Rules and Regulations. Final rule

9,587 words·~44 min read·/register/2007/05/15/07-2392

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 97 [Docket No. 30550; Amdt. No. 3218] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment amends Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements.

These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective May 15, 2007. The compliance date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination—* 1.

FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which affected airport is located; or 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . *For Purchase—* Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from: 1.

FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. *By Subscription—* Copies of all SIAPs, mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address:

P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone:

(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) amends Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), which is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs. The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days. Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in TERPS. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC, on May 4, 2007. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: §§ 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35, and 97.37 [Amended] By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, LDA w/GS, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, MLS, TLS, GLS, WAAS PA, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, § 97.37 Takeoff Minima and Obstacle Departure Procedures. Identified as follows: * * * EFFECTIVE UPON PUBLICATION FDC date State City Airport FDC No. Subject 03/15/07 VA FRANKLIN FRANKLIN MUNI-JOHN BEVERLY ROSE 7/5464 VOR/DME RWY 27, AMDT 9C. 05/02/07 CA SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO INTL 7/9886 RNAV

(GPS)RWY 16L, ORIG-A. 05/02/07 CA SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO INTL 7/9888 RNAV

(GPS)RWY 16R, ORIG-B. 05/02/07 CA SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO INTL 7/9890 RNAV

(GPS)RWY 34R, ORIG-A. [FR Doc. E7-9243 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Parts 4022 and 4044 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans prescribe interest assumptions for valuing and paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans. This final rule amends the regulations to adopt interest assumptions for plans with valuation dates in June 2007. Interest assumptions are also published on the PBGC's Web site ( *http://www.pbgc.gov* ). DATES: Effective June 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PBGC's regulations prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Three sets of interest assumptions are prescribed:

(1)A set for the valuation of benefits for allocation purposes under section 4044 (found in Appendix B to Part 4044),

(2)a set for the PBGC to use to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine lump-sum amounts to be paid by the PBGC (found in Appendix B to Part 4022), and

(3)a set for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology (found in Appendix C to Part 4022). This amendment

(1)adds to Appendix B to Part 4044 the interest assumptions for valuing benefits for allocation purposes in plans with valuation dates during June 2007,

(2)adds to Appendix B to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for the PBGC to use for its own lump-sum payments in plans with valuation dates during June 2007, and

(3)adds to Appendix C to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology for valuation dates during June 2007. For valuation of benefits for allocation purposes, the interest assumptions that the PBGC will use (set forth in Appendix B to part 4044) will be 5.14 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 4.81 percent thereafter. These interest assumptions represent a decrease (from those in effect for May 2007) of 0.06 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 0.06 percent for all years thereafter. The interest assumptions that the PBGC will use for its own lump-sum payments (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022) will be 3.00 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. These interest assumptions are unchanged from those in effect for May 2007. For private-sector payments, the interest assumptions (set forth in Appendix C to part 4022) will be the same as those used by the PBGC for determining and paying lump sums (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022). The PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible. Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits in plans with valuation dates during June 2007, the PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication. The PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866. Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2). List of Subjects 29 CFR Part 4022 Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 29 CFR Part 4044 Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions. In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows: PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344. 2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 164, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities (percent) i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2 * * * * * * * 164 6-1-07 7-1-07 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 164, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities (percent) i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2 * * * * * * * 164 6-1-07 7-1-07 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 4. The authority citation for part 4044 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362. 5. In appendix B to part 4044, a new entry for June 2007, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4044—Interest Rates Used To Value Benefits For valuation dates occurring in the month— The values of i t are: i t for t = i t for t = i t for t = i t for t = * * * * * * * June 2007 .0514 1-20 .0481 >20 N/A N/A Issued in Washington, DC, on this 10th day of May 2007. Vincent K. Snowbarger, Interim Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-9331 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP SAVANNAH 06-160] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone, Elba Island LNG Mooring Slip, Savannah River, Savannah, GA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent security zone due to recent changes in Liquefied Natural Gas

(LNG)tankship mooring arrangements following the activation of two new berths within a slip at the Southern LNG Facility on the Savannah River. The Security zone includes all the waters from surface to bottom of the northeastern most mooring dolphin, located at approximately 32°05.01′ N, 080°59.38′ W, to the southeastern most mooring dolphin, located at approximately 32°04.79′ N, 080°59.35′ W, and continues west along the North and South shoreline of the mooring slip to the shoreline of the right descending bank of the Savannah River. This regulation is necessary to protect life and property on the navigable waters of the Savannah River and within the LNG slip due to potential security risks associated with the LNG Facility. DATES: This rule is effective June 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [COTP Savannah 06-160], and are available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Unit Savannah, Juliette Gordon Low Federal Building, Suite 1017, 100 W. Oglethorpe, Savannah, Georgia 31401, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Robert Webb, Waterways Management Officer, Marine Safety Unit Savannah;

(912)652-4353. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On January 9, 2007, we published an interim rule with request for comments titled Security Zone, Elba Island LNG Mooring Slip, Savannah River, Savannah, GA in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 907). We received one comment on the rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose In May of 2002, Southern LNG, Inc., submitted a letter of intent to expand the LNG facility on Elba Island that would nearly double the LNG storage capacity and substantially increase the number of LNG tankship arrivals. The expansion project, completed in early 2006, resulted in the creation of two new berths within a slip at the Southern LNG Facility on the Savannah River. The design of the new slip inadvertently creates a safe refuge off the Savannah River with unrestricted access to LNG berths. As a result, the LNG facility and arriving LNG vessels are put at risk of sabotage or other adverse action that could result in significant damage to property and loss of life. This concern was confirmed by a recent incident where on June 6, 2006, a sailing vessel entered the LNG slip and anchored for six hours, one day before the scheduled arrival of an LNG carrier. This incident raised security concerns and prompted the LNG facility to conduct a visual inspection of the above water mooring features and a complete underwater survey, in turn delaying the LNG vessel. The visual inspection and underwater survey was necessary to ensure no objects that could potentially harm the vessel or facility were left in the slip. Although the incident did not result in any harm to the facility or vessel, it was recognized by the Coast Guard that a potential vulnerability exists in the security of the LNG slip. Additionally, as the demand for natural gas continues to grow, Southern LNG plans to expand its current operation, potentially increasing both the size and frequency of LNG vessel arrivals and further concerns over a potential accidental spill or intentional release of LNG. The risks and hazards from an LNG spill will vary depending on the size of the spill, environmental conditions, and the site at which the spill occurs. Hazards can include cryogenic burns to the ship's crew and people nearby or potential damage to the LNG ship from contact with the cryogenic LNG. Vaporization of the liquid LNG can occur once a spill occurs and subsequent ignition of the vapor cloud could cause fires and overpressures that could injure people or cause damage to the tanker's structure, other LNG tanks, or nearby structures. Therefore, the recent incident of June 6, 2006, discussed above, the hazards associated with the transportation of LNG, and the expansion of Elba Island LNG facility necessitates this rule. Additionally, this security zone is necessary to protect the berths and moored LNG vessels within the LNG slip from potential sabotage and unauthorized access prior to a LNG ship arrival. Discussion of Comments and Changes We received one comment concerning the position of the southeastern most mooring dolphin. The published position of the mooring dolphin was 32[deg]04.49′ North, 080[deg]59.20′ West. This was an incorrect position, and should have been 32[deg]04.79′ North, 080[deg]59.35′ West. The final rule has been revised to reflect the correct position of the southeastern most mooring dolphin. Additionally, the Interim Rule with request for comments incorrectly referred to 33 CFR 165.13 as the cite for Security Zone General Regulations. The correct citation for Security Zone General Regulations is 33 CFR 165.33. The final rule is changed to reflect the correct General Regulation citation. Aside from these two changes, we have adopted the interim rule as final. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This security zone will only restrict access to a limited area, immediately surrounding a LNG facility, where vessels should not be operating due to the danger associated with the facility. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. This interim rule would not result in such an expenditure. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Checklist” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Revise § 165.751 to read as follows: § 165.751 Security Zone: LNG mooring slip, Savannah River, Savannah, Georgia.

(a)*Security Zone.* The following area is a security zone: All the waters from surface to bottom of the northeastern most mooring dolphin located at approximately 32[deg]05.01′ North, 080[deg]59.38′ West, to the southeastern most mooring dolphin located at approximately 32[deg]04.79′ North, 080[deg]59.35′ West, and continues west along the North and South shoreline of the mooring slip to the shoreline of the right descending bank of the Savannah River. All marine traffic is prohibited from entering this zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP).

(b)*Applicability.* This section applies to all vessels including naval and other public vessels, except vessels that are engaged in the following operations:

(1)Law enforcement, security, or search and rescue;

(2)Servicing aids to navigation;

(3)Surveying, maintenance, or improvement of waters in the security zone; or

(4)Actively engaged in escort, maneuvering, or support duties for an LNG tankship.

(c)*Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.33 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Savannah or vessels engaged in activities defined in paragraph (b).

(d)*Reporting of Violations.* Violations of this section should be reported to the Captain of the Port, Savannah, at

(912)652-4353. Dated: April 23, 2007. D.W. Murk, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port. [FR Doc. E7-9230 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 2 RIN 2900-AM61 Change in Secretary's Delegation of Authority and Clarification of that Authority AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA)delegation regulation, which authorizes a VA official to take final action on complaints of employment discrimination when the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication (OEDCA) recuses itself due to a conflict of interest. The amendment provides that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has delegated authority to take such action to the Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals, and clarifies that such authority includes awarding remedial relief in cases where there has been a finding of discrimination. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 15, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles R. Delobe, Director, Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication (00D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20420 (Tel. 202-254-0063). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 38 U.S.C. 319 and 38 CFR 2.6(i), OEDCA has authority to take final action on complaints of employment discrimination filed by VA employees, former employees, and applicants for employment. Under 38 U.S.C. 501, the Secretary has authority to prescribe rules and regulations necessary to carry out the laws administered by VA. Further, under 38 U.S.C. 512, the Secretary may delegate authority to officers and employees of the Department as the Secretary deems necessary. In cases where OEDCA recuses itself due to an actual, apparent, or potential conflict of interest, the Secretary delegates authority to another official in the Department to take such action. In the past, that authority was delegated to the Chairman, Board of Contract Appeals, under current 38 CFR 2.6(j). This document amends § 2.6(j) to reflect the change in this delegation of authority to the Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals. The change in delegated authority is necessary because there has been a transfer of functions and personnel of the VA Board of Contract Appeals to the General Services Administration, which occurred on January 6, 2007. The amendment also clarifies that the delegated authority includes the authority to grant all appropriate remedies and relief in cases where there is a finding of discrimination. Administrative Procedures Act This final rule concerns VA agency organization, procedure, and practice, specifically delegation of authority to offices or employees of the Department to perform certain acts or render decisions. Accordingly, the prior notice and comment and delayed effective date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply to this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Regulatory Flexibility Act The initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, are not applicable to this rule because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required for this rule. Even so, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This final rule would not affect any small entities. Only VA employees, former employees, and applicants for employment could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is also exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)unless OMB waives such review, as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2)create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3)materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires agencies to prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any year. This final rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance There is no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this final rule. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 2 Authority delegations (Government agencies). Approved: April 19, 2007. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 2 as follows: PART 2—DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 302, 552a; 38 U.S.C. 501, 512, 515, 1729, 1729A, 5711; 44 U.S.C. 3702, and as noted in specific sections. 2. Amend § 2.6, by revising paragraph

(j)to read as follows: § 2.6 Secretary's delegations of authority to certain officials (38 U.S.C. 512).

(j)*Delegation to the Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals.* In cases where OEDCA has recused itself from a case due to an actual, apparent, or potential conflict of interest, the Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals, is delegated authority to make procedural agency decisions to dismiss, in whole or in part, EEO discrimination complaints filed by agency employees, former employees, and applicants for employment; to make substantive final agency decisions where complainants do not request an EEOC hearing; to take final agency action following a decision by an EEOC Administrative Judge; and to make final agency decisions ordering appropriate remedies and relief where there is a finding of discrimination. [FR Doc. E7-9286 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0682; FRL-8314-6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Redesignation of the West Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) is requesting that the Marshall and Ohio County, West Virginia (Wheeling) portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH area (herein referred to as the “Area”) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In conjunction with its redesignation request, the State submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Wheeling that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years, until 2018. EPA is also approving the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Wheeling 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is approving the redesignation request and the maintenance plan revision to the West Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on June 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0682. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street, SE., Charleston, WV 25304. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio,

(215)814-2156, or by e-mail at *caprio.amy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57894), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR)for the State of West Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of West Virginia's redesignation request and a SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for Wheeling that sets forth how Wheeling will maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the WVDEP on July 24, 2006. Other specific requirements of West Virginia's redesignation request SIP revision for the maintenance plan and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. On October 20, 2006, EPA received a comment, from the West Virginia Division of Highways, in support of its October 2, 2006 NPR. Also, on October 28, 2006, EPA received adverse comments on the said October 2, 2006 NPR. A summary of the comments submitted and EPA's responses are provided in Section II of this document. II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses *Comment:* The commenter stated that on behalf of the West Virginia Division of Highways, they would like to go on record as supporting the redesignation of the Wheeling, West Virginia portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH interstate area from nonattainment to attainment. *Response:* EPA acknowledges the comment of support for our final action. *Comment:* The commenter states that the Wheeling Area redesignation is based on 2002-2004 air quality data, and should instead be based on the most recent three years of air quality data, 2004-2006. *Response:* EPA disagrees that the 2006 data was available as a basis for redesignating Wheeling to attainment, and also disagrees with the comment that the redesignation cannot be based on the quality assured 2002-2004 air quality data. EPA may redesignate an area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if three years of quality assured data indicate that the area has attained the standard and the most recent quality assured air quality data indicate that the area is still attaining the standard at the time of the redesignation. EPA has determined that the Wheeling, WV portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH nonattainment area has attained compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS subsequent to the calendar year 2004 ozone season (April-October) based on three years (2002-2004) of quality assured data. It is also worth noting that while our determination that the Area has attained the standard is based on the 2002-2004 data, the 2005 calendar year quality assured data and the newly available quality assured data from 2006, indicate that the Area continues to attain the standard. The 2005 and 2006 data support our conclusion in the notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR)on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57894) that emissions reductions in the Area can be attributed to permanent and enforceable measures throughout the Area and that air quality monitoring date indicates that the Area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 1 1 The fourth highest 8-hour ozone monitoring values at the Ohio County, West Virginia monitor for 2006 were 0.085 ppm, 0.083 ppm, 0.079 ppm, and 0.079 ppm. Thus the design value at the Area monitor for monitoring years 2004-2006 are still showing attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS with a value of 0.077 ppm at the Wheeling monitor. *Comment:* The commenter asserts that EPA should not approve the redesignation of Wheeling because the Wheeling monitor was twice relocated during calendar years 2004 and 2005. The commenter states that (at its current location) the Wheeling ozone monitor should operate for one additional year in order to confirm attainment of the NAAQS and that EPA should not act on WVDEP's redesignation request until the air quality data for the additional monitoring period have been evaluated. *Response:* Since 1982, WVDEP has operated and maintained an ozone monitoring station for the West Virginia portion of the Wheeling Area. The commenter refers to the Wheeling monitor as having been relocated from “Site 7” to “Site 9,” and finally to “Site 10.” The monitoring station was originally located at WVDEP's Northern Panhandle Regional Office. The station continued to operate at this location (Site 7) until WVDEP had to discontinue the operations at the site due to the relocation of its Northern Panhandle Regional Office prior to the calendar year 2004 ozone season (April through October). As a result, WVDEP installed an interim ozone station in the Wheeling Area which was located approximately four miles south of the station's original location and collected data for the 2004 ozone season (Site 9). In anticipation of the 2005 season, WVDEP established a new site for the Wheeling ozone monitor which was approximately three-tenths of a mile south of the monitor's original location (Site 10). The new monitoring site is similar in characteristics to the original monitoring site. The sites are located in the same river valley with no obstructions between the sites and have a similar distribution of surrounding ozone sources. Both monitoring locations are located within the City of Wheeling, West Virginia and the surrounding areas have comparable population density, with no large industrial sources, and no adjacent highways. The current location of the Wheeling ozone monitor is in an area which has the infrastructure and arranged access to operate for many years. The data from monitoring sites 7, 9, and 10 were pooled for two three-year periods:

(1)2002, 2003, and 2004 (Sites 7 and 9) and

(2)2003, 2004 and 2005 (Sites 7, 9, 10). In addition, the data from monitoring sites 9 and 10 were pooled for 2004-2006. *See also* , footnote 1. The commenter asserted that data obtained from Site 9 was a “poor site” and that the data obtained from this site in 2004 was of low value for purpose of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA evaluated ozone statistics for the Wheeling Area for 2004 (i.e., number of days with eight-hour averages greater than 0.0084 ppm and 4th highest eight-hour average for the year), and found them to be reasonable and consistent when compared to ozone measurements collected in Wheeling and at other nearby monitoring stations in the Ohio River Valley during the period examined (1998 thru 2005). Based on a review of ozone air quality data from the Wheeling Area for this period, the proximity and characteristics of the monitoring sites, and giving consideration to WVDEP's reasons for relocating the ozone monitoring station during period of 2003-2005, EPA has concluded that the integrity of ozone data submitted for this Area was not affected by the fact that the data was collected from three different, and relatively close together, monitoring locations. This data is acceptable for purposes of redesignating the Wheeling Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. *Comment:* The commenter asserts that cold and wet summers, rather than enforceable emissions reductions are a significant cause of improvement of air quality in Wheeling, although the commenter also asserts based on the number of days exceeding 84 ppb in 2005 that the air quality is actually not improving. *Response:* In accordance with Appendix I to 40 CFR Part 50, compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met at an ambient air monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm; it is not based on the number of days which exceed the 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, EPA uses the three-year averaging period to minimize year to year variations in the summer (i.e., ozone season) weather. *See* Redesignation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 66 FR 53094, 53100 (October 19, 2001). Therefore, the number of days exceeding 84 ppb are not relevant to a determination of whether an area (or portion thereof), has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Information relative to long term trends of West Virginia summer temperatures and rainfall-based data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's

(NOAA)National Climate Data Center (please see attached). Based on EPA's review, this information shows that the summers 2000 through 2006 experienced year to year variations in average summer temperature and rainfall typical of the summer seasons in the State of West Virginia. Thus the improvement in air quality is not due to unusually cold and wet summers. Rather, the improvement in air quality is due to the implementation of permanent and enforceable measures as explained in the NPR. The permanent and enforceable measures listed in the Wheeling NPR include the National Low Emissions Vehicle (NLEV), motor vehicle fleet turnover with new vehicles meeting the Tier 2 standards, and the Clean Diesel Program. These federal vehicle programs along with the NO X SIP Call resulted in a 0.9 tons per year

(tpy)decrease in VOC emissions and a 69.8 tpy decrease in NO X emissions throughout the Wheeling Area between 2002 and 2004. Therefore, EPA believes that the improvement in 8-hour ozone air quality is a result of identifiable, permanent and enforceable reductions in ozone precursor emissions, not unusually cold and wet summers. *Comment:* The commenter requests air quality data for time periods outside the time period be used for redesignation, and for areas outside the West Virginia portion of the Wheeling Area which is the subject of this rulemaking, and other air quality data such as data provided by the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) and the National Atmospheric Deposition Program

(NADP)monitoring networks, which has not been used to support this rulemaking. The commenter also insists that monitoring data from a rural ozone monitoring site, a CASTNET monitor, located in adjacent Noble County, Ohio should have been considered in this rulemaking. *Response:* As discussed previously, the redesignation is demonstrated by the quality assured 2002-2004 ozone monitoring data, and continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is demonstrated by the quality assured 2005 and 2006 ozone monitoring data for the Wheeling Area. Other air quality data, from other monitoring networks or for time periods outside the years being used to support the redesignation request, or which are located outside the Wheeling Area (i.e., Noble County, OH CASTNET monitor), are not relevant to the redesignation request. Furthermore, CASTNET and NADP monitors are not operated for purposes of the regional ozone monitoring network nor do they satisfy the quality assurance requirements necessary to support requests for redesignation. Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently vacated EPA's April 30, 2004 “Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Standard” (the Phase 1 implementation rule). *South Coast Air Quality Management District* v. *EPA* , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2007). EPA issued a supplemental proposed rulemaking that set forth its views on the potential effect of the Court's ruling on this and other proposed redesignation actions. 72 FR 13452 (March 22, 2007). EPA proposed to find that the Court's ruling does not alter any requirements relevant to the proposed redesignations that would prevent EPA from finalizing these redesignations, for the reasons fully explained in the supplemental notice. EPA provided a 15-day review and comment period on this supplemental proposed rulemaking. The public comment period closed on April 6, 2007. EPA received six comments, all supporting EPA's supplemental proposed rulemaking, and supporting redesignation of the affected areas. EPA recognizes the support provided in these comments as well, but again, we do not believe any specific response to comments is necessary with respect to these comments. In addition, several of these comments included additional rationale for proceeding with these proposed redesignations. EPA had not requested comment on any additional rationale, does not believe any additional rationale is necessary, and similarly does not believe any specific response to these comments is necessary, and thus has not provided any. III. Final Action EPA is approving the State of West Virginia's July 24, 2006 redesignation request and maintenance plan because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has evaluated West Virginia's redesignation request, submitted on July 24, 2006, and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that Wheeling has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of Wheeling from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for Wheeling, submitted on July 24, 2006, as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for Wheeling because it meets the requirements of section 175A. EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by West Virginia in conjunction with its redesignation request. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for NO X and VOCs in the Wheeling 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, Marshall and Ohio Counties must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity determinations. The adequate and approved MVEBs are provided in the following table: Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) in Tons per Day

(TPD)Budget year NO X VOC 2009 4.3 2.5 2018 1.7 1.4 Wheeling is subject to the CAA's requirements for basic ozone nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this final 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.* ). Because this rule approves 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). This final rule also does 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), nor will it 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), because it affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This final rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 16, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, to approve the redesignation request, maintenance plan and adequacy determination for MVEBs for Wheeling, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: May 8, 2007. William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart XX—West Virginia 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph

(e)is amended by adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, Wheeling, WV-OH Area at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2520 Identification of plan.

(e)* * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Wheeling, WV-OH Area Marshall and Ohio County 07/24/06 05/15/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] PART 81—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 4. In § 81.349 the table entitled “West Virginia—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for the Wheeling, WV-OH Area to read as follows: § 81.349 West Virginia. West Virginia—Ozone (8-Hour Standard) Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Wheeling, WV-OH Area Marshall County 5/15/07 Attainment. Ohio County 5/15/07 Attainment. * * * * * * * a Includes Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise noted. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E7-9287 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 060525140-6221-02] RIN 0648-XA21 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper/Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Trip Limit Reduction AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason adjustment. SUMMARY: NMFS reduces the commercial trip limit for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic to 300 lb (136 kg) per trip in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This trip limit reduction is necessary to protect the South Atlantic golden tilefish resource. DATES: This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, May 17, 2007, through January 1, 2008, unless changed by further notification in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Rueter, telephone 727-824-5305, fax 727-824-5308, e-mail *jason.rueter@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. Under 50 CFR 622.44(c)(2), NMFS is required to reduce the trip limit in the commercial fishery for golden tilefish when 75 percent of the fishing year quota is met to 300 lb (136 kg) per trip, by filing a notification to that effect in the **Federal Register** . Based on current statistics, NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the available commercial quota of 295,000 lb (133,810 kg), gutted weight, for golden tilefish will be reached on or before May 17, 2007. Accordingly, NMFS is reducing the commercial golden tilefish trip limit to 300 lb (136 kg) in the South Atlantic EEZ from 12:01 a.m., local time, on May 17, 2007, until the fishery closes or 12:01 a.m., local time, on January 1, 2008, whichever occurs first. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) as such prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself already has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action in order to protect the fishery since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid over harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require additional time and would likely result in a harvest well in excess of the established quota. For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.43(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 10, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 07-2392 Filed 5-10-07; 4:08 pm]

Connectionstraces to 31

Traces to 31 documents

U.S. Code