCLs, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections and CDCCLs described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph

(j)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections and CDCCLs that will preserve the critical ignition source prevention feature of the affected fuel system. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Revise Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)to Incorporate Fuel Maintenance and Inspection Tasks

(f)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A300 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1928/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)on March 13, 2006), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.” For all tasks identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1928/05, the initial compliance times start from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished at the interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1928/05, except as provided by paragraph

(g)of this AD.

(1)The effective date of this AD.

(2)The date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness. Initial Compliance Time for Task 28-18-00-03-1

(g)For Task 28-18-00-03-1, “Operational check of lo-level/underfull/calibration sensors,” identified in Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A300 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1928/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005: The initial compliance time is the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, Task 28-18-00-03-1 must be accomplished at the repetitive interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1928/05.

(1)Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total flight hours.

(2)Within 72 months or 20,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Revise ALS to Incorporate CDCCLs

(h)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A300 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1928/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the EASA on March 13, 2006), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations.” No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs

(i)Except as provided by paragraph

(j)of this AD: After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs

(f)and

(h)of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information

(k)EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0200, dated July 11, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 11, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-7517 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27925; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-183-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1622; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27925; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-183-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design ( *i.e.* , type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. The Joint Aviation Authorities

(JAA)has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference

(ECAC)representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The EASA advises that Airbus has issued new fuel airworthiness limitations

(FALs)to address failure conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks or practices or both are not performed in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements. The new FALs are intended to satisfy the JAA's Interim Policy of Fuel Tank Safety and SFAR 88 requirements. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued A310 ALS—Airworthiness Limitations Section, dated May 31, 2006, which is a repository for stand-alone documents that are approved independently from each other. The Airbus A310 ALS comprises the following documents: • ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items • ALS Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items • ALS Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements • ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance • ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Airbus ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated May 31, 2006, refers to Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the EASA on March 13, 2006). Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Document 95A.1930/05 describes certain FAL inspections, which are periodic inspections of certain features for latent failures that could contribute to an ignition source. Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations,” of Document 95A.1930/05 identifies critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). A CDCCL is a limitation requirement to preserve a critical ignition source prevention feature of the fuel tank system design that is necessary to prevent the occurrence of an unsafe condition. The purpose of a CDCCL is to provide instruction to retain the critical ignition source prevention feature during configuration change that may be caused by alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions. A CDCCL is not a periodic inspection. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive 2006-0202, dated July 11, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. As described in FAA Order 8100.14A, “Interim Procedures for Working With the European Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness,” dated August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Differences Between the Proposed AD and EASA Airworthiness Directive For airplanes that have exceeded 34,000 total flight hours as of effective date of the EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0202, the EASA airworthiness directive states that Task 28-18-00-03-1, “Operational check of lo-level/underfull/calibration sensors,” must be done within 6 years or 20,000 flight hours after the effective date. This AD, however, would require accomplishing Task 28-18-00-03-1 at the later of the following compliance times:

(1)Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total flight hours, or

(2)within 72 months or 20,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. The EASA is considering further rulemaking to implement this change in the compliance time. EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0202 states that the defined intervals for the FALs have to be counted from the effective date of the EASA airworthiness directive. This proposed AD would instead start counting the first interval of the FALs from the later of the following compliance times:

(1)The effective date of this AD, or

(2)the date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness. The EASA also is considering further rulemaking to implement this change in the compliance time. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 69 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $11,040, or $160 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27925; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-183-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 21, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with the operator maintenance documents is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections and CDCCLs, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections and CDCCLs described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Revise Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)to Incorporate Fuel Maintenance and Inspection Tasks

(f)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A310 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated May 31, 2006, as defined in Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)on March 13, 2006), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.” For all tasks identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, the initial compliance times start from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished at the intervals specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, except as provided by paragraph

(g)of this AD.

(1)The effective date of this AD.

(g)For Task 28-18-00-03-1, “Operational check of lo-level/underfull/calibration sensors,” identified in Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005: The initial compliance time is the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, Task 28-18-00-03-1 must be accomplished at the repetitive interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05.

(1)Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total flight hours.

(2)Within 72 months or 20,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Revise ALS to Incorporate CDCCLs

(h)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A310 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated May 31, 2006, as defined in Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the EASA on March 13, 2006), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations.” No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs

(i)Except as provided by paragraph

(j)of this AD: After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs

(f)and

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information

(k)EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0202, dated July 11, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 11, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-7518 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0197; FRL-8300-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Definition, Emergency Episode, and Monitoring Regulations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing full approval of revisions to the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern a definition, an emergency episode regulation, and various monitoring regulations. We are proposing to approve these provisions in order to regulate their corresponding emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0197, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions. 2. E-mail: *steckel.andrew@epa.gov* . 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail *http://www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4126, *rose.julie@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the provisions in the following table: Submitted Provisions NAC No. NAC title Adopted Submitted 445B.134 “Person” defined 09/06/06 12/08/06 445B.230 Plan for reduction of emissions 09/06/06 12/08/06 445B.258 Monitoring systems: Verification of operational status 09/06/06 12/08/06 445B.259 Monitoring systems: Performance evaluations 09/06/06 12/08/06 445B.260 Monitoring systems: Components contracted for before September 11, 1974 09/06/06 12/08/06 In the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** , we are approving these provisions in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action. Dated: April 4, 2007. Jane Diamond, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-7548 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0609; FRL-8302-7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; NSR Reform Regulations, Rule AM-06-04 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve certain revisions to Wisconsin's prevention of significant deterioration

(PSD)and non-attainment new source review

(NSR)construction permit programs submitted on May 25, 2006. On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the federal PSD and non-attainment NSR regulations. These revisions are commonly referred to as “NSR Reform” regulations, which became effective on March 3, 2003. These regulatory revisions include provisions for determining baseline actual emissions, provisions for promulgating actual-to-future actual methodology, provisions for establishing Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs), provisions for using the Clean Unit test, and, provisions for using Pollution Control Projects (PCP). On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit Court) issued its ruling on challenges to the December 2002 NSR reform revisions. Although the Court upheld most of EPA's rules, it vacated both the Clean Unit and the PCP provisions. In addition, the Court remanded to EPA the provision that requires recordkeeping and reporting for sources that elect to use the actual-to-projected actual emission test only where there is a reasonable possibility that a project may result in a significant net emissions increase. EPA is currently working on promulgating a rule that will clarify the reasonable possibility provision. EPA's final decision with regard to the remand may require Wisconsin to revise this portion of its rules to be consistent with EPA's definition of reasonable possibility. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR)is seeking approval of rule AM-06-04 to implement the NSR Reform provisions that have not been vacated by the June 24, 2005, DC Circuit Court decision. This action affects major stationary sources in Wisconsin that are subject to or potentially subject to the PSD, and non-attainment NSR construction permit programs. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0609, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *blakley.pamela@epa.gov.* • Fax: (312)886-5824. • Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits 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-2006-0609. 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 Danny Marcus, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)353-8781 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danny Marcus, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)353-8781, *marcus.danny@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 Being Addressed in This Document? III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is Proposing To Approve? IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? V. 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 Being Addressed in This Document? We are proposing to approve rule AM-06-04 as a revision to the PSD and non-attainment NSR construction permit programs for the State of Wisconsin. EPA granted full approval to Wisconsin's non-attainment NSR program on January 18, 1995 (60 FR 3538) and the approval became effective on February 17, 1995. EPA granted final full approval to Wisconsin's PSD program on May 27, 1999 (64 FR 28745), which became effective on June 28, 1999. On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the federal PSD and non-attainment NSR regulations in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 (67 FR 80186). These revisions are commonly referred to as “NSR Reform” regulations and became effective on March 3, 2003. These regulatory revisions included provisions for determining baseline actual emissions, provisions for promulgating actual-to-future actual methodology, provisions for establishing Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs), provisions for using the Clean Unit test, and, provisions for using Pollution Control Projects (PCP). As stated in the December 31, 2002, EPA rulemaking, state and local permitting agencies must adopt and submit revisions to their part 51 permitting programs implementing the minimum program elements of that rulemaking no later than January 2, 2006 (67 FR 80240). With this submittal, Wisconsin requests approval of program revisions that satisfy this requirement. WDNR originally prepared rule changes to adopt a version of the federal rule revisions which were subsequently authorized by the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board for public hearing in December 2003. After the DC Circuit Court ruled on the challenges of the federal NSR changes, WDNR moved forward to adopt those portions of the reform rules that the Court upheld and clarify those portions that the Court remanded back to EPA. WDNR submitted these regulatory revisions on May 22, 2006. III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is Proposing To Approve? Chapter NR 405—PSD rules Section 1 NR 405.01(1) and

(2)WDNR has amended the language for “applicability” and “purpose” to be more consistent with the language of the federal rule in § 51.166(a)(7)(i) and (ii), respectively, of the federal rule. Section 2 NR 405.02(1)(Intro) and

(a)to

(c)WDNR has amended the definition of “actual emissions” so that it is more consistent with § 51.166(b)(21)(i) of the federal rule. Section 3 NR 405.02(1)(d) WDNR has rescinded section NR 405.02(1)(d), which is the portion of the definition of “actual emissions” that discussed actual emissions from electric utility steam generating units. The new provision under the definition of “Baseline actual emissions”, under section NR 405.02(2m)(b) addresses the average rate of emissions per year from existing electric utility steam generating units. This is consistent with § 51.166(b)(47)(i) of the federal rule. Section 4 NR 405.02(2m) WDNR has established the definition of “baseline actual emissions”. This is consistent with the definition in § 51.166(b)(47) of the federal rule. Section 5 NR 405.02(8) and

(11)WDNR has amended the definition of “Building, structure, facility, or installation” to reflect its use of the phrase “regulated NSR contaminant” to replace “air contaminant.” WDNR has amended the definition of “construction” so that it is more consistent with the definition in § 51.166(b)(8) of the federal rule. Section 6 NR 405.02(11c),

(11e)and

(11j)WDNR has established the definitions of; “Continuous emissions monitoring system” (CEMS), “Continuous emissions rate monitoring system” (CERMS), and “Continuous parameter monitoring system” (CPMS). These definitions are consistent with § 51.166(b)(43),

(46)and (45), respectively, of the federal rule. Section 7 NR 405.02(12) WDNR has established the definition of “emissions unit”. This is consistent with the definition in § 51.166(b)(7) of the federal rule. Section 8 NR 405.02(20m) WDNR has established the definition of “Lowest Achievable Emission Rate” or “LAER”. This is consistent with the definition in § 51.166(b)(52) of the federal rule. Section 9 NR 405.02(21) and

(24)WDNR has modified the definitions of “Major modification” and “Net emissions increase” to be more consistent with § 51.166(b)(2) and (b)(3), respectively, of the federal rule. WDNR has also added the language for “routine maintenance, repair, and replacement” under section NR 405.02(21), which makes the rule more consistent with § 51.166(b)(2)(iii) of the federal rule. Section 10 NR 405.02(24j) WDNR has established the definition of “Plant-wide applicability limitation” or “PAL”. This is consistent with the definition in § 51.166(w)(2)(v) of the federal rule. Section 11 NR 405.02(24m) WDNR has rescinded section NR 405.02(24m), the definition of pollution control projects (PCPs). This provision was vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court. Therefore, WDNR is making its rules consistent with the Court's decision. Section 12 NR 405.02(25b), (25d), (25e), (25f)(a) and

(25i)WDNR has established the definitions of, “Predictive emissions monitoring system (PEMS)”, “PSD program”, “Project”, “Projected actual emissions”, and “Regulated NSR air contaminant”. These definitions are consistent with § 51.166(b)(44), (42), (51), (40), (49), respectively, of the federal rule. Section 13 NR 405.02(27)(a)8., 17., and 18. WDNR has rescinded sections NR 405.02(27)(a)8, 17, and 18. The pollutants Mercury, Chlorofluorocarbons and Halons are not regulated by the federal PSD rules. This is consistent with § 51.166(b)(23)(i) of the federal rule. Section 14 NR 405.02(27m) WDNR has established the definition of “significant emissions increase”. This is consistent with § 51.166(b)(39) of the federal rule. Section 15 NR 405.025 WDNR has established a provision that provides a detailed explanation of calculating increases in actual emissions from

(1)existing emission units,

(2)new emission units, and

(3)new and existing emission units. This provision addresses actual emissions and baseline actual emissions. This is consistent with the “actual-to-projected actual applicability test” provisions that can be found at § 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(c), (d), and

(f)of the federal rule. Section 16 NR 405.16(3) and

(4)WDNR has added language regarding sources that choose to use the actual-to-projected actual applicability test and do not trigger PSD. WDNR specifies recordkeeping and reporting requirements for all sources that elect to use the applicability test. The federal rules require a source to follow the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this section if there is a “reasonable possibility” that a source may exceed the projected actual emissions. The “reasonable possibility” clause of this provision of the federal rule was remanded to EPA in the June 24, 2005, DC Circuit Court ruling. *State of New York et al.* v. *EPA,* 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). At this time, EPA has not responded to the remand order and this provision remains a part of the federal rule. *See* 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6). As Wisconsin's requirement of recordkeeping and reporting for all facilities using the actual-to-projected actual applicability test is more stringent than the federal rule, we propose to approve this approach. Section 17 NR 405.18 PALs in Attainment Areas NR 405.18(1) This portion of 405.18 outlines the “APPLICABILITY” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(1) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(2) This section of 405.18 outlines the “DEFINITIONS” provision of PALs. The included definitions in this section are; “Allowable emissions”, “Major emissions unit”, “PAL effective date”, “PAL effective period”, “PAL major modification”, “PAL permit”, “PAL regulated air contaminant”, “Significant emissions unit”, and “Small emissions unit”. This section is consistent with § 51.166(w)(2) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(3) This section of 405.18 outlines the “PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(3) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(4) This section of 405.18 outlines the “GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING PALS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(4) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(5) This section of 405.18 outlines the “PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PALS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(5) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(6) This section of 405.18 outlines the “SETTING THE 10-YEAR PAL LEVEL” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(6) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(7) This section of 405.18 outlines the “CONTENTS OF THE PAL PERMIT” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(7) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(8) This section of 405.18 outlines the “PAL EFFECTIVE PERIOD AND REOPENING OF THE PAL PERMIT” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(8) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(9) This section of 405.18 outlines the “EXPIRATION OF A PAL” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(9) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(10) This section of 405.18 outlines the “RENEWAL OF A PAL” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(10) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(11) This section of 405.18 outlines the “INCREASING A PAL DURING THE PAL EFFECTIVE PERIOD” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(11) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(12) This section of 405.18 outlines the “MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR PALS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(12) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(13) This section of 405.18 outlines the “RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(13) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(14) This section of 405.18 outlines the “REPORTING AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(14) of the federal rule. NR 405.18(15) This section of 405.18 outlines the “TRANSITION REQUIREMENTS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(w)(15) of the federal rule. Chapter NR 408—Nonattainment Major NSR Program Section 18 NR 408.02(1) WDNR has established the definition of “Actual emissions”. This is consistent with the definition in § 51.165(a)(1)(xii) of the federal rule. Section 19 NR 408.02(2m) WDNR has established the definition of “Baseline actual emissions”. This is consistent with the definition in § 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv) of the federal rule. Section 20 NR 408.02(4), (5), and

(11)WDNR has established the definitions of “Best available control technology” or “BACT”, “Building, structure, facility or installation”, and “Construction”. These definitions are consistent with the definitions in §§ 51.165(a)(1)(xl), 51.165(a)(1)(ii), and 51.165(a)(1)(xviii), respectively, of the federal rule. Section 21 NR 408.02(11e),

(11m)and

(11s)WDNR has established the definitions of; “Continuous emissions monitoring system” or “CEMS”, “Continuous emissions rate monitoring system” or “CERMS”, and “Continuous parameter monitoring system” or “CPMS”. These definitions are consistent with § 51.165(a)(1)(xxxi), (xxxiv) and (xxxiii), respectively, of the federal rule. Section 22 NR 408.02(13) WDNR has established the definition of “emissions unit”. This is consistent with the definition in § 51.165(a)(1)(vii) of the federal rule. Section 23 NR 408.02(13m) WDNR has established the definition of “federal land manager”. This is consistent with the definition in § 51.165(a)(1)(xlii) of the federal rule. Section 24 NR 408.02(20) WDNR has established the definition of “major modification”. This is consistent with the definition in § 51.165(a)(1)(v) of the federal rule. WDNR has also added the language for “routine maintenance, repair, and replacement” under section NR 408.02(20), which makes the rule more consistent with § 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C) of the federal rule. Section 25 NR 408.02(21)(a)1.(Intro) WDNR has modified this paragraph so that “air pollutants” are now “air contaminants”. WDNR's rules are replacing “pollutants” with “contaminants”, and the criteria pollutants are referred to as; “NSR air contaminants”. Section 26 NR 408.02(23) WDNR has modified the definition of “net emissions increase” to be more consistent with § 51.165(a)(1)(vi) of the federal rule. Section 27 NR 408.02(24m) and

(25s)WDNR has established the definitions for “nonattainment major new source review” and “plant-wide applicability limitation”. These definitions are consistent with §§ 51.165(a)(1)(xxx) and § 51.165(f)(2)(v), respectively, of the federal rule. Section 28 NR 408.02(27) WDNR has rescinded the existing PCP provision, which is consistent with the federal rules. Section 29 NR 408.02(28e), (28j), (28m), (28s)(a), (29m), and

(32m)WDNR has established the definition of; “predictive emissions monitoring system” or “PEMS”, “prevention of significant deterioration permit” or “PSD Permit”, “project”, “projected actual emissions”, “regulated NSR air contaminant”, and “significant emissions increase”. These definitions are consistent with §§ 51.165(a)(1)(xxxii), 51.165(a)(1)(xli), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxix), 51.165(a)(1)(xxviii), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii), and 51.165(a)(1)(xxvii), respectively, of the federal rule. However, as a small deviation to note, WDNR has chosen to refer to an NSR pollutant as an NSR air contaminant. Section 30 NR 408.025 WDNR has established a provision that provides a detailed explanation of calculating increases in actual emissions from

(1)existing emission units,

(2)new emission units, and

(F)of the federal rule. Section 31 NR 408.06(10) WDNR has established this provision consistent with § 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) of the federal rule, regarding the total increase in emissions resulting from a major modification. Section 32 NR 408.10(5) and

(6)WDNR has added language regarding sources that choose to use the actual-to-projected actual applicability test and do not exceed the significance threshold for any pollutant regulated by chapter NR 408. WDNR specifies recordkeeping and reporting requirements for all sources that elect to use the applicability test. The federal rules require a source to follow the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this section if there is a “reasonable possibility” that a source may exceed the projected actual emissions. The “reasonable possibility” clause of this provision of the federal rule has been remanded to EPA in the June 24, 2005, DC Circuit Court ruling. *State of New York et al.* v. *EPA* , 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). At this time, EPA has not responded to the remand order and this provision remains a part of the federal rule. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6). As Wisconsin's requirement of recordkeeping and reporting for all facilities using the actual-to-projected actual applicability test is more stringent than the federal rule in that it applies to all sources and not just where there is a “reasonable possibility” that the source may exceed the projected actual emissions, we propose to approve this approach. Section 33 NR 408.11 PALs in Non-Attainment Areas NR 408.11(1) This portion of 408.11 outlines the “APPLICABILITY” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.165(f)(1) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(2) This section of 405.18 outlines the “DEFINITIONS” provision of PALs. The included definitions in this section are; “allowable emissions”, “major emissions unit”, “PAL effective date”, “PAL effective period”, “PAL major modification”, “PAL permit”, “PAL regulated air contaminant”, “significant emissions unit”, and “small emissions unit”. This section is consistent with § 51.165(f)(2) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(3) This section of 408.11 outlines the “PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.165(f)(3) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(4) This section of 408.11 outlines the “GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING PALS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.165(f)(4) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(5) This section of 408.11 outlines the “PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PALS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.165(f)(5) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(6) This section of 408.11 outlines the “SETTING THE 10-YEAR PAL LEVEL” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.165(f)(6) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(7) This section of 408.11 outlines the “CONTENTS OF THE PAL PERMIT” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.165(f)(7) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(8) This section of 408.11 outlines the “PAL EFFECTIVE PERIOD AND REOPENING OF THE PAL PERMIT” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.165(f)(8) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(9) This section of 408.11 outlines the “EXPIRATION OF A PAL” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.165(f)(9) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(10) This section of 408.11 outlines the “RENEWAL OF A PAL” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.166(f)(10) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(11) This section of 408.11 outlines the “INCREASING A PAL DURING THE PAL EFFECTIVE PERIOD” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.165(f)(11) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(12) This section of 408.11 outlines the “MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR PALS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.165(f)(12) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(13) This section of 408.11 outlines the “RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.165(f)(13) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(14) This section of 408.11 outlines the “REPORTING AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.165(f)(14) of the federal rule. NR 408.11(15) This section of 408.11 outlines the “TRANSITION REQUIREMENTS” provision of PALs. This provision is consistent with § 51.165(f)(15) of the federal rule. Section 34 NR 484.04(21) This section is amended by WDNR so that the performance specifications in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, are incorporated by reference. Appendix B contains CEM performance specifications that are required by chapters NR 405 and NR 408. We propose to approve this provision into the SIP. Section 35 NR 484.04(27m) This section was created by WDNR to incorporate by reference, 40 CFR part 82, Subpart A, for the ozone depleting substance list that existed in the Pollution Control Project provision that was in the original version of the rules. The Pollution Control Project provision has been vacated. However, this section will remain in the rules in case it is needed for reference in the future. We propose to approve this provision into the SIP. Section 36 This section states the date rule AM-06-04 becomes effective by WDNR. The date will be the first day of the month following publication in the Wisconsin administrative register. Also, WDNR will not publish the rule until EPA approves it. Section 37 This section contains the date the rule is approved to be adopted by the State of Wisconsin Natural Resources Board. IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? EPA is proposing to approve into the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan

(SIP)the revisions to WDNR's PSD and Non-attainment NSR construction permits program submitted by WDNR on May 25, 2006. These revisions meet the minimum program requirements of the December 31, 2002, EPA NSR Reform rulemaking. VI. 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 is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or the use of energy, 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 note, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 11, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-7541 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0609; FRL-8302-8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; New Source Review Reform “Linkage” Rule, Rule AM-32-04b AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan

(SIP)changes to the minor New Source Review

(NSR)construction permit program and permits fees schedule, through rule AM-32-04b. The purpose of rule AM-32-04b is to update Wisconsin's minor NSR construction permit program to include changes to implement the new elements of the federal “NSR Reform” rules for sources that are exempt from major NSR permitting requirements. Rule AM-32-04b has been created to accompany the “NSR Reform” rules and is necessary to effectively implement the “NSR Reform” rules. Elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** , EPA is proposing to approve Wisconsin's “NSR Reform” rules. WDNR has also established a new fee schedule that will apply to facilities that meet the criteria in rule AM-32-04b. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0609, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.* • *Fax:* (312)886-5824. • *Mail:* Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • *Hand Delivery:* Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits 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-2006-0609. 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 Danny Marcus, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)353-8781, *marcus.danny@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 Being Addressed In This Document? III. What Are The Changes That EPA Is Proposing To Approve? IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? V. 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

(PSD)and NANSR regulations, in the **Federal Register** on December 31, 2002, which became effective March 3, 2003. Elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** , EPA is proposing to approve Wisconsin's “NSR Reform” rules. The rule revision will affect those facilities seeking an exemption from the major NSR program as a result of the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test, and facilities complying with plant-wide applicability limitations (PALs). This rule revision also establishes a new fee schedule for facilities utilizing PALs and for facilities seeking an exemption determination. This rule revision contains a provision that will be applicable to the major source facilities that are exempt from major NSR when applying the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test in circumstances where the calculated difference between projected actual emissions and baseline actual emissions does not exceed significant thresholds. Facilities that meet this criterion will also have to meet the criteria in the linkage package in order to be eligible for the exemption. The criteria consists of:

(1)The modification will not cause or exacerbate an exceedance of an ambient air quality increment or standard;

(2)the modification will not trigger a New Source Performance Standard

(NSPS)or a National Emissions for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) standard; and,

(3)the modification will not require enforceable conditions to limit potential to emit. PALs were created so that a facility could make rapid, iterative changes optimizing process performance, without the administrative time delays and uncertainty associated with permitting. The PAL is believed to provide for environmental improvement since its cap-based framework encourages emission reductions and pollution prevention. In rule AM-32-04b, WDNR provides additional clarification for facilities that choose to operate under a PAL. EPA has not provided provisions for sources operating under a PAL in certain circumstances. Any facility which establishes a PAL, or will distribute allowable emissions following expiration of a PAL, will comply with the provision section NR 406.035 and will need a minor NSR construction permit. This rule revision contains a provision that will apply to sources modifying their facility under a PAL. In order to be eligible for this exemption, the source also has to meet the following criteria:

(1)The modification will not cause or exacerbate an exceedance of an ambient air quality increment or standard;

(2)the modification will not trigger a NSPS or NESHAP standard;

(3)the modification does not consist of the construction of a new emissions unit which is a significant emissions unit under section NR 405.18(2)(h), of the Wisconsin PSD program, or section NR 408.11(2)(h), of the Wisconsin NANSR program, and which has been operating for less than two years, or does not consist of the construction of a “major emissions unit”;

(4)the emissions from the source will be able to comply with the PAL; and,

(5)any increase in emissions, due to the modification, in pollutants not regulated by the PAL will not exceed maximum theoretical emissions. WDNR has established into its rules a new fee schedule that will apply to facilities using PALs and to facilities applying for exemptions under the new provisions in this rule. A source will be responsible for paying a fee when establishing a PAL limit, increasing an existing PAL limit, and when required to distribute limits upon expiration of a PAL. Also, there are fees applicable to sources when seeking an exemption determination under the new provisions of this rule. III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is Proposing To Approve? Rule AM-32-04b Section 1 NR 406.035—Establishment or Distribution of Plant-Wide Applicability Limitations This provision was established by WDNR to require a facility to acquire a minor NSR construction permit when:

(1)Establishing a PAL; and,

(2)distributing allowable emissions following expiration of a PAL. In the **Federal Register** document that promulgated the “NSR Reform” rules, 67 FR 80208, the section that contained the discussion on PALs did not specifically address how PALs should be established. However, the document states that a permitting authority must use a federally enforceable permit which may include using a minor NSR construction permit. Section 2 NR 406.04(1f)—Modifications to Sources Under Plant-Wide Applicability Limitations WDNR has established this exemption provision for sources operating under a PAL which are seeking to modify their facility. This is consistent with the NSR Reform rules. They will not need a construction permit as long as the criteria in this provision is met:

(1)The modification will not cause or exacerbate an exceedance of an ambient air quality increment or standard;

(2)the modification will not trigger a NSPS or NESHAP standard;

(4)the emissions from the source will be able to comply with the PAL; and,

(5)any increase in emissions, due to the modification, of pollutants not regulated by the PAL, will not exceed maximum theoretical emissions. NR 406.04(1k)—Projects Evaluated for Significant Net Emissions Increase WDNR has established this exemption provision for sources that are modifying existing emission units at a major stationary source whose calculated difference between the projected actual emissions and baseline actual emissions does not exceed significant thresholds. The reform rules exempt any source meeting this criterion from acquiring a major NSR construction permit. This provision is consistent with the reform rules; it exempts a source from acquiring a permit to construct when the project meets the criteria stated in the provision. The criteria consist of:

(1)The modification will not cause or exacerbate an exceedance of an ambient air quality increment or standard;

(2)the modification will not trigger a NSPS or a NESHAP standard; and,

(3)the modification will not require enforceable conditions to limit potential to emit. A source may still be required to apply for an operating permit before construction of the project begins. Section 3 NR 406.07(3) This provision is being established so that any source that undergoes a modification that is exempt from the requirement to obtain a construction permit under sections NR 406.04

(1f)and

(1k)shall be treated as a new or modified source for the purposes of the emission limitations under chapters NR 400 to 499, unless the modification is excluded from being considered a modification under section NR 406.04(4). The purpose of section NR 406.07(3) is to allow sources to take advantage of the federal reform rules without being exempted from meeting updated requirements of other rules in the Wisconsin SIP. This provision will allow any emission unit being modified under the applicability test or PAL provision to be exempt from permitting without being exempt from other Wisconsin SIP provisions. As a result, facilities will be able to take advantage of the flexibility provided by the federal NSR Reform rule, but will not be exempted from meeting updated requirements in other rules. Section 4 NR 406.11(1m) WDNR has established this provision so that it may be able to open a construction permit for the purposes of decreasing a PAL limit. This is consistent with the federal NSR Reform rules. See 40 CFR 51.166(w)(8)(ii)(a) and 40 CFR 51.165(f)(8)(ii)(A). Section 5 NR 410.03(intro.)—Application Fee WDNR has modified this existing paragraph. The words, “under s. NR 406.04(1)(i) * * *”, have been deleted from the sentence, “Any person required under s. NR 406.04(1)(i) to obtain a determination of exemption from the department shall pay the basic fee under sub. (1)(b).” The fee will now apply to any facility requesting an exemption, and is not exclusive to section NR 406.04(1)(i) any longer. Section 6 NR 410.03(1)(a)8. to 10. WDNR has established the fees associated with PALs in this provision. A facility will be responsible for a fee of $10,150 per pollutant when establishing a PAL limit. A fee of $4,850 per pollutant will be applicable if a facility decides to increase a PAL limit. When a facility comes in for distribution of allowable limits following expiration of a PAL, a fee of $4,850 per pollutant will be applicable. Section 7 NR 410.03(1)(b)1 This provision was originally section NR 410.03(1)(b). The language was modified for consistency. Section 8 NR 410.03(1)(b)(intro.) and 2. to 4. WDNR has reestablished section NR 410.03. This provision explains the fees associated with acquiring an exemption under sections NR 406.04

(1f)and (1k). A facility will be subject to a fee of $1,100 per pollutant when seeking an exemption under section NR 406.04(1f), and a fee of $4,400 per pollutant when seeking an exemption under section NR 406.04(1k). There is also a fee of $700 per pollutant for any facility which needs a detailed air quality modeling analysis for any determination of exemption under sections NR 406.04

(1f)and (1k). IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? EPA is proposing to approve into the Wisconsin SIP, rule AM-32-04b, changes to the minor New Source Review

(NSR)construction permit program and permits fees schedule. Rule AM-32-04b will update Wisconsin's minor NSR construction permit program to include changes to implement the new elements of the federal “NSR Reform” rules for sources that are exempt from major NSR permitting requirements. This new rule will be necessary for AM-06-04, the adopted version of the NSR Reform rule, to be implemented appropriately. V. 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 is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or the use of energy, 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 note, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 11, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-7545 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 70 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0090; FRL-8303-4] Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Revisions to the State of Hawaii Operating Permit Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the State of Hawaii's (“Hawaii” or “State”) operating permit program that amend Hawaii's regulations for insignificant emissions units (IEUs). In an April 1, 2002 Notice of Deficiency published in the **Federal Register** , EPA notified Hawaii of EPA's finding that Hawaii's provisions for IEUs did not meet minimum Federal requirements. Hawaii has revised its program to correct the deficiency identified in the Notice of Deficiency and this action proposes full approval of those revisions. DATES: Written comments must be received by May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0090, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions. 2. *E-mail: Rios.Gerardo@epa.gov* . 3. *Mail or deliver to:* Gerardo Rios, Permits Office Chief, Air Division (AIR-3), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. *Instructions:* All comments 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 Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Baker, EPA Region IX, at

(415)972-3979, ( *Baker.Robert@epa.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses revisions to the following local rule, 11-60.1-82(e), in State of Hawaii operating permits program. In the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** , we are approving the revision in direct final action without prior proposal because we believe the revisions made to the program to resolve the Notice of Deficiency are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in a subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the revision that are not the subject of the adverse comment. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action. Dated: April 4, 2007. Jane Diamond, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-7549 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7714] 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: State City/town/county Source of flooding Location #Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+Elevation in feet

(NAVD)Existing Modified Kaycee, Wyoming WY Town of Kaycee North Fork Powder River Approximately 5,150 feet downstream from Highway 196—at the downstream corporate limits of Kaycee, Wyoming None +4639 Approximately 180 feet downstream from I-25 North—at the upstream corporate limits of Kaycee, Wyoming None +4656 *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. +North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Town of Kaycee Maps are available for inspection at PO Box 265, Kaycee, Town of, WY 82639. Send comments to Allen Streeter, Mayor, 414 Park Street, Kaycee, WY 82639. Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation *Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet

(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected DeKalb County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas Big Wills Creek Approximately 7,000 feet downstream of confluence with Little Wills Creek None +672 Town of Collinsville, De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 10,000 feet upstream of confluence with Little Wills Creek None +680 Confluence with Davis Gap Creek None +783 Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of confluence with Davis Gap Creek None +786 Approximately 2,500 feet upstream of confluence with Hammond Branch None +963 Approximately 5,000 feet upstream of confluence with Hammond Branch None +980 Davis Gap Creek Confluence with Big Wills Creek None +783 De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of confluence with Big Wills Creek None +786 Ivy Creek Confluence with Town Creek None +1152 De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of confluence with Town Creek None +1154 Little Wills Creek Confluence with Big Wills Creek None +674 Town of Collinsville, De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Church Avenue Crossing None +710 Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of SR 68 Crossing None +734 Approximately 2,500 feet upstream of SR 68 Crossing None +738 Little Wills Creek Tributary Approximately 5,000 feet upstream of confluence with Little Wills Creek None +729 Town of Collinsville. Approximately 5,700 feet upstream of confluence with Little Wills Creek None +731 Little Wills Valley Branch Approximately 2,500 feet downstream of 41st Street South Crossing None +839 De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet downstream of 41st Street South Crossing None +843 Phillips Branch Approximately 200 feet upstream of South Sauty Creek None +1166 City of Rainsville, De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of South Sauty Creek None +1171 Piney Creek Approximately 7,000 feet downstream of Horton Road Crossing None +1199 City of Rainsville, Town of Shiloh, De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Confluence with Piney Creek Tributary None +1215 Town Creek Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of confluence with Bynum Mill Branch None +1124 City of Rainsville, De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of SR 35 Crossing None +1175 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Rainsville Maps are available for inspection at 70 McCurdy Avenue, Rainsville, AL 35988. Send comments to The Honorable Donnie Chandler, Mayor, City of Rainsville, P.O. Box 309, Rainsville, AL 35986. Town of Collinsville Maps are available for inspection at 39 Post Office Street, Collinsville, AL 35961. Send comments to The Honorable Jimmy Carter, Mayor, Town of Collinsville, P.O. Box N, Collinsville, AL 35961. Town of Hammondville Maps are available for inspection at 37699 U.S. Highway 11, Hammondville, AL 35989. Send comments to The Honorable Larry Watson, Mayor, Town of Hammondville, P.O. Box 329, Valley Head, AL 35989. Town of Shiloh Maps are available for inspection at 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Payne, AL 35967. Send comments to The Honorable Charles D. Liles, Mayor, Town of Shiloh, P.O. Box 924, Rainsville, AL 35986. De Kalb County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Payne, AL 35967. Send comments to The Honorable Sid Holcomb, Chairman, DeKalb County, 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Payne, AL 35967. Etowah County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas Coosa River St. Clair County Line None +511 City of Southside. Approximately 25,000 feet upstream of SR 77 Crossing None +516 Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of confluence with Big Cove Creek None +524 Approximately 35,000 feet upstream of confluence with Big Cove Creek None +529 Greenway Creek Hooke Street Crossing None +523 City of Gadsden. Springfield Avenue Crossing None +530 Little Cove Creek U.S. 278 Crossing None +524 Town of Hokes Bluff. Approximately 6,000 feet upstream of U.S. 278 Crossing None +524 Locust Fork of Black Warrior River Approximately 7,500 feet downstream of Payne Branch None +821 Town of Walnut Grove, Etowah County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Payne Branch None +827 Payne Branch Confluence with Locust Fork of Black Warrior River None +824 Town of Walnut Grove. Ashville Road Crossing None +836 Town Creek Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of Tuscaloosa Avenue Crossing None +544 Etowah County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Gadsden. Approximately 4,400 feet upstream of Tuscaloosa Avenue Crossing None +554 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Gadsden Maps are available for inspection at 90 Broad Street, Gadsden, AL 35901. Send comments to The Honorable Steve Means, Mayor, City of Gadsden, 90 Broad Street, Gadsden, AL 35901. City of Southside Maps are available for inspection at 2255 Highway 77, Southside, AL 35907. Send comments to The Honorable Wally Burns, Mayor, City of Southside, 2255 Highway 77, Southside, AL 35907. Town of Hokes Bluff Maps are available for inspection at 3301 Alford Bend Road, Hokes Bluff, AL 35903. Send comments to The Honorable Tim Langdale, Mayor, Town of Hokes Bluff, 3301 Alford Bend Road, Hokes Bluff, AL 35903. Town of Walnut Grove Maps are available for inspection at 4012 Gadsden-Blountsville Road, Walnut Grove, AL 35990. Send comments to The Honorable Autry Works, Mayor, Town of Walnut Grove, 4012 Gadsden-Blountsville Road, Walnut Grove, AL 35990. Unincorporated Areas of Etowah County Maps are available for inspection at 800 Forrest Avenue, Gadsden, AL 35901. Send comments to The Honorable Tim N. Choate, Chairman, Etowah County Commission, 800 Forrest Avenue, Gadsden, AL 35901. Geneva County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas Carter Mill Creek Approximately 3,300 feet upstream of Bellwood Highway Crossing None +111 Geneva County (Unincorporated Areas) Approximately 6,200 feet upstream of Bellwood Highway Crossing None +119 Choctawhatchee River Approximately 1,500 feet downstream of confluence with Pea River None +99 City of Geneva, Town of Eunola, Geneva County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 200 feet upstream of confluence with Schuttle Mill Creek None +105 Double Bridges Creek City of Geneva Corporate Limits None +102 Geneva County (Unincorporated Areas) Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of City of Geneva Corporate Limits None +102 Pea River Approximately 7,000 feet upstream of SR 27 Crossing None +102 Geneva County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 10,000 feet upstream of SR 27 Crossing None +102 Threemile Branch Approximately 3,800 feet upstream of confluence with Pea River None +101 Geneva County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 6,600 feet upstream of confluence with Pea River None +113 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Geneva Maps are available for inspection at 517 S. Commerce Street, Geneva, AL 36340. Send comments to The Honorable Karen Simmons, Mayor, City of Geneva, 517 S. Commerce Street, Geneva, AL 36340. Town of Eunola Maps are available for inspection at 200 S. Commerce Street, Geneva, AL 36340. Send comments to The Honorable Ruben Hughes, Mayor, Town of Eunola, Route One, Box 310, Geneva, AL 36340. Geneva County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 200 S. Commerce Street, Geneva, AL 36340. Send comments to The Honorable Judge Harry O. Adkison, Chairman, Geneva County, 200 S. Commerce Street, Geneva, AL 36340. Breathitt County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas North Fork Kentucky River Approximately 7.43 miles downstream of the confluence with Frozen Creek near Cy Bend None +717 Breathitt County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Jackson. Approximately 2.83 miles upstream of the Robinson Road Bridge at Quick Sand None +754 PanBowl Lake Kentucky 15 Crossing None +732 Breathitt County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Jackson. Kentucky 1812 Crossing None +732 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Jackson Maps are available for inspection at 1137 Main Street, Jackson, KY 41339. Send comments to The Honorable Michael D. Miller, Mayor, City of Jackson, 333 Broadway Street, Jackson, KY 41339. Breathitt County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 1137 Main Street, Jackson, KY 41339. Send comments to The Honorable H.J. Richardson, Breathitt County Judge Executive, 1137 Main Street, Jackson, KY 41339. Osage County, Oklahoma, and Incorporated Areas Bird Creek Approximately 5,250 feet upstream from power line right-of-way *649 +646 Osage County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 8750 feet upstream from power line right-of-way *650 +648 Eliza Creek Approximately 4,000 ft upstream from CR-2708 None +695 City of Bartlesville. Approximately 750 feet southwest intersection of Highway 60 and Highway 123 None +702 Euchee Creek Approximately 8,250 feet downstream from confluence with Euchee Creek Tributary (County Boundary) *691 +690 Osage County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of Unnamed Dirt Road None +791 Euchee Creek Tributary Confluence with Euchee Creek *699 +700 Osage County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1050 feet upstream of intersection with North Willow Creek Road *719 +720 Shell Creek Approximately 1,600 feet downstream of North 161 St. West Avenue None +661 Osage County (Unincorporated Areas). Confluence with UT 3 Shell Creek None +677 UT 1 to Shell Creek Confluence with Shell Creek None +668 Osage County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1820 feet upstream of Private Road None +805 UT 1 to UT to Horsepin Creek Approximately 3000 feet south of intersection of 166th Street and Railroad *640 +638 Osage County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 375 feet south of intersection of 166th Street and Railroad None +644 UT 3 to Shell Creek Confluence with Shell Creek None +677 Osage County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 500 ft downstream of Shell Lake Dam None +693 UT 4 to Shell Creek Confluence with Shell Creek None +668 Osage County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4000 feet of confluence with Shell Creek None +673 UT to West Big Heart Creek 4,000 feet downstream of mouth of creek (County Line) None +695 City of Sand Springs. 2,750 feet downstream of mouth of creek None +790 West Big Heart Creek (Formerly Blackboy Creek) Approximately 10,500 feet downstream of mouth of creek (County Line) *719 +722 Osage County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 8,000 feet downstream of mouth of creek *792 +793 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Bartlesville Maps are available for inspection at 401 South Johnston Ave., Bartlesville, OK 74003. Send comments to The Honorable Julie Daniels, Mayor, City of Bartlesville, 401 South Johnston Ave., Bartlesville, OK 74003. City of Sand Springs Maps are available for inspection at P.O. Box 338, Sand Springs, OK 74063. Send comments to The Honorable Robert Walker, Mayor, City of Sand Springs, P.O. Box 338, Sand Springs, OK 74063. Osage County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 628 Kinekah, Pawhuska, OK 74056-0087. Send comments to Board of County Commissioners, 628 Kinekah, Pawhuska, OK 74056. Spartanburg County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas Abners Creek Confluence with Enoree River None +704 Spartanburg County, (Unincorporated Areas), City of Greer. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Freeman Farm Road None +870 Alexander Creek Confluence with South Pacolet River (William C. Bowen Lake) None +825 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,010 feet upstream of Page Road None +844 Tributary 1 Confluence with Alexander Creek None +838 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,620 upstream of Walnut Hill Church Road None +855 Beaverdam Creek

(East)Just upstream of Old Canaan Road None +619 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 300 feet upstream of Church Street None +677 Tributary 1 Confluence with Beaverdam Creek

(East)None +637 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 400 feet upstream of Church Street None +676 Beaverdam Creek

(West)Confluence with Middle Tyger River None +817 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2 miles upstream of Highway 357 None +834 Big Ferguson Creek Approximately 820 feet upstream of confluence with Ferguson Creek *575 +576 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 5,190 feet upstream of Wofford Road None +662 Browns Branch Confluence with Pacolet River None +481 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 960 feet upstream of Short Drive None +496 Buck Creek Confluence with Pacolet River None +709 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,950 feet upstream of Cherokee Foothills Scenic Highway None +808 Buffalo Creek Approximately 100 feet upstream of confluence with Fairforest Creek None +574 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Steward Road None +618 Casey Creek Confluence with Pacolet River None +709 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,290 feet upstream of Overcreek Road None +824 Cedar Shoals Creek Approximately 620 feet downstream of Horseshoe Falls Road None +406 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Browning Road None +539 Cherokee Creek Approximately 70 feet downstream of Cherokee Circle None +713 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,040 feet upstream of Cherokee Circle None +713 Chinquepin Creek Approximately 100 feet upstream of Chesnee Highway None +719 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 920 feet upstream of Chesnee Highway None +726 Dildine Creek Confluence with Enoree River None +560 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,580 feet upstream of confluence with Enoree River None +563 Dillard Creek Confluence with Enoree River None +708 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,540 feet upstream of confluence with Enoree River None +715 Dutchman Creek Approximately 1 mile downstream of Tucker Road None +481 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,370 feet upstream of Walnut Grove Pauline Road None +645 Enoree River Approximately 4.3 miles downstream of Interstate 26 None +401 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 125 feet upstream of State Highway 14 None +748 Tributary 1 Confluence with Enoree River None +698 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,690 feet upstream of Sharon Church Road None +790 Fairforest Creek Approximately 80 feet downstream of Glen Springs Road None +491 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Spartanburg. Approximately 100 feet downstream of Interstate 85 None +844 Tributary 1 Confluence with Fairforest Creek None +497 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of confluence with Fairforest Creek None +525 Tributary 2 Approximately 50 feet upstream of Fairforest Creek None +574 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,320 feet upstream of West Road None +656 Tributary 3 Approximately 300 feet upstream of confluence with Fairforest Creek None +614 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3,630 feet upstream of confluence with Fairforest Creek None +631 Fawn Branch Just upstream of Old Furnace Road None +807 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 870 feet upstream of Old Furnace Road None +810 Tributary 1 Just upstream of Old Furnace Road None +807 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,640 feet upstream of Clark Road None +883 Tributary 2 Confluence with Fawn Branch Tributary 1 None +826 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 440 feet upstream of State Highway 9 None +873 Ferguson Creek Approximately 190 feet downstream of Old Spartanburg Highway None +627 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,990 feet upstream of Old Spartanburg Highway None +638 Fleming Branch Confluence with Fairforest Creek None +566 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,200 feet upstream of confluence with Fairforest Creek None +576 Foster Creek Approximately 330 feet upstream of Twin Oaks Road None +607 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Old Canaan Road None +659 Tributary 1 Confluence with Foster Creek None +636 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,000 feet upstream of confluence with Foster Creek None +748 Fourmile Branch Just upstream of Country Club Rd *631 +632 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,810 feet upstream of Pine Street None +734 Halfway Branch Tributary 1 Approximately 600 feet upstream of confluence of Halfway Branch None +680 City of Spartanburg. Approximately 2,150 feet upstream of confluence with Halfway Branch Tributary 1 None +708 Halfway Branch Tributary 1 Just downstream of Blackwood Drive None +686 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Spartanburg. Approximately 700 feet upstream of Perin Drive None +722 Island Creek Confluence with Pacolet River None +655 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of Cemetery Road None +804 Jamison Mill Creek Confluence with South Pacolet River None +878 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Spivey Creek Road None +920 Jimmies Creek (North) Just upstream of Freys Drive None +665 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,190 upstream of Tucapau Road None +789 Jimmies Creek (South) Confluence with North Tyger River None +440 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Woodruff Approximately 1,550 feet upstream of Georgia Road None +696 Tributary 1 Confluence with Jimmies Creek (South) None +444 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 5,070 feet upstream of confluence with Jimmies Creek (South) None +470 Kelsey Creek Confluence with Fairforest Creek None +524 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,900 feet upstream of confluence with Thompson Creek None +555 Lawsons Fork Creek Just upstream of Meadow Farm Road None +802 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,320 feet upstream of Park Street None +937 Tributary 1 Approximately 850 feet upstream of confluence with Lawsons Fork Creek None +656 City of Spartanburg. Approximately 3,890 feet upstream of Woodburn Road None +701 Tributary 3 Approximately 900 feet upstream of Lawsons Fork Creek *778 +779 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,120 feet upstream of Honeysuckle Road None +828 Tributary 4 Just upstream of River Forest Rd None +787 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 400 feet upstream of Lyman Road None +864 Lick Creek Confluence with Enoree River None +567 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 425 feet upstream of Allen Bridge Road None +581 Little Buck Creek Confluence with Buck Creek None +712 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 280 feet upstream of Cherokee Street None +841 Maple Creek Just upstream of New Woodruff Road None +854 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Greer. Approximately 85 feet downstream of Acron Drive None +866 McElwain Creek Approximately 3,266 feet downstream of Yard Road None +495 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 230 feet upstream of Yard Road None +499 Meadow Creek Approximately 500 feet upstream of confluence with Lawson's Fork Creek *802 +803 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,360 feet upstream of Interstate 26 None +849 Tributary 1 Confluence with Meadow Creek None +823 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3,380 feet upstream of Spring Valley Road None +837 Middle Tyger River Just upstream of Spartex Dam None +733 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Duncan, Town of Lyman. Approximately 250 feet upstream of Sloan Road None +859 Tributary 1 Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of confluence with Middle Tyger River *615 +616 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 5,040 feet upstream of confluence with Middle Tyger River None +629 Motlow Creek Confluence with South Pacolet River None +826 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Campobello. Approximately 740 feet upstream of Macedonia Church Road None +943 North Pacolet River Confluence with Pacolet River None +723 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,030 feet upstream of Landrum Road None +837 North Tyger River Approximately 3,340 feet downstream of Highway 56 None +421 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of Interstate 26 None +583 Tributary 1 Just downstream of Interstate 26 None +594 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Stillhouse Road None +672 Tributary 2 Approximately 1,780 feet upstream of confluence with North Tyger River *665 +666 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 260 feet upstream of US Highway 29 None +748 Tributary 3 Approximately 900 feet upstream of confluence with North Tyger River None +736 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Lyman. Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Holly Springs Road None +898 Obed Creek Confluence with North Pacolet River None +737 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,100 upstream of Burnt Chimney Road None +879 Pacolet River Approximately 2.4 miles downstream of Chapel Drive None +476 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Confluence of North Pacolet River and South Pacolet River None +723 Town of Pacolet. Tributary 1 Confluence with Pacolet River None +632 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 290 feet upstream of Church Street None +765 Tributary 2 Confluence with Pacolet River None +716 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 5,140 feet upstream of Fairfield Road None +875 Peters Creek Confluence with Pacolet River None +630 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 210 feet downstream of Jones Road None +796 Ransom Creek Approximately 1,120 feet upstream of confluence with North Tyger River *610 +611 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of Schirra Court None +732 Tributary 1 Confluence with Ransom Creek None +614 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 460 feet upstream of Interstate 26 None +640 Reedy Creek Approximately 100 feet downstream of Old Canaan Road None +624 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 230 feet upstream of McAbee Road None +667 Richland Creek Confluence with South Pacolet River None +785 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Hickory Nut Drive None +832 Richland Creek East Confluence with Pacolet River None +539 Unincorporated Areas of Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,970 feet upstream of confluence with Pacolet River None +540 Tributary 1 Confluence with Richland Creek None +785 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,740 feet upstream of River Oak Road None +825 Tributary 2 Confluence with Richland Creek Tributary 1 None +792 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3,860 feet upstream of confluence with Richland Creek Tributary 1 None +810 Tributary 3 Confluence with Richland Creek None +785 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 570 feet upstream of Owens Dive None +855 Shoally Creek Approximately 60 feet downstream of confluence with Shoally Creek Tributary 2 None +804 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,580 feet upstream of Old Furnace Road None +915 Tributary 1 Approximately 300 feet upstream of confluence with Shoally Creek None +752 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 250 feet upstream of Sandifer Road None +796 Tributary 2 Just upstream of confluence with Shoally Creek None +804 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,730 feet upstream of Burnett Road None +875 Tributary 3 Confluence with Shoally Creek None +804 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 150 feet upstream of McMillin Boulevard None +850 South Pacolaet River Tributary 2 Confluence with South Pacolet River Tributary 1 None +832 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,410 feet upstream of confluence with South Pacolet River Tributary 1 None +861 South Pacolet River Confluence with Pacolet River None +723 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Campobello. Confluence of Jamison Mill Creek None +878 Tributary 1 Confluence with South Pacolet River None +825 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,230 feet upstream of Old Mill Road None +844 South Tyger River Confluence with North Tyger River None +518 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Greer, Town of Duncan. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Wade Hampton Boulevard None +771 Tributary 1 Confluence with South Tyger River None +604 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,340 feet upstream of confluence with South Tyger River None +612 Spivey Creek Confluence with South Pacolet River None +857 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 140 feet upstream of Spivey Creek Road None +876 Thompson Creek (North) Confluence with Pacolet River None +714 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Peachtree Road None +796 Thompson Creek (South) Confluence with Kelsey Creek None +554 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Johnson Lake Road None +648 Turkey Hen Branch Confluence with Pacolet River None +565 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 630 feet upstream of Harper Fish Camp Road None +646 Twomile Creek Confluence with Enoree River None +485 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3,990 feet upstream of Parker Road None +513 Vines Creek Confluence with Abners Creek None +717 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Babe Wood Road None +776 Wards Creek Confluence with North Tyger River None +554 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3,450 feet upstream of Harrison Grove Road None +616 Wiley Fork Creek Confluence with Dutchman Creek None +532 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,390 feet upstream of confluence with Dutchman Creek None +537 Zekial Creek Confluence with Island Creek None +804 Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,530 feet upstream of confluence with Island Creek None +815 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Greer Maps are available for inspection at 106 South Main Street, Greer, SC 29650. Send comments to Ed Driggers, City Administrator, 106 South Main Street, Greer, SC 29650. City of Spartanburg Maps are available for inspection at 145 West Broad Street, Spartanburg, SC 29304. Send comments to Mark Scott, City Manager, P.O. Box 1749, 145 West Broad Street, Spartanburg, SC 29304. Town of Campobello Maps are available for inspection at 208 North Main Street, Campobello, SC 29322. Send comments to The Honorable Ray Copeland, Mayor, City of Campobello, P.O. Box 8, 208 North Main Street, Campobello, SC 29322. Town of Duncan Maps are available for inspection at 153 West Main Street, Duncan, SC 29334. Send comments to The Honorable John Hamby, Mayor, Town of Duncan, Post Office Drawer 188, 153 West Main Street, Duncan, SC 29334. Town of Lyman Maps are available for inspection at 81 Groce Road, Lyman, SC 29365. Send comments to The Honorable Robert Fogel, Mayor, Town of Lyman, 81 Groce Road, Lyman, SC 29365. Town of Pacolet Maps are available for inspection at 180 Montgomery Avenue, Pacolet, SC 29372. Send comments to The Honorable Elaine Harris, Mayor, Town of Pacolet, P.O. Box 700, 180 Montgomery Avenue, Pacolet, SC 29372. Town of Woodruff Maps are available for inspection at 231 E. Hayne Street, Woodruff, SC 29388. Send comments to Scott Slatton, City Manager, 231 E. Hayne Street, Woodruff, SC 29388. Spartanburg County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 9039 Fairforest Road, Spartanburg, SC 29301. Send comments to Glen Breed, County Administrator, 366 N. Church Street, P.O. Box 5666, Spartanburg, SC 29304. Rutherford County, North Carolina (Broad), and Incorporated Areas Arrowood Branch At the confluence with McKinney Creek None +708 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with McKinney Creek None +723 Beaverdam Creek (near State Road 1733) At the confluence with First Broad River None +1,035 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 600 feet upstream of Old C C Road (State Road 1731) None +1,449 Big Camp Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River None +862 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 970 feet upstream of Frog Creek Road None +984 Big Horse Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +697 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of State Line Road (State Road 2105) None +749 Big Spring Branch At the confluence with Second Broad River None +815 Town of Forest City. Approximately 230 feet downstream of East Trade Street None +974 Bills Creek At the confluence with Cove Creek None +868 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Lake Lure. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Shumont Estates Drive None +1,206 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Bills Creek None +991 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 800 feet upstream of Brookside Parkway None +1,243 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Bills Creek None +1,056 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Bills Creek Road (State Road 1008) None +1,239 Bowen Branch At the confluence with Sandy Run None +865 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Gene Walker Road (State Road 1763) None +875 Box Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River None +953 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Second Broad River None +1,010 Bracketts Creek At the confluence with Floyds Creek None +781 Town of Forest City, Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 490 feet upstream of Withrow Road None +973 Tributary 5 At the confluence with Bracketts Creek None +902 Town of Forest City. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of South Church Street None +941 Tributary 8 At the confluence with Bracketts Creek None +955 Town of Forest City. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Oak Street None +980 Brier Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +962 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the confluence of Pot Branch None +1,120 Broad River At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary None +680 Village of Chimney Rock, Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Rutherford/Henderson County boundary None +1,411 Tributary 6 At the confluence with Broad River None +694 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of Island Ford Road None +697 Buck Branch (into Second Broad River) At the confluence with Second Broad River None +818 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Forest City. Approximately 300 feet downstream of West Trade Street None +949 Buck Branch (into West Fork Sandy Run) At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary None +801 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary None +820 Buffalo Creek (into Lake Lure) At the confluence with Broad River None +999 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Lake Lure. Approximately 7.0 miles upstream of confluence with the Broad River None +2,818 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Buffalo Creek (Lake Lure) None +1,192 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Lake Lure. Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of Buffalo Creek Road (State Road 1314) None +2,795 Cane Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River None +855 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Rutherford/McDowell County boundary None +975 Cane Creek (into Broad River) At the confluence with Broad River None +693 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Broad River None +694 Cane Creek (into Lake Lure) At the confluence with Broad River None +999 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Lake Lure. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Girl Scout Camp Road (State Road 1186) None +1,355 Catheys Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River None +829 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Thermal City Road (State Road 1321) None +1,051 Tributary 16 At the confluence with Catheys Creek None +872 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Catheys Creek None +878 Cedar Creek At the confluence with Cove Creek None +877 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of the confluence of Taylor Creek None +1,154 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Cedar Creek None +1,032 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Cedar Creek None +1,151 Charles Creek At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek None +755 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Cleghorn Creek None +755 Cherry Creek At the confluence with Catheys Creek None +913 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 500 feet upstream of Railroad None +951 Cleghorn Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +755 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Reece Street None +953 Tributary 10 At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek None +865 Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 50 feet downstream of West 3rd Street None +910 Tributary 11 At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek None +868 Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 20 feet downstream of Laurel Drive None +1,041 Tributary 12 At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek None +892 Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Cleghorn Creek None +988 Tributary 13 At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek None +898 Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of North Main Street/U.S. Highway 221 None +954 Tributary 7 At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek None +795 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Hugh Street None +990 Tributary 9 At the confluence with Cleghorn Creek None +832 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 150 feet downstream of NC Highway 108 None +886 Copper Mine Branch At the confluence with Morrow Creek None +804 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Forest City. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Fairview Street None +953 Cove Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +836 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Painters Gap Road (State Road 1328) None +1,129 Crawley Branch At the confluence with Big Camp Creek None +936 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of the confluence with Big Camp Creek None +947 Dills Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +714 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Broad River None +716 Duncans Creek At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary None +914 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of Duncans Creek Road (State Road 1749) None +987 East Branch Mountain Creek At the confluence with Mountain Creek and West Branch Mountain Creek None +823 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 350 feet downstream of Piney Knob Road (State Road 1331) None +981 First Broad River Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary None +931 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Golden Valley Church Road (State Road 1726) None +1,110 Floyds Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +699 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 500 feet upstream of Sunset Memorial Road (State Road 2179) None +941 Frasheur Creek At the confluence with Greasy Creek None +1,125 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Rutherford/McDowell County boundary None +1,152 Goodes Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +695 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 400 feet upstream of Island Ford Road None +695 Grab Branch At the confluence with Floyds Creek None +886 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 90 feet downstream of U.S. 221S Highway None +943 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Grab Branch None +924 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 900 feet upstream of Burch Hutchins Road (State Road 2171) None +944 Grays Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +747 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of confluence with Broad River None +762 Greasy Creek At the confluence with Cove Creek None +1,125 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Rutherford/McDowell County boundary None +1,153 Grog Creek At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary None +833 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 600 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 74 Bypass None +892 Heaveners Creek At the confluence with Roberson Creek None +902 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 200 feet downstream of Joe Bostic Road (State Road 1712) None +915 Hensons Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +720 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 20 feet upstream of County Line Road (State Road 1101) None +822 Hills Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River None +722 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 290 feet upstream of Dobbins Road None +825 Hinton Creek At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary None +979 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 200 feet upstream of Hinton Creek Road (State Road 1753) None +1,054 Holland Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River None +792 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 450 feet upstream of Old Caroleen Road (State Road 1901) None +807 Hollands Creek At the confluence with Catheys Creek None +836 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Ruth, Town of Rutherfordton, Town of Spindale. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 221 None +950 Tributary 4 At the confluence with Hollands Creek None +909 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Ruth. Approximately 500 feet upstream of Shady Woods Lane None +959 Hunting Creek At the confluence with Roberson Creek None +875 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 250 feet upstream of Depriest Road (State Road 1713) None +1,067 Jarrets Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +727 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Broad River None +744 Knob Creek (into Broad River) At the confluence with Broad River None +816 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 800 feet upstream of McEntire Road (State Road 1341) None +921 Tributary 11 At the confluence with Knob Creek (into Broad River) None +874 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Pleasant Grove Road (State Road 1345) None +1,070 Tributary 9 At the confluence with Knob Creek (into Broad River) None +862 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of McEntire Road (State Road 1341) None +1,006 Little Camp Creek At the confluence with Big Camp Creek None +870 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Old Morganton Road (State Road 1513) None +926 Maple Creek At the confluence with Mountain Creek None +784 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 200 feet upstream of U.S. 64/74A Highway None +903 McKinney Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +705 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of Ted Smith Road (State Road 1104) None +789 Mill Creek (into Catheys Creek) At the confluence with Catheys Creek None +957 Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Catheys Creek None +967 Morrow Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River None +803 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Forest City. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Pine Street (State Road 1903) None +873 Mountain Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +758 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). At the confluence with East Branch Mountain Creek and West Branch Mountain Creek None +823 Tributary 16 At the confluence with Mountain Creek None +816 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Clearwater Parkway None +954 Mountain Creek Tributary of Tributary 16 At the confluence with Mountain Creek Tributary 16 None +834 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Rutherfordton. Approximately 700 feet downstream of Thompson Road (State Road 1367) None +987 North Fork First Broad River At the confluence with First Broad River None +1,082 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence of Sally Queen Creek None +1,397 Piney Creek At the confluence with Cedar Creek None +895 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 310 feet upstream of the confluence of Piney Creek Tributary 1 None +982 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Piney Creek None +967 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Bills Creek Road (State Road 1008) None +1,328 Piney Knob Creek At the confluence with West Branch Mountain Creek None +879 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 300 feet upstream of Elliott Road (State Road 1348) None +908 Pool Creek At the confluence with Broad River (Lake Lure) None +999 Town of Lake Lure. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of Bottomless Pools Drive None +1,122 Pot Branch At the confluence with Brier Creek None +1,102 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Brier Creek None +1,415 Puzzle Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River None +804 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Bostic. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Piney Mountain Church Road (State Road 1007) None +893 Reynolds Creek At the confluence with Hollands Creek None +897 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Spindale. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of West Street None +1,046 Richardson Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +705 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 100 feet upstream of Sulphur Springs Church Road (State Road 1135) None +807 Roberson Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River None +825 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Bostic. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Calton Road (State Road 1745) None +1,056 Rosy Branch At the confluence with Taylor Creek None +1,962 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Twin Chimneys Road None +2,727 Sally Queen Creek At the confluence with North Fork First Broad River None +1,292 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of the confluence with North Fork First Broad None +1,706 Sandy Run At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary None +835 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 150 feet upstream of Hopewell Road (State Road 1760) None +906 Second Broad River At the confluence with Broad River None +680 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Forest City. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Box Creek Road (State Road 1500) None +990 Tributary 7 At the confluence with Second Broad River None +750 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Old Henrietta Road (State Road 2129) None +786 Tributary 8 At the confluence with Second Broad River None +758 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 40 feet upstream of Chime Lane None +799 Somey Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +1,112 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 400 feet upstream of Camp McCall Road (State Road 1749) None +1,231 South Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +1,075 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Golden Valley Church Road (State Road 1726) None +1,121 Stoney Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River None +974 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Thermal City Road (State Road 1321) None +1,001 Suck Creek (into Broad River) Approximately 1.1 miles downstream of Kirby Road None +769 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 300 feet upstream of Kirby Road (State Road 1978) None +779 Taylor Creek At the confluence with Cedar Creek None +1,147 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence of Rosy Branch None +2,009 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Taylor Creek None +1,841 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Bison Meadows None +2,535 Webbs Branch At the confluence with Second Broad River None +805 Town of Forest City Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Railroad None +907 Webbs Creek At the confluence with Second Broad River None +789 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 340 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 74 None +833 West Branch Mountain Creek At the confluence with East Branch Mountain Creek and Mountain Creek None +823 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Darlington Road (State Road 1351) None +884 West Fork Sandy Run At the Rutherford/Cleveland County boundary None +801 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Hollis Road (State Road 1749) None +901 Tributary 7 At the confluence with West Fork Sandy Run None +825 Rutherford County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with West Fork Sandy Run None +842 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Town of Bostic Maps are available for inspection at the Bostic Town Hall, 104 Pearidge Road, Bostic, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Mitch Harrill, Mayor of the Town of Bostic, 177 South Main Street, Bostic, North Carolina 28018. Town of Forest City Maps are available for inspection at the Forest City Town Hall, 128 North Powell Street, Forest City, North Carolina. Send comments to Mr. Charles Summey, II, Forest City Town Manager, P.O. Box 728, Forest City, North Carolina 28043. Town of Lake Lure Maps are available for inspection at the Lake Lure Town Hall, 2948 Memorial Highway, Lake Lure, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable James Proctor, Mayor of the Town of Lake Lure, P.O. Box 255, Lake Lure, North Carolina 28746. Town of Ruth Maps are available for inspection at the Ruth Town Hall, 199 Northview-Dorsey Street, Ruth, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Don Baynard, Mayor of the Town of Ruth, 108 Northview-Dorsey Street, Ruth, North Carolina 28139. Town of Rutherfordton Maps are available for inspection at the Rutherfordton Town Hall, 129 North Main Street, Rutherfordton, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Sally Lesher, Mayor of the Town of Rutherfordton, 447 North Washington Street, Rutherfordton, North Carolina. Town of Spindale Maps are available for inspection at the Spindale Town Hall, 104 Reveley Street, Spindale, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Mickey Bland, Mayor of the Town of Spindale, P.O. Box 186, Spindale, North Carolina 28160. Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County Maps are available for inspection at the Rutherford County Building and Inspections Department, 289 North Main Street, Rutherfordton, North Carolina. Send comments to Mr. John Condrey, Rutherford County Manager, 289 North Main Street, Rutherfordton, North Carolina 28139. Village of Chimney Rock Maps are available for inspection at the Village of Chimney Rock Office, 109 Terrace Drive, Chimney Rock, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Barbara Melisky, Mayor of the Village of Chimney Rock, P.O. Box 300, Chimney Rock, North Carolina 28720. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: April 10, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7-7593 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 224 [Docket No. 070319062-7062-01; I.D. 021607C] RIN 0648-XB64 Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Endangered Status for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review of the Cook Inlet population of beluga whale ( *Delphinapterus leucas* ) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Based on the findings from the status review and consideration of the factors affecting this species, we have concluded the Cook Inlet beluga whale constitutes a distinct population segment

(DPS)that is in danger of extinction throughout its range. Accordingly, we are now issuing a proposed rule to list the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS as an endangered species. We are soliciting information on issues relevant to the listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS under the ESA. Although we are not proposing to designate critical habitat at this time, we are also soliciting information on essential physical and biological features of Cook Inlet beluga whale habitat. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by close of business on June 19, 2007. Requests for public hearings must be made in writing by June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by: • E-mail: *CIB-ESA-Endangered@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following document identifier: Cook Inlet Beluga Whale PR. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes. • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments. • Mail: NMFS, P. O Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802 • Hand delivery to the Federal Building : NMFS, 709 W. 9 th Street, Juneau, AK. • Fax:

(907)586-7012 The proposed rule, status review, maps, a list of the references cited in this document, and other materials relating to this proposal can be found on the NMFS Alaska Region website *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Smith, NMFS, 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99517, telephone

(907)271-5006; Kaja Brix, NMFS,

(907)586-7235; or Marta Nammack,

(301)713-1401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 3, 1999, we received two petitions to list the Cook Inlet population of beluga whales as endangered under the ESA. The petitioners requested that we promulgate an emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA, designate critical habitat for Cook Inlet beluga whales, and take immediate action to implement rulemaking to regulate the harvest of these whales. We issued a Final Rule on May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34590), designating Cook Inlet beluga whales as depleted within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended

(MMPA)(below its Optimum Sustainable Population), and codified at 16 U.S.C. 1362(1), and the underlying regulations codified at 50 CFR Part 216. However, at that time, we determined that the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS was not threatened or endangered under the ESA (65 FR 38778; June 22, 2000) because legislative and management actions had been taken to reduce subsistence harvests to levels that would allow recovery, such that the DPS did not meet the definition of threatened or endangered. The 2000 determination that ESA listing was not warranted was premised on at least two findings that justify further review. First, the only factor then known to be responsible for the decline in beluga abundance was subsistence harvest. Second, the 2000 Status Review used simulation modeling efforts that demonstrated this DPS was not likely to decline further if the harvest was reduced and an annual increase of 2 to 6 percent were assumed. Abundance estimates since harvest management began in 1999 have declined at an average rate of 4.1 percent per year, challenging the original findings. In addition, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

(IUCN)assessed the status of the Cook Inlet beluga whale in 2005 (Lowry *et al.* , 2006). The IUCN determined that this population had a 71 percent probability of having a negative growth rate (in 2005) and met its criteria for critically endangered status. In consideration of the factors described above, we initiated a second Status Review for the Cook Inlet beluga whale (71 FR 14836; March 24, 2006). In the 2006 Status Review, we developed population models that considered various types of mortality and fecundity effects in terms of the decline or growth and recovery of the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS. In these models, NMFS scientists considered several effects, including:

(1)An Allee effect on fecundity at small population sizes;

(2)a depressed per capita fecundity or survival, as might occur from habitat degradation or pollution;

(3)a constant mortality effect independent of population size, as would occur from predation;

(4)a random mortality effect, as would result from environmental perturbations or catastrophic events such as oil spills or volcanic activity; and

(5)demographic stochasticity due to reduced population size. Models with these different effects were compared to the beluga population estimates from 1994 to 2005 to determine which model best matched the data, and likely outcomes were determined for the population. Subsequently, we received a third petition to list the Cook Inlet beluga as an endangered species on April 20, 2006. That petitioner requested that we list the Cook Inlet beluga whale as endangered and designate critical habitat. The petitioner reviewed the biology and ecology of this population, its abundance and distribution, its designation as a DPS established through rulemaking in June 2000 (65 FR 38780), and the reasons for the Cook Inlet beluga whale's status (organized by the factors listed in section 4(a)

(1)of the ESA). In response to this petition, we published a 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (71 FR 44614; August 7, 2006). The second Status Review (NMFS, 2006) has now been completed and underlies this proposed rule. Description, Taxonomy, and Distribution Beluga whales, members of the Family Monodontidae, are small, toothed whales that are white in color as adults. They are extremely social animals that are often found in groups numbering from ten to several hundred. Beluga whales are circumpolar in distribution and occur in seasonally ice-covered arctic and subarctic waters. Beluga whales occur along the coast of Alaska, except the Southeast panhandle region and the Aleutian Islands. Five distinct stocks are currently recognized in Alaska: Beaufort Sea, eastern Chukchi Sea, eastern Bering Sea, Bristol Bay, and Cook Inlet (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). Abundance and Trends The Cook Inlet population of beluga whales has probably always numbered fewer than several thousand animals, but has declined significantly from its historical abundance. It is difficult to accurately determine the magnitude of decline because there is no available information on the beluga whale population that existed in Cook Inlet prior to development of the south-central Alaska sub-Region, or prior to modern subsistence whaling by Alaska Natives. With no reliable abundance surveys conducted prior to the 1990s, scientists must estimate historical abundance. Portions of Cook Inlet surveyed during 1979 resulted in an abundance estimate of 1,293 beluga whales (Calkins, 1989). Those data represent the best available information on historical abundance. We began comprehensive, systematic aerial surveys on beluga whales in Cook Inlet in 1993. These surveys documented a decline in abundance of nearly 50 percent between 1994 and 1998, from an estimate of 653 whales to 347 whales (Hobbs *et al.* , 2000). After legislative measures were established in 1999 to regulate subsistence harvests, we had expected the population to grow at a rate between 2 and 6 percent. However, abundance estimates from aerial surveys (1999-2006) indicate this level of growth did not occur. Differences in survey methods and analytical techniques prior to the 1994 survey rule out a precise statistical assessment of trends using the available population estimate from 1979. However, a comparison of the 1,293 beluga estimate in 1979 to 302 belugas in 2006 indicates a 77 percent decline in 27 years, but with unspecified confidence. This decline was mostly attributed to the subsistence harvest (through 1998); however, even with the restrictions on this harvest, the population continued to decline 4.1 percent per year. Review of “Species” Identification Under the ESA The ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to determine whether species are endangered or threatened. The authority to list a “species” under the ESA is not restricted to species as recognized in formal taxonomic terms, but extends to subspecies and, for vertebrate taxa, to DPSs. NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a joint policy to clarify their interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, de-listing, and reclassifying species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The policy describes two elements to be considered in deciding whether a population segment can be identified as a DPS under the ESA:

(1)discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; and

(2)the significance of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs. DPS Analysis Under the first element of the joint DPS policy, we found during our previous status review that the Cook Inlet beluga whale population is discrete because it is markedly separated from other populations of the same species (65 FR 38778; June 22, 2000). Of the five stocks of beluga whales in Alaska, the Cook Inlet population was considered to be the most isolated, based on the degree of genetic differentiation and geographic distance between the Cook Inlet population and the four other beluga stocks (O'Corry-Crowe *et al.* , 1997; 2002). This suggested that the Alaska Peninsula is an effective physical barrier to genetic exchange. The lack of beluga observations along the southern side of the Alaska Peninsula (Laidre *et al.* , 2000) also supported this conclusion. Murray and Fay

(1979)stated that the Cook Inlet beluga population has been isolated for several thousand years, an idea that has since been corroborated by genetic data (O'Corry-Crowe *et al.* , 1997). Under the second element, two factors we considered in determining whether this discrete population segment was significant to the remainder of the species were:

(1)persistence in an ecological setting that is unique; and

(2)whether the loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the species. Cook Inlet is a unique biological setting in terms of these belugas because it supports the southernmost of the five extant beluga populations in Alaska, and is the only water south of the Alaska Peninsula, or within the Gulf of Alaska, which supports a viable population of beluga whales. The ecological setting of Cook Inlet is also unique in that it is characterized as an incised glacial fjord, unlike other beluga habitats to the north. Cook Inlet experiences large tidal exchanges and is a true estuary, with salinities varying from freshwater at its northern extreme to marine near its entrance to the Gulf of Alaska. No similar beluga habitat exists in Alaska or elsewhere in the United States. In the 2000 Status Review, the Cook Inlet beluga whale population segment was considered to be the only beluga population that inhabits the Gulf of Alaska, and genetic data showed no mixing with other beluga population segments. Therefore, we determined that the loss of the Cook Inlet beluga population segment may result in the complete loss of the species in the Gulf of Alaska, with little likelihood of immigration from other beluga population segments into Cook Inlet. Because we found that the Cook Inlet beluga whale population was discrete and significant, we determined that it constituted a DPS under the ESA (65 FR 38778; June 22, 2000). Research to Support Isolation Between the Cook Inlet DPS and Yakutat Belugas New research has become available since the species determination in the 2000 Status Review regarding the beluga whales that occur in Yakutat Bay, Alaska. These whales were included in the previous Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS. The Yakutat group consists of 12 belugas that are regularly observed in Yakutat Bay and have existed there as early as the 1930s (G. O'Corry-Crowe *et al.* , 2006). Since the 2000 Status Review, we have obtained biopsy samples from five individual whales that provide genetic information on their relationship to other Alaska belugas. That evidence (NMFS, unpublished data) shows the Yakutat group demonstrates a high degree of similarity in genetic markers, indicating that members of the Yakutat group likely comprise a single lineage or family (O'Corry-Crowe *et al.* , 2006). All five individuals possessed a common mtDNA haplotype (#2), a maternal lineage that is also found within other Alaska beluga whale stocks, including the Cook Inlet DPS. While small sample size precluded meaningful statistical analyses of differentiation, Haplotype #2 occurs at a much lower frequency in Cook Inlet and other stocks. The samples were also analyzed for polymorphism at 8 independent microsatellite loci. Preliminary DNA fingerprint analysis of the samples from the five individuals indicates that these individuals share, on average, a higher proportion of alleles at these loci than the average for belugas in other areas, suggesting that the Yakutat whales may be relatively more closely related to each other than to belugas in other areas. As with the mtDNA analysis, small sample size precluded meaningful analyses of population structure. However, these genetic results indicate that the sampled whales differ from a random sample of the Cook Inlet population. This, taken with the sighting data and behavioral observations, suggests that a small group of beluga whales may reside in the Yakutat Bay region year-round, and that these whales are reproductive, have a unique ecology, and a restricted seasonal home range. Pursuant to the DPS Policy, geographic separation can also provide an indicator that population segments are discrete from each other. There is a large geographic separation (approximately 621 mi (1000 km)) between the Yakutat beluga group and the Cook Inlet beluga population segment, and no records exist that show any association between these whales. Therefore, we conclude that the Cook Inlet beluga population segment is discrete from this Yakutat beluga group. NMFS considers the viability of an isolated group of 12 belugas to be low. Therefore, the loss of the Cook Inlet beluga population segment may result in the complete loss of the species in the Gulf of Alaska, with little likelihood of immigration from other beluga population segments into Cook Inlet. Other beluga whale sightings have been recorded from the Gulf of Alaska, including Sitka, Prince William Sound, and Kodiak Island. However, none of these individuals represent persistent groups, and, therefore, are not considered part of the Cook Inlet DPS. We have insufficient information at this time to determine whether these whales are part of the Cook Inlet DPS. DPS Conclusion Based on the best available scientific information, we had previously determined that Cook Inlet beluga whale is a DPS, and, therefore, a species under section 3(15) of the ESA (65 FR 38778; June 22, 2000). At the time, the data were insufficient to distinguish the whales near Yakutat from the Cook Inlet population. However, genetic results and the fact that the 12 belugas in the Yakutat group are regularly observed in Yakutat Bay and not in Cook Inlet (O'Corry-Crowe, 2006) lead us to conclude that the Cook Inlet beluga whales are discrete from beluga whales near Yakutat. The conclusion reached in 2000 that the Cook Inlet population segment is significant to the beluga whale species remains valid for the same reasons mentioned in 2000, and is further supported by the information stated above regarding the low viability of the Yakutat group and the resultant potential for loss of beluga whales from Cook Inlet. Therefore, we conclude, given the best scientific information available, the Cook Inlet beluga whales comprise a DPS which is confined to waters of Cook Inlet, and does not include beluga whales found in Yakutat or other Gulf of Alaska waters beyond Cook Inlet. Through this rulemaking, we propose to modify the present description of the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS, which is considered a species under the ESA, by removing those beluga whales occurring near Yakutat or outside Cook Inlet waters. Geographic Range of the Species The range of Cook Inlet belugas has been previously defined as the waters of the Gulf of Alaska north of 58° N and freshwater tributaries to these waters based on available scientific data in 2000 (65 FR 34590; May 31, 2000; MMPA Sec. 216.15(g)). There are few beluga sightings in the Gulf of Alaska outside Cook Inlet. Laidre *et al.*

(2000)summarized available information on prehistoric to current distribution of belugas in the Gulf of Alaska, and, with the exception of Yakutat, sightings have been rare and sporadic given the extent of the survey efforts. Of 169,550 cetacean sightings recorded in the Gulf of Alaska prior to the year 2001, excluding Cook Inlet, only 44 were beluga (Laidre *et al.* , 2000), indicating they are extremely rare in the Gulf of Alaska outside Cook Inlet. Calkins

(1989)described belugas in Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, Yakutat Bay, and throughout the coastal waters of the Gulf of Alaska, from the northern portions of Kodiak Island to Yakutat. In the 1970s and 1980s, beluga sightings occurred across much of mid- and upper Cook Inlet (Calkins, 1984), but in the 1990s the summer distribution diminished to only the northernmost portions of Cook Inlet (Rugh *et al.* , 2000). More of the Inlet was used by beluga whales during the spring, summer, and fall during the 1970s and 1980s than is presently used; for instance, sightings in the Kenai River area were common, and beluga concentrations were reported in Trading Bay and Kachemak Bay (Calkins, 1984). Such areas are rarely used by belugas at the present time, except perhaps in winter. To identify Cook Inlet beluga habitat use, particularly in winter, NMFS researchers placed satellite positioning tags on 18 beluga whales between 1999 and 2002. Those tagged whales remained in Cook Inlet, indicating that belugas occupy Cook Inlet year round and do not display the seasonal migrations that northern beluga populations display. Considering this research and the genetic information discussed above, we conclude the present range of the Cook Inlet beluga is limited to Cook Inlet waters north of a line from Cape Douglas to Cape Elizabeth. Extinction Risk Assessment NMFS' Status Review includes an extinction risk assessment for this DPS through a detailed population viability analysis (PVA). The extinction risk analysis used population models developed specifically for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. These age and gender-structured models included parameters specific to this beluga population (e.g. reproductive age, calving intervals, natural mortality, random stranding events, killer whale predation, managed harvests, and episodic events such as oil spills). Ten thousand individual trials from the models were selected for analysis. From these, the “baseline” model (Model A in the Status Review), using no threshold effects, predicted a decline in 65 percent of the cases, and extinction within 300 years for 29 percent of the cases. The “most likely” model (Model H in the Status Review), which best approximated the current population (this assumed a single annual killer whale predation mortality and an unusual mortality event every 20 years), predicted the risk of extinction as 26 percent within 100 years (Shelden *et al.* , 2003). The risk analysis concluded that this probability would be much larger if the annual mortality rates assumed were increased by either killer whale predation or other means. Small population viability is further compromised by the increased risk of inbreeding and the loss of genetic variability through drift, which reduces their resistance to disease and environmental change (Lacy, 1997; O'Corry-Crowe and Lowry, 1997). Estimates of genetic variation do not, at present, suggest that the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS is highly inbred or that a critical amount of genetic variation has been lost through drift (O'Corry-Crowe *et al.* , 1997; Lowry *et al.* , 2006; G. O'Corry-Crowe, unpublished data), but this population is already at a population size where eventual loss of genetic variability is expected (Lowry *et al.* , 2006). Summary of Factors Affecting Cook Inlet Beluga Whales The ESA defines endangered species as a species “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. We must determine, through the regulatory process, whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any one or a combination of the following factors:

(1)The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(2)Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(3)Disease or predation;

(4)The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(5)Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. A discussion of these factors follows. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range Habitat for this species has been modified by municipal, industrial, and recreational activities in upper Cook Inlet, where belugas concentrate. It is possible that the range of Cook Inlet beluga whales has been diminished by these activities, either individually or cumulatively. Rugh *et al.*

(2000)indicated that the summer occurrence of Cook Inlet beluga whales shifted to the upper Inlet in recent decades, whereas historically, belugas were also found in the mid- to lower Inlet. Such a change could be due to habitat alteration or development, but could also be attributed to other factors. For example, the population reduction may have resulted in Cook Inlet beluga whales inhabiting only the preferred feeding areas (i.e., the upper Inlet) within their normal range. Therefore, the change in distribution does not necessarily reflect any reduction in habitat or habitat quality in the mid- to lower Inlet. No information exists that beluga habitat has been modified or curtailed to an extent that it is likely to have caused the population declines observed within Cook Inlet. However, concern is warranted for the continued development within and along upper Cook Inlet and the cumulative effects on important beluga habitat. Several significant developments within the upper Inlet are permitted or planned, which may have adverse consequences. These include:

(1)Major expansion to the Port of Anchorage, which requires filling more than 135 acres of intertidal and subtidal habitat, with increased in-water noise from pile driving, dredging, and expanded port operations;

(2)Port McKenzie expansion as a commercial port facility directly across a narrow portion of upper Cook Inlet from the Port of Anchorage;

(3)the proposed Knik Arm Bridge, which would increase in-water noise with both construction and operational activities and would occupy a portion of upper Cook Inlet that is presently undeveloped and provides important beluga feeding and other habitats; and

(4)construction and operation of a large coal mine and marine terminal along the west side of upper Cook Inlet, near the Native Village of Tyonek. Ongoing activities that may impact this habitat include:

(1)continued oil and gas exploration, development, and production; and

(2)industrial activities that discharge or accidentally spill pollutants (e.g., petroleum, seafood processing, ship ballast, municipal wastewater treatment systems, runoff from urban, mining, and agricultural areas). The extinction risk assessment indicates that very small increases in mortality for this DPS have large effects on its continued existence. Destruction and modification of habitat may result in “effective mortalities” by reducing carrying capacity or fitness for individual whales, with the same consequence to the population survival as direct mortalities. Therefore, threatened destruction and modification of Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS habitat contributes to the proposed endangered status. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes A brief commercial whaling operation existed along the west side of upper Cook Inlet during the 1920s, where 151 belugas were harvested in 5 years (Mahoney and Sheldon, 2000). There was also a sport (recreational) harvest for beluga whales in Cook Inlet prior to enactment of the MMPA in 1972. We have no record on this harvest level. The 1979 whale survey by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Calkins, 1989) provided an abundance estimate of 1,293 whales. Although we are uncertain of the level of depletion and exploitation in 1979, this remains the largest population abundance estimate for the Cook Inlet beluga DPS. Based on this estimate, we used 1,300 belugas as the carrying capacity in the PVA for the extinction risk assessment (Hobbs *et al.* , 2006). With protections offered by the MMPA, commercial and recreational beluga harvest no longer contribute to endangering the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS. Beluga whales are also taken for scientific purposes, but this work requires authorization under the MMPA and cannot have more than a negligible impact on the stock. Invasive research such as beluga capture and tagging, and boat survey work, may temporarily displace whales from important habitats, including feeding habitat, and may rarely result in injury or mortality. The magnitude of this impact cannot be reasonably estimated, but we believe it is not a reason that would support a listing determination. We are not aware of any live Cook Inlet belugas currently in aquaria and used for educational purposes. Therefore, educational purposes do not contribute to the proposed endangered status. Disease or Predation A considerable amount of information now exists on the occurrence of diseases in beluga whales, including Cook Inlet belugas, and the effects of these diseases on the species. This information is described in our draft Conservation Plan (see *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/mmpa/draft/conservationplan032005.pdf* ). Diseases and parasites occur in Cook Inlet beluga whales. Despite the considerable pathology that has been done on belugas, nothing indicates that the occurrence of diseases or parasites has had a measurable impact on their survival and health. Therefore, diseases and parasites are not known to be factors that have led to the current status of the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS. Transient killer whales are a natural predator on beluga whales in Cook Inlet. Killer whale sightings in the upper Inlet (18 reported sightings in 27 years) appear to be relatively infrequent, and not all killer whales prey on marine mammals. However, killer whales are thought to take at least one Cook Inlet beluga per year (Shelden *et al.* , 2003). Assessing the impact of killer whale predation on Cook Inlet beluga whales is difficult. Anecdotal reports often highlight the more sensational mortalities on beluga whales due to killer whales, thereby overemphasizing their impact. Further, some reports are from the early 1980s when beluga whales were more abundant and more widely distributed. Consequently, the predation reports are of minimal value in evaluating current killer whale impacts to the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS. The loss of more than one beluga whale annually could impede recovery, particularly if total mortality due to predation would be near the recruitment level in the DPS. The best available information does not allow us to accurately quantify the mortality level due to killer whale predation or its effect on the DPS. However, continued removal of belugas in excess of one per year would have a significant effect on the extinction probability for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. While disease and predation occur in the Cook Inlet beluga population and may affect reproduction and survival, neither appears to be a likely contributor to the observed decline. However, the present low population abundance and the gregarious nature of beluga whales predispose the population to significant consequences from disease and predation, which contributes to the probability of extinction, and, therefore, to the proposed classification as endangered under the ESA. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The MMPA exempts Alaska Natives from the prohibitions on the taking of marine mammals, including beluga whales. Sections 101(b)(3) and 103 of the MMPA provide for subsistence harvest regulations for marine mammal stocks designated as depleted under that Act, after notice and administrative hearings as prescribed by the MMPA. Excessive harvests occurred before May 1999 when Public Law 106-31 required such taking of Cook Inlet beluga whales occur pursuant to a cooperative agreement between NMFS and affected Alaska Native organizations. This law, later made permanent by Public Law 106-553, did not specify a harvest level, nor present a harvest management plan. In May 2000, we designated the Cook Inlet belugas as a depleted stock under the MMPA. We promulgated interim harvest regulations that provided a harvest management plan from 2001 through 2004 (69 FR 17973; April 6, 2004). The absence of legal authority to control subsistence harvest prior to 1999 is considered a contributing factor to the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS decline. Annual co-management agreements have been signed between NMFS and the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council in compliance with Public Laws 106-31 and 106-553. We have worked extensively with experts, including Native hunters, to use the best available science and traditional knowledge in our management and conservation efforts. This includes workshops by NMFS, the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, the Alaska Scientific Review Group, and the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council. A technical working group was appointed by an administrative law judge in 2005 to consider a Cook Inlet beluga harvest management plan for 2005 and subsequent years that would recover Cook Inlet belugas and allow for traditional subsistence. Harvests from this population have been restricted to zero, one, or two whales annually since 1999, due to cooperative efforts by Native hunters and NMFS. We are currently preparing a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

(SEIS)on the subsistence harvest management of Cook Inlet belugas. This Draft SEIS will be followed by a Final SEIS and harvest regulations. Harvest regulations will propose a harvest strategy based on the abundance and growth of the population and a population abundance “floor” below which no harvest would occur. Despite the limited harvests since 1999 (five belugas in 8 years), the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS has declined 4.1 percent per year. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence Impacts of Past Subsistence Harvest Efforts The Cook Inlet beluga whale has been hunted by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes and for traditional handicrafts. The subsistence provisions under the MMPA allow the sale of edible products and traditional handicrafts from marine mammals in Alaska Native villages, including Anchorage, or for Alaska Native consumption. Muktuk (whale skin and underlying blubber layer) from Cook Inlet belugas was sold in Anchorage markets prior to 1999, after which the practice was prohibited by co-management agreements between NMFS and the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council. Alaska Natives have legally harvested Cook Inlet beluga whales prior to and after passage of the MMPA in 1972. The effect of past harvest practices on the Cook Inlet beluga whale is significant. While subsistence harvest occurred at unknown levels for decades, the observed decline from 1994 through 1998 and the reported harvest (including estimates of whales which were struck but lost, and assumed to have perished) indicated these harvest levels were unsustainable. Annual subsistence take by Alaska Natives during 1995-1998 averaged 77 whales (Angliss and Lodge, 2002). The harvest, which was as high as 20 percent of the population in 1996, was sufficiently high to account for the 14 percent annual rate of decline in the population during 1994 through 1998 (Hobbs *et al.* , 2000). In 1999 there was no harvest as the result of a voluntary moratorium by the hunters and Public Law 106-31. Harvests have been greatly reduced since 1998, with only five whales taken between 1999 and 2006. However, the subsistence removals reported during the 1990s are sufficient to account for the declines observed in this population and must be considered as a factor in the proposed classification of the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS as endangered. Impacts of Stranding Events Cook Inlet beluga whales are known to become stranded along the shorelines and mudflats of Cook Inlet. These stranding events are not uncommon. NMFS has reports of 804 stranded whales (some of which were involved in mass stranding events) in upper Cook Inlet since 1988 (Vos and Shelden, 2005). Mass stranding events occurred most frequently along Turnagain Arm, and often coincided with extreme tidal fluctuations (“spring tides”) and/or killer whale sighting reports (Shelden *et al.* , 2003). Other mass strandings have been reported in the Susitna Delta (Vos and Shelden, 2005) and most recently on September 12, 2006, in Knik Arm (B. Mahoney, NMFS Alaska Region Office, unpublished data). Belugas are usually able to survive a stranding event and escape to deeper water on the rising tide. However, some deaths during these events do occur. For example, in one unusual case in August 2003, at least 46 belugas stranded in Turnagain Arm for over 10 hours, and of these, at least five whales are known to have died. In a more typical case, another 58 belugas stranded in two events in Turnagain Arm the following month with no identified mortalities (Vos and Shelden, 2005). Catastrophic mortality (the deaths of a large number, such as 20 percent of the population) due to a mass stranding event or other events such as ice entrapment, oil spill, or volcanic activity was considered in simulations of the Cook Inlet beluga and assigned a probability of 5 percent per year for purposes of the status review (NMFS, 2006). Such mortality, if it occurred, could significantly impede recovery or force the population below a threshold to which it would not otherwise be vulnerable and from which it could not recover; however, such catastrophic mortality has not been reported in Cook Inlet. Although live mass strandings have occurred, between 1988 and 2000 only12 belugas were reported dead out of 650 belugas that stranded (Vos and Shelden, 2005). Mass stranding events are not believed to be a factor that has caused, or had a significant role in, the decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS. Conservation Efforts When considering the listing of a species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires consideration of efforts by any State, foreign nation, or political subdivision of a State or foreign nation to protect such species. Such efforts would include measures by Native American tribes and organizations and local governments, and may also include efforts by private organizations. Also, Federal, tribal, state, and foreign recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)) constitute conservation measures. On March 28, 2003, NMFS and USFWS published the final Policy for Evaluating Conservation Efforts (PECE)(68 FR 15100). The PECE provides guidance on evaluating current protective efforts identified in conservation agreements, conservation plans, management plans, or similar documents (developed by Federal agencies, state and local governments, tribal governments, businesses, organizations, and individuals) that have not yet been implemented or have been implemented but have not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The PECE establishes two basic criteria for evaluating current conservation efforts:

(1)the certainty that the conservation efforts will be implemented, and

(2)the certainty that the efforts will be effective. The PECE provides specific factors under these two basic criteria that direct the analysis of adequacy and efficacy of existing conservation efforts. Cook Inlet beluga whales benefit from protections afforded by the MMPA. The Cook Inlet beluga whale was designated as a depleted stock under the MMPA in 2000, and a draft Conservation Plan was published (70 FR 12853; March 16, 2005). That conservation plan is comprehensive and provides recommendations to foster recovery. While some recommendations are funded, many recommendations are unfunded. Therefore, it is uncertain whether these beluga conservation measures will be implemented. Federal law (Public Law 106-553) prohibits the taking of Cook Inlet beluga whales except through a cooperative agreement between NMFS and affected Alaska Native organizations. Presently, co-management agreements are signed annually with the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council to establish strike (harvest) limits and set forth requirements intended to minimize waste and prevent unintentional harassment. Harvest regulations are being considered to address the management of Cook Inlet beluga subsistence hunting. Once implemented, these regulations will constitute an effective conservation plan regarding Alaska Native subsistence harvest. They will not, however, be comprehensive in addressing the many other issues now confronting Cook Inlet belugas. We are not aware of conservation efforts undertaken by foreign nations specifically to protect Cook Inlet beluga whales. We support all conservation efforts currently in effect; however, these efforts lack the certainty of implementation and effectiveness so as to have removed or reduced threats to Cook Inlet belugas. In developing our final listing determination, we will consider the best available information concerning these conservation efforts and any other protective efforts by states or local entities for which we have information (See description of PECE above). Proposed Listing Determination We have reviewed the extinction risk analysis for the Cook Inlet beluga whale, considered the factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, and taken into account conservation efforts to protect the species. We conclude that the Cook Inlet beluga whale is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range because of: present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of habitat or range; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (largely the past absence of regulations on subsistence harvests); disease and/or predation (further predation by killer whales can be shown to have a significant impact on survival); and other natural and manmade factors affecting its continued existence (effects of past subsistence removals). See the “Factors Affecting the Species” section above for a description of the specific risks associated with section 4(a)(1). This endangered determination is supported by the results of population modeling which indicate a probability of extinction (for what is considered the most realistic scenario) of 26 percent within the next 100 years. We convened a workshop in February 2000 to develop ESA recovery criteria for large whales. That workshop concluded that a reasonable, conservative definition for endangered status would be a probability of extinction greater than or equal to 1 percent in 100 years. While that threshold may be conservative, the significantly greater extinction risk of 26 percent in 100 years modeled for the Cook Inlet beluga provides a strong justification for endangered status. Further, the factors confounding recovery have not been thoroughly identified and may continue to persist until more is known and corrective actions can be taken. We also conclude that, at present, no protective or conservation measures are in place that will substantially mitigate the factors affecting the future viability and recovery of the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS. Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we propose that the Cook Inlet beluga whale be listed under the ESA as an endangered species. Prohibitions and Protective Measures Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under Section 7(a)(4), Federal agencies must confer with us on any of these activities to ensure that any such activity is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat. Examples of Federal actions that may affect the Cook Inlet beluga whale include permits and authorizations relating to coastal development and habitat alteration, oil and gas development (including seismic exploration), toxic waste and other pollutant discharges, Federal fishery management plans, and cooperative agreements for subsistence harvest. Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and

(B)of the ESA authorize NMFS to grant exceptions to the ESA's Section 9 take prohibitions. Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be issued to entities (Federal and non-federal) for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of a listed species. Activities potentially requiring a section 10(a)(1)(A) research/enhancement permit if Cook Inlet beluga whales are listed include scientific research that targets Cook Inlet beluga whales. Under section 10(a)(1)(B), the Secretary may permit takings otherwise prohibited by section 9(a)(1)(B) if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity, provided that the requirements of section 10(a)(2) are met. Critical Habitat Section 3 of the ESA defines critical habitat as “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed....on which are found those physical or biological features

(I)essential to the conservation of the species and

(II)which may require special management considerations or protection; and

(ii)specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed...upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) also defines the terms “conserve,” “conserving,” and “conservation” to mean “to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.” Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA requires that, to the extent practicable and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. Designation of critical habitat must be based on the best scientific data available and must take into consideration the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Once critical habitat is designated, section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that they do not fund, authorize, or carry out any actions that are likely to destroy or adversely modify that habitat. This requirement is in addition to the section 7 requirement that Federal agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. In determining what areas qualify as critical habitat, 50 CFR 424.12(b) requires that NMFS “consider those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of a given species including space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical geographical and ecological distribution of a species.” The regulations further direct NMFS to “focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements . . . that are essential to the conservation of the species,” and specify that the “known primary constituent elements shall be listed with the critical habitat description.” The regulations identify primary constituent elements

(PCEs)as including, but not limited to: “roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinator, geological formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types.” The ESA directs the Secretary of Commerce to consider the economic impact of designating critical habitat, and under section 4(b)(2) the Secretary may exclude any area from such designation if the benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion, provided that the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. We are considering proposal of critical habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale in a separate rulemaking. To assist us with that rulemaking, we specifically request information on the economic attributes within the Cook Inlet region that could be impacted by critical habitat designation, as well as identification of the PCEs or “essential features” of this habitat and to what extent those features may require special management considerations or protection. Public Comments Solicited We request interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning this proposed rule. We solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governments and agencies, Alaska Natives, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party. Comments are particularly sought concerning:

(1)The current population status of the Cook Inlet beluga whale;

(2)Biological or other information regarding the threats to this species;

(3)Information on the effectiveness of ongoing and planned conservation efforts by states or local entities;

(4)Information related to the identification of critical habitat and essential physical or biological features for this species; and

(5)Economic or other relevant impacts of designation of critical habitat. You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES ). The proposed rule, maps, and other materials relating to this proposal can be found on the NMFS Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/* . Comments and information received during the comment period on this proposed rule will be considered in the final decision whether to list the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS as endangered and any future proposal to designate critical habitat. Public Hearings 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3) requires the Secretary to promptly hold at least one public hearing, if requested, within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to list a species under the ESA. Requests for public hearing must be made in writing (see ADDRESSES ) by June 4, 2007. Such hearings provide the opportunity for interested individuals and parties to give comments, exchange information and opinions, and engage in a constructive dialogue concerning this proposed rule. We encourage the public's involvement in such ESA matters. Classification National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d825 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to the environmental assessment requirements of the NEPA. (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.) Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analyses required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, this rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection of information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. E.O. 13132, Federalism Recognizing the intent of the Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual State and Federal interest, and in keeping with Department of Commerce policies, we request information from, and will coordinate development of, this proposed ESA listing with appropriate State resource agencies in Alaska. E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal and tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and co-management agreements, which differentiate tribal governments from the other entities that deal with, or are affected by, the Federal government. This relationship has given rise to a special Federal trust responsibility involving the legal responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward Indian Tribes and the application of fiduciary standards of due care with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of tribal rights. E.O. 13175 - Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments - outlines the responsibilities of the Federal Government in matters affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of Public Law 108-199 (188 Stat. 452), as amended by section 518 of Public Law 108- 447 (118 Stat. 3267), directs all Federal agencies to consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under E.O. 13175. We will contact any tribal governments or Native corporations which may be affected by the proposed action, provide them with a copy of this proposed rule, and offer the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and discuss any concerns they may have. References Cited A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking can be found on our website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/* and is available upon request from the NMFS office in Juneau, Alaska (see ADDRESSES ). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224 Endangered and threatened species. Dated: April 16, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend part 224, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 1. The authority citation of part 224 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* **§ 224.101 [Amended]** 2. In § 224.101, amend paragraph

(b)by adding, “Cook Inlet distinct population segment of beluga whale ( *Delphinapterus leucas* )” in alphabetical order. [FR Doc. E7-7577 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 070227047-7047-01; I.D. 020405C] RIN 0648-AS96 Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 14; Essential Fish Habitat Descriptions for Pacific Salmon AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 14 to the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan (Salmon FMP) to identify and describe essential fish habitat

(EFH)for Pacific salmon. The intent of this proposed rule is to codify the EFH identifications and descriptions for freshwater and marine habitats of Pacific salmon managed under the Salmon FMP, including Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. This proposed rule complies with an order issued by the U.S. District Court of Idaho directing NMFS to codify the EFH identifications and descriptions contained in the Salmon FMP. This proposed EFH rule is separate and distinct from the December 2004 proposed critical habitat rules in which NMFS proposed critical habitat for seven groupings of Chinook and coho salmon listed as threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Where EFH and critical habitat overlap, NMFS will generally merge the results of both consultations into one response package to maximize regulatory efficiencies whenever possible. DATES: Comments must be received by July 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments or obtain a supplemental regulatory impact review to amendment 14 to the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan by any of the following methods: • *E-mail:* *EFH.salmon@NOAA.gov* . Include in the subject line the following identifier “RIN 0648-AS96.” • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . • *Mail:* For submitting paper, disk or CD ROM comments. Frank Lockhart, NMFS Northwest Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. • *Fax:* 206-526-6736. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Lockhart at 206-526-6142. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Among other things, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes development of Federal Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), and Federal regulation of domestic fisheries under those FMPs, within the 200-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 16 U.S.C. 1811, 1853. To assist the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) in carrying out specific management and conservation duties, the Magnuson-Stevens Act created eight regional fishery management councils. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, an FMP and any amendments are usually originated by one of the eight regional fishery management councils, 16 U.S.C. 1852, and must then be approved by the Secretary of Commerce. 16 U.S.C. 1854. Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson-Stevens Act, originally enacted in 1976, has been amended several times. In 1996, the Sustainable Fisheries Act

(SFA)amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act adding provisions aimed at halting overfishing and rebuilding overfished fisheries, reducing bycatch, and assessing and minimizing the impacts of management measures on fishing communities. Congress articulated in its findings that: one of the greatest long-term threats to the viability of commercial and recreational fisheries is the continuing loss of marine, estuarine, and other aquatic habitats. Habitat considerations should receive increased attention for the conservation and management of fishery resources of the United States. 16 U.S.C. 1801(a). In making such findings, Congress declared one of the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to be the promotion of “the protection of [EFH] in the review of projects conducted under Federal permits, licenses, or other authorities that affect or have the potential to affect such habitat.” 16 U.S.C. 1802(b)(7). To ensure habitat considerations receive increased attention for the conservation and management of fishery resources, the amended Magnuson-Stevens Act required each existing, and any new, FMP to: describe and identify essential fish habitat for the fishery based on the guidelines established by the Secretary under section 1855(b)(1)(A) of this title, minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(7). “EFH” is defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” 16 U.S.C. 1802(10). The EFH regulations (50 CFR 600.815) establish additional guidance to the Councils on how to identify and describe EFH. The regulations indicate that Councils should: obtain information to describe and identify EFH from the best available sources, including peer reviewed literature, unpublished scientific reports, data files of government resource agencies, fisheries landing reports, and other sources of information. The regulations identify four classification levels to organize available information relevant to EFH identifications and descriptions. Level 1 information is limited to species distributional data; level 2 information includes habitat-related densities; level 3 includes growth, reproduction or survival rates within habitats; and level 4 consists of production rates by habitat. Councils are encouraged to identify and describe EFH based on the highest level of detail (i.e., level 4). Readers are encouraged to see the EFH regulations (50 CFR 600.815, subpart J) for a complete description of each of these levels as well as guidance on how the Councils should analyze the available information. In determinating EFH, the regulations advise the Councils to interpret the available information in a “risk-averse fashion to ensure adequate areas are identified as EFH for managed species.” 50 CFR 600.815(a)(1)(iv)(A). For Pacific salmon, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) obtained information at all four levels for certain freshwater areas, and the first three levels of information for the estuaries; only the first level of information was available for marine areas. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan The Secretary approved the Salmon FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* , in 1978. The Pacific Council has amended the Salmon FMP 14 times since 1978. For more information on the FMP process, refer to 16 U.S.C. 1651-1654. The Pacific Council identified and described EFH for Pacific salmon in Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP and submitted it on June 12, 2000, for Secretarial review. After a public comment period, NMFS approved Amendment 14 on September 27, 2000. The Pacific salmon EFH descriptions and identifications were not codified during the development of Amendment 14. NMFS issues this proposed rule in response to a U.S. District Court of Idaho (Court) order (Case No. CV02-C-EJL, District Court of Idaho) directing NMFS to codify the EFH identifications and descriptions contained in the Salmon FMP. The Court determined that the EFH identifications and descriptions included in the amendment constitute a substantive rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Court remanded, but did not vacate, the EFH identifications and descriptions contained in Amendment 14 to NMFS, and ordered NMFS to undertake notice and comment rulemaking to codify identified and described EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery. The intent of this proposed rule is to codify, in compliance with the Court's order, the EFH identifications and descriptions for freshwater and marine habitats of Pacific salmon managed under the Salmon FMP for Chinook ( *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha* ), coho ( *O. kisutch* ), and pink ( *O. gorbuscha* ) salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. As new information becomes available, the Pacific Council will consider potential modifications to the identifications and descriptions of EFH. The Pacific Council is scheduled to review salmon EFH, pursuant to the review process schedule set up by both the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the EFH regulations at 50 CFR 600.815(a)(10). Upon completion of this 5-year review, the Pacific Council and NMFS may propose changes to the EFH descriptions depending on the level of new information and the effect that information has on the existing EFH identifications and descriptions. This proposed rule does not contradict or make obsolete the information contained in appendix A of Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP. Rather, this proposed rule summarizes key features of appendix A and would codify the EFH geographic extent descriptions for Pacific salmon. Appendix A contains important background and supplementary information on EFH, and can be found on the Council's website at *http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/salfmp/a14.html* . Pacific Council Approach to EFH Identification The Pacific Council chose a comprehensive rather than a limiting approach in the Amendment 14 identification of salmon EFH for the following reasons, all of which made it very difficult to narrowly define EFH geographically. In the marine environment, Pacific salmon distribution is:

(1)extensive;

(2)varies seasonally and interannually; and

(3)has not been extensively sampled in many ocean areas. In estuaries and freshwater, there is a high degree of natural variability in distribution of salmon species and habitat use (e.g., fluctuation in population abundance that can lead to a wider extent of habitat being used during high abundance years and a smaller extent of habitat being occupied during lower abundance years; varying levels of habitat quality; and interannual stream flow variation and water quality changes). For these reasons, the Pacific Council was not able to designate EFH based on fixed attributes of the streams (e.g., channel morphology (channel habitat type), streamflow, water quality, riparian condition, and temperature) because there may be areas of degraded habitat that may still be used by Pacific salmon and considered EFH. The Pacific Council chose to adopt an inclusive, watershed-based description of EFH using United States Geological Survey

(USGS)hydrologic units, because it recognizes the species' use of diverse habitats, considers the variability of freshwater habitat as affected by environmental conditions (droughts, floods, etc.), and reinforces important linkages between aquatic and adjacent upslope areas. A more detailed background on the Pacific Council's approach can be found in appendix A of Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP. Consideration of Artificial Barriers In identifying the upstream extent of EFH, the Pacific Council considered artificial barriers and dams that affect Pacific salmon habitat. Numerous hydropower, water storage, and flood control systems have been built that either block access to areas historically accessible to Pacific salmon or alter the hydrology of downstream reaches. The Pacific Council therefore considered whether more than 50 large impassible barriers in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California should be designated as the upstream extent of EFH. These barriers are identified in Table 1 to part 660, subpart H. Should it become feasible for Pacific salmon to have access to or be reintroduced above the impassible dams, the FMP requires the Pacific Council to recommend identifying and describing the areas above the barriers as Pacific salmon EFH. The potential for expansion of EFH under these circumstances is addressed at 50 CFR 600.815(a)(1)(iv)(C) and (F). Pacific Salmon Biology The Magnuson-Stevens Act links EFH identifications and descriptions to life history stages, and the physiological, biological, and habitat parameters on which each life stage depends. To accomplish the task of linking these parameters in a meaningful way, the Pacific Council established tables and a narrative that present habitat requirements as they relate to fish life history stage and physiology. The four life history stages are eggs, larvae (alevins), juveniles, and adults. The biological needs include diet, substrate type, water quality, and others. These tables can be found in appendix A of Amendment 14 (Tables A-3, A-4, and A-5). A brief overview of Pacific salmon life history and habitat requirements is provided below. This information is not intended to be a thorough review of Pacific salmon habitat requirements. Rather, it is intended to provide a sample of the information that supported the Pacific Council's EFH identifications and descriptions. See appendix A of Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP for more detailed information on habitat use specific to life stage. Chinook, coho, and pink salmon all have similar life history and habitat requirements; yet all three species have unique survival and reproductive strategies. They are anadromous, and by definition live the first part of their lives in freshwater and the adult part of their lives in marine waters before returning to spawn in freshwater. For spawning and rearing, these salmon require clean, cold, well-oxygenated water with moderate current. Spawning adults need medium to coarse gravel in which to deposit eggs. Eggs and alevins need well-oxygenated interstitial spaces with continuous water flow. This life stage is susceptible to poor water quality, predation, and physical impacts such as flooding or excessive siltation, which can smother the eggs. At an age that varies among species, juvenile salmon migrate downstream towards the ocean. During this migration, the juvenile salmon require high water quality and protection from predation. Estuaries provide a mixing zone of saline and freshwater in which the young salmon can adapt to marine waters. Pacific salmon use large portions of the north Pacific during ocean migration, although patterns vary between species and even between different populations of the same species. It is clear that ocean migration can be extensive. During the ocean phase, salmon are susceptible to predation, fishing mortality, and lack of food resources. The Pacific Council and NMFS considered excluding large portions of the EEZ from EFH designation. However, the best scientific information available was insufficient to support refinement. They chose, therefore, to identify and describe the entire EEZ as EFH for Pacific salmon. The Pacific Council adopted relatively broad EFH descriptions because of the wide ranging life history strategy, the number of species involved, and the limited information on marine distribution. EFH for Chinook, Coho, and Pink Salmon Table 1 to part 660, subpart H lists those hydrologic units which are identified as EFH for Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. Table 1 also includes, where appropriate, the names of impassible barriers that represent the upstream extent of Pacific salmon distribution. To assist Federal agencies and the public, the following three figures depict those 4th field USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes

(HUCs)that contain EFH for Pacific salmon. Figure 1 shows HUCs and marine waters that contain EFH for Chinook salmon in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. Figure 2 shows HUCs and marine waters that contain EFH for coho salmon in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. Figure 3 shows HUCs and marine waters that contain EFH for pink salmon in Washington. EP20AP07.000 EP20AP07.001 EP20AP07.002 EFH in Alaskan Marine Waters In identifying and describing EFH for Pacific salmon in Amendment 14, the Pacific Council included those areas that have been identified and described as marine EFH for Pacific salmon by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (North Pacific Council). While the task of identifying and describing EFH in Alaskan waters is the responsibility of the North Pacific Council, the Pacific Council chose to include the reference to Alaskan EFH in Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP in order to emphasize the relationship within the Pacific Coast ecosystem used by Pacific salmon during their adult migrations. This proposed rule, however, only codifies EFH for Pacific salmon that is within the jurisdiction of the Pacific Council, and does not codify EFH identified and described by the North Pacific Council for Pacific salmon that is found in Alaskan waters under the North Pacific Council's jurisdiction. Effects of Identifying and Describing EFH Once EFH is identified and described, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each FMP minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects to EFH. Adverse effects are broadly divided into effects from fishing and nonfishing activities. For impacts to EFH caused by fishing activities, each FMP must consider measures to minimize adverse effects on EFH, including EFH identified and described under other Federal FMPs. These measures may include equipment restrictions, time/area closures, or harvest limits. In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires any Federal agency that determines that its action may adversely affect EFH to consult with NMFS. Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act defines a Federal action as “any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under this Act.” The consultation process is fully described in the EFH regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. In order for NMFS to conduct this consultation the Federal action agency provides an EFH assessment commensurate with the complexity and magnitude of the potential adverse effects of the action. After receiving a request for consultation and accompanying EFH assessment, NMFS must develop Conservation Recommendations for those actions that would adversely affect EFH, aimed at the need to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset adverse effects of the proposed action. NMFS must also provide Conservation Recommendations for those Federal and state actions that would adversely affect EFH in situations where consultation has not been requested. Upon receiving the recommended conservation measures, the Federal action agency must provide a detailed written response within 30 days, indicating the proposed measures to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on EFH. If the response is inconsistent with NMFS Conservation Recommendations, the Federal agency must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects. Distinction Between EFH and Critical Habitat EFH responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act should not be confused with the mandate to designate critical habitat under the ESA. Congress enacted these two statutes with very different purposes in mind. One of the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is to promote domestic commercial and recreational fisheries. In amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Congress found that: [o]ne of the greatest long-term threats to the viability of commercial and recreational fisheries is the continuing loss of marine, estuarine, and other aquatic habitats. Habitat considerations should receive increased attention for the conservation and management of fishery resources of the United States. 16 U.S.C 1801(a)(9). Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Congress established the mandate to identify and describe EFH in order to support the habitat needs of federally managed fish stocks to aid in ensuring long-term sustainable fisheries. The definition of EFH within the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as well as the EFH implementing regulations (EFH Final Rule), establishes a basis for broader geographic areas to be identified and described as EFH, compared with those areas designated as critical habitat. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as “those areas necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” 16 U.S.C. 1802(10). The EFH Final Rule provides a mechanism for aiding the fishery management councils in determining the extent of EFH for the managed species. While the EFH Final Rule emphasizes that EFH should be distinguished from all habitats potentially used by the managed species, it also states that “[a]reas described as EFH will normally be greater than or equal to aquatic areas that have been identified as 'critical habitat' for any managed species listed as threatened or endangered under the [ESA].” 50 CFR 600.815(a)(1)(iv)(D). In addition, the EFH Final Rule provides the opportunity to increase the size of the area identified as EFH to include historic and/or degraded habitats where habitat loss may be contributing to reduced yield of the managed species. In contrast, the ESA was enacted “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved” and “to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species.” 16 U.S.C. 1531(b). The ESA specifically articulates that: the term 'critical habitat' for a threatened or endangered species means - 1. the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed . . . on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and . . . which may require special management considerations and protections; and 2. specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed . . . upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A). The definition of critical habitat in the ESA also indicates that “except in those situations determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the entire geographic area which can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species.” 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(C). While the ESA's implementing regulations regarding critical habitat set forth procedures for designating areas outside the current area occupied by the species, unlike EFH in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the ESA regulations also allow the agency to exclude certain areas from critical habitat, or not designate at all, in certain situations. When the geographic locations of EFH and critical habitat overlap, the individual consultation requirements under the ESA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act both apply. If a Federal agency determines that its action may adversely affect EFH and may affect critical habitat, it must consult with NMFS under the ESA and Magnuson-Stevens Act. In these circumstances, NMFS will generally merge the consultations into one response package, whenever possible, to maximize efficiency. Classification This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* The NMFS Northwest Region completed an ESA section 7 consultation on November 18, 1999, on the effects of Amendment 14 on listed salmon evolutionarily significant units. Amendment 14 does not by itself authorize any fishing or other activity that would result in adverse effects to listed fish or designated critical habitat. Based on this and other considerations, NMFS concluded that Amendment 14 and its implementing regulations are not likely to adversely affect listed salmon or their critical habitat. This proposed rule is consistent with the determination in Amendment 14 that the action does not jeopardize the continued existence of ESA listed salmon. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as follows: The objective of this rule is to codify essential fish habitat

(EFH)descriptions and identifications that were previously approved by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)for Amendment 14 to the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan. EFH descriptions and identifications are required under the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802(b)(7). All vessels harvesting salmon from this fishery are considered small under the Small Business Act approved definition of a small fish harvester (average gross receipts not in excess of $4.0 million). Therefore, there can be no disproportionate impacts between small and large vessels. Furthermore, there are no disproportionate impacts based on homeport, gear type, or vessel size from the promulgation of this proposed rule. In 2004, there were 3,008 permits issued for this fishery, with a total exvessel value of $28,961,275. Of the 3,008 permits, only 910 actually landed salmon. There were 1508 vessel permits issued in California, 738 of which landed salmon, for an exvessel value of $17,883,216. There were 1,181 vessel permits issued in Oregon, 595 of which landed salmon, for an exvessel value of $9,893,065. There were 160 vessel permits issued in Washington, 86 of which landed salmon, for an exvessel value of $1,184,994. This rule would not result in any immediate impacts on revenues or costs for the small entities participating in the Pacific salmon fishery because it does not contain any new management measures that would have specific economic impact on the fishery. However, future rulemakings that are promulgated by NMFS on behalf of the Secretary may be based in part on the identification and description of the EFH and such actions would likely have specific measurable impacts on the small entities participating in the fishery. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared. NMFS will conduct the appropriate analyses for any subsequent rulemakings stemming from this proposed rule. This proposed rule is not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Supplemental Regulatory Impact Review to Amendment 14 to the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan was prepared, see ADDRESSES ). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Fishing, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 12, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 660 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. Section 660.412 is added under subpart H to read as follows: § 660.412 EFH identifications and descriptions for Pacific salmon. Pacific salmon essential fish habitat

(EFH)includes all those water bodies occupied or historically accessible in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California in hydrologic units identified in Table 1 of this subpart. Exceptions include cases in which man-made barriers

(dams)identified in Table 1 of this subpart represent the upstream extent of Pacific salmon access. EFH also includes the EEZ (from zero to 200 miles) off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington State.

(a)Chinook salmon ( *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha* ) EFH includes all streams, estuaries, marine waters, and other water bodies occupied or historically accessible to Chinook salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, in hydrologic units identified in Table 1 of this subpart. Exceptions include cases in which man-made barriers

(dams)identified in Table 1 of this subpart represent the upstream extent of Pacific salmon access. EFH also includes the EEZ (from zero to 200 miles) off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point Conception.

(b)Coho salmon ( *Oncorhynchus kisutch* ) EFH includes all streams, estuaries, marine waters, and other water bodies occupied or historically accessible to coho in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, in hydrologic units identified in Table 1 of this subpart. Exceptions include cases in which man-made barriers

(dams)identified in Table 1 of this subpart represent the upstream extent of Pacific salmon access. EFH also includes the EEZ (from zero to 200 miles) off the coasts Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point Conception.

(c)Pink salmon ( *Oncorhynchus gorbuscha* ) EFH includes all streams, estuaries, marine waters, and other water bodies occupied or historically accessible to pink salmon within Washington State, in hydrologic units identified in Table 1 of this subpart. Exceptions include cases in which man-made barriers

(dams)identified in Table 1 of this subpart represent the upstream extent of Pacific salmon access. EFH also includes waters north and east of Cape Flattery, Washington, including Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia. 3. Table 1 to part 660, subpart H is added to read as follows: Table 1 to Part 660, Subpart H—Pacific Salmon EFH Identified by USGS Hydrologic Unit Code

(HUC)USGS HUC 1 State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Salmon Species Impassible Man-made Barrier (if present) 17110001 WA Fraser (Whatcom) Coho salmon n/a 17110002 WA Strait of Georgia Chinook, coho, and pink salmon n/a 17110003 WA San Juan Islands Chinook, coho, and pink salmon n/a 17110004 WA Nooksack River Chinook, coho, and pink salmon n/a 17110005 WA Upper Skagit Chinook, coho, and pink salmon Gorge Lake Dam 17110006 WA Sauk River Chinook, coho, and pink salmon n/a 17110007 WA Lower Skagit River Chinook, coho, and pink salmon n/a 17110008 WA Stillaguamish River Chinook, coho, and pink salmon n/a 17110009 WA Skykomish River Chinook, coho, and pink salmon n/a 17110010 WA Snoqualmie Chinook, coho, and pink salmon Tolt Dam (S. Fork Tolt R.) 17110011 WA Snohomish River Chinook, coho, and pink salmon n/a 17110012 WA Lake Washington Chinook and coho salmon Cedar Falls (Masonry) Dam (Cedar R.) 17110013 WA Duwamish River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17110014 WA Puyallup River Chinook, coho, and pink salmon n/a 17110015 WA Nisqually River Chinook, coho, and pink salmon n/a 17110016 WA Deschutes River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17110017 WA Skokomish River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17110018 WA Hood Canal Chinook, coho, and pink salmon n/a 17110019 WA Puget Sound Chinook, coho, and pink salmon n/a 17110020 WA Dungeness - Elwha Chinook, coho, and pink salmon n/a 17110021 WA Hoko - Crescent Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100101 WA Hoh Quillayute Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100102 WA Queets - Quinault Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100103 WA Upper Chehalis River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100104 WA Lower Chehalis River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100105 WA Grays Harbor Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100106 WA Willapa Bay Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17080001 OR/WA Lower Columbia Sandy River Chinook and coho salmon Bull Run Project (Sandy R., Little Sandy R., Bull Run R.) 17080002 WA Lewis River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17080003 OR/WA Lower Columbia - Clatskanie River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17080004 WA Upper Cowlitz River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17080005 WA Lower Cowlitz River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17080006 OR/WA Lower Columbia Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17090001 OR Middle Fork Willamette River Chinook salmon Dexter Dam 17090002 OR Coast Fork Willamette River Chinook salmon Dorena Dam 17090003 OR Upper Willamette River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17090004 OR McKenzie River Chinook and coho salmon Cougar Dam 17090005 OR N. Santiam River Chinook and coho salmon Big Cliff Dam 17090006 OR S. Santiam River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17090007 OR Mid. Willamette River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17090008 OR Yamhill River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17090009 OR Molalla - Pudding River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17090010 OR Tualatin River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17090011 OR Clackamas River Chinook and coho salmon Oak Grove Dam 17090012 OR Lower Willamette River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17070101 OR/WA Mid. Columbia - Lake Wallula Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17070102 OR/WA Walla Walla River Chinook salmon n/a 17070103 OR Umatilla River Chinook salmon n/a 17070104 OR Willow Chinook salmon n/a 17070105 OR/WA Mid. Columbia - Hood Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17070106 WA Klickitat River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17070301 OR Upper Deschutes River Chinook salmon n/a 17070305 OR Lower Crooked River Chinook salmon Opal Springs Dam 17070306 OR Lower Deschutes River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17070307 OR Trout Creek Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17070201 OR Upper John Day River Chinook salmon n/a 17070202 OR North Fork John Day River Chinook salmon n/a 17070203 OR Middle Fork John Day River Chinook salmon n/a 17070204 OR Lower John Day River Chinook salmon n/a 17030001 WA Upper Yakima River Chinook and coho salmon Keechelus Dam Kachess Dam (Kachess R.) Cle Elum Dam (Cle Elum R.) 17030002 WA Naches River Chinook and coho salmon Rimrock Dam (Tieton R.) 17030003 WA Lower Yakima River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17020005 WA Columbia River Chinook and coho salmon Chief Joseph Dam 17020006 WA Okanogan River Chinook salmon n/a 17020007 WA Similkameen Chinook salmon n/a 17020008 WA Methow River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17020010 WA Upper Columbia - Entiat River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17020011 WA Wenatchee River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17020016 WA Upper Columbia - Priest Rapids Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17060101 OR/ID Hells Canyon Chinook salmon Hells Canyon Complex (Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee Dams) 17060102 OR Imnaha River Chinook salmon n/a 17060103 OR/WA/ID Lower Snake - Asotin Creek Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17060104 OR Upper Grande Ronde Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17060105 OR Wallowa River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17060106 OR/WA Lower Grande Ronde Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17060107 OR Lower Snake - Tucannon River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17060110 OR Lower Snake River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17060201 ID Upper Salmon River Chinook salmon n/a 17060202 ID Pahsimeroi River Chinook salmon n/a 17060203 ID Mid. Salmon - Panther River Chinook salmon n/a 17060204 ID Lemhi River Chinook salmon n/a 17060205 ID Upper Middle Fork Salmon River Chinook salmon n/a 17060206 ID Lower Middle Fork Salmon River Chinook salmon n/a 17060207 ID Mid. Salmon - Chamberlain Chinook salmon n/a 17060208 ID S.F. Salmon River Chinook salmon n/a 17060209 ID Lower Salmon River Chinook salmon n/a 17060210 ID Little Salmon River Chinook salmon n/a 17060301 ID Upper Selway River Chinook salmon n/a 17060302 ID Lower Selway River Chinook salmon n/a 17060303 ID Lochsa River Chinook salmon n/a 17060304 ID M.F. Clearwater River Chinook salmon n/a 17060305 ID S.F. Clearwater River Chinook salmon n/a 17060306 WA/ID Clearwater River Chinook and coho salmon Dworshak Dam (at border of HUCs 17060306 and 17060308) 17100201 OR Necanicum River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100202 OR Nehalem River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100203 OR Wilson - Trask - Nestucca Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100204 OR Siletz Yaquina River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100205 OR Alsea River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100206 OR Siuslaw River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100207 OR Siltcoos River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100301 OR N. Umpqua River Chinook and coho salmon Soda Springs Dam 17100302 OR S. Umpqua River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100303 OR Umpqua River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100304 OR Coos River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100305 OR Coquille River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100306 OR Sixes River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100307 OR Upper Rogue River Chinook and coho salmon Lost Creek Dam 17100308 OR Middle Rogue River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100309 CA/OR Applegate River Chinook and coho salmon Applegate Dam 17100310 OR Lower Rogue River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100311 CA/OR Illinois River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 17100312 CA/OR Chetco River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18010101 CA/OR Smith River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18010206 CA/OR Upper Klamath River Chinook and coho salmon Iron Gate Dam 18010207 CA Shasta River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18010208 CA Scott River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18010209 CA/OR Lower Klamath River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18010210 CA Salmon River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18010211 CA Trinity River Chinook and coho salmon Lewiston Dam 18010212 CA S.F. Trinity River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18010102 CA Mad Redwood Chinook and coho salmon Robert W. Matthews Dam 18010103 CA Upper Eel River Chinook and coho salmon Scott Dam 18010104 CA Middle Fork Eel River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18010105 CA Lower Eel River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18010106 CA South Fork Eel River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18010107 CA Mattole River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18010108 CA Big-Navarro-Garcia Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18010109 CA Gualala - Salmon Creek Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18010110 CA Russian River Chinook and coho salmon Coyote Valley Dam (E. Fork Russian R.) Warm Springs Dam (Dry Cr.) 18010111 CA Bodega Bay Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18060001 CA San Lorenzo Soquel Coho salmon Newell Dam (Newell Cr.) 18060006 CA Central Coastal Coho salmon n/a 18050001 CA Suisun Bay Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18050002 CA San Pablo Bay Chinook and coho salmon San Pablo Dam (San Pablo Cr.) 18050003 CA Coyote Creek Chinook and coho salmon LeRoy Anderson Dam 18050004 CA San Francisco Bay Chinook and coho salmon n/a 18050005 CA Tomales-Drakes Bay Coho salmon Nicasio Dam (Nicasio Cr.) Peters Dam (Lagunitas Cr.) 18050006 CA San Francisco-Coastal South Coho salmon n/a 18020101 CA Sac.-Lower Cow-Lower Clear Chinook salmon n/a 18020102 CA Lower Cottonwood Creek Chinook salmon n/a 18020103 CA Sacramento - Lower Thomes Chinook salmon n/a 18020104 CA Sacramento - Stone Corral Chinook salmon n/a 18020105 CA Lower Butte Creek Chinook salmon n/a 18020106 CA Lower Feather River Chinook salmon n/a 18020107 CA Lower Yuba River Chinook salmon n/a 18020108 CA Lower Bear River Chinook salmon n/a 18020109 CA Lower Sacramento River Chinook salmon n/a 18020110 CA Lower Cache Chinook salmon n/a 18020111 CA Lower American River Chinook salmon Nimbus Dam 18020112 CA Sacramento-Upper Clear Chinook salmon Keswick Dam (Sacramento R.) Whiskeytown Dam (Clear Cr.) 18020113 CA Cottonwood Headwaters Chinook salmon n/a 18020114 CA Elder Creek Chinook salmon n/a p CA River Chinook salmon n/a 18020118 CA Upper Cow - Battle Creek Chinook salmon n/a 18020119 CA Mill - Big Chico Chinook salmon n/a 18020120 CA Upper Butte Creek Chinook salmon n/a 18020125 CA Upper Yuba Chinook salmon n/a 18040001 CA Mid. San Joaquin- L. Cowchilla Chinook salmon n/a 18040002 CA Mid. San Joaquin- L. Merced- L. Stanislaus Chinook salmon La Grange Dam (Tuolumne R.) 18040003 CA San Joaquin Delta Chinook salmon n/a 18040004 CA L. Calaveras - Mormon Slough Chinook salmon n/a 18040005 CA L. Consumnes- L. Mokelumne Chinook salmon Comanche Dam 18040010 CA Upper Stanislaus Chinook salmon Goodwin Dam 18040011 CA Upper Calveras Chinook salmon New Hogan Dam 18040013 CA Upper Cosumnes Chinook salmon n/a 1. To clearly identify watersheds that contain EFH, NMFS uses fourth field hydrologic unit codes

(HUCs)developed by the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS)(defined in the Department of the Interior, USGS publication; Hydrologic Unit Maps, Water Supply Paper 2294, 1987). The geographic extent of HUCs range from first field (largest geographic extent) to sixth field (smallest geographic extent). Fourth field HUCs divide the landscape into distinct geographic areas that are identified by eight numbers unique to that hydrologic unit. [FR Doc. 07-1946 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 27

Traces to 27 documents

CFR