Rules and Regulations. Final rule

55,384 words·~252 min read·/register/2007/05/31/07-2692·

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

BILLING CODE 6690-01-M NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Parts 701, 703, 707, 710, 722, 723, and 742 RIN #3133-AD36 Technical Amendments AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NCUA is amending a number of its regulations by making minor technical corrections, clarifications and grammatical changes. Among those amendments is the addition of a cross-reference between two regulations addressing credit union borrowing authority; addition of a statement in the provision on insurance coverage for volunteer officials to note, when a federal credit union

(FCU)cancels coverage, it must comply with any other applicable laws allowing an official to continue coverage at his or her own expense; and clarification that indemnification for dual employees is limited to activities on behalf of the FCU. NCUA is also removing certain regulatory references to NCUA's FCU Bylaws that are no longer accurate due to revisions to the Bylaws. The amendments generally are improvements alerting users to other relevant provisions, responsibilities, or limitations. DATES: This rule is effective May 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annette Tapia or Frank Kressman, Staff Attorneys, Office of General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428 or telephone:

(703)518-6540. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background NCUA continually reviews its regulations to “update, clarify and simplify existing regulations and eliminate redundant and unnecessary provisions.” NCUA Interpretive Rulings and Policy Statement

(IRPS)87-2, Developing and Reviewing Government Regulations. Under IRPS 87-2, NCUA conducts a rolling review of one-third of its regulations every year, involving both internal review and public comment. NCUA's 2006 review revealed that minor revisions to certain regulations would be helpful. B. Regulatory Changes Section 701.33 NCUA's regulations implement the statutory provisions permitting FCUs to provide certain insurance for volunteer directors and committee members. 12 U.S.C 1761a; 12 CFR 701.33(b)(2)(ii). With respect to insurance coverage, the regulation provides that coverage must cease immediately when an official is no longer serving in that capacity. The amendment to § 701.33(b)(2)(ii) serves as a reminder that, when an FCU cancels insurance coverage for an official, other federal or state laws may provide departing officials the right to maintain health insurance coverage at their own expense. The regulation also permits an FCU to indemnify its officials and employees under certain conditions. 12 CFR 701.33(c). The amendment adds a new subparagraph to § 701.33(c) clarifying that an FCU may not indemnify an FCU employee acting in a “dual employee” role for those duties performed for an entity other than the credit union. For example, an FCU employee who also performs duties for a credit union service organization

(CUSO)is a dual employee and the FCU may only indemnify the employee for the functions performed for the FCU, not the CUSO. Section 701.38 NCUA's regulations permit an FCU to borrow funds from natural persons, provided it uses a certificate of indebtedness, which sets forth the terms and conditions of the repayment of the borrowing. 12 CFR 701.38. This borrowing authority is subject to a statutory limitation implemented in NCUA's regulations limiting an FCU's maximum borrowing authority from any source to 50% of its paid-in and unimpaired capital and surplus. 12 U.S.C. 1757(9); 12 CFR 741.2(a). NCUA is inserting a cross-reference in § 701.38 to the borrowing limitations in § 741.2 to alert users to the regulatory provision on maximum borrowing authority. FCU Bylaws NCUA revised the FCU Bylaws in 1999 and 2006. The revised Bylaws provide greater clarity and flexibility. Several Bylaw provisions include fill-in-the-blank choices that enable an FCU's board of directors to select from a range of options best suited to their credit union's needs. As a result of those revisions, certain regulatory provisions referencing the Bylaws are outdated. The technical amendments remove those inaccurate references. C. Regulatory Procedures Final Rule Under the Administrative Procedure Act Generally, the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)requires a federal agency to provide the public with notice and the opportunity to comment on agency rulemakings. The amendments in this rule are not substantive but technical in that they make minor corrections, merely provide clarification or alert users of the regulations to other legal requirements or limitations. The APA permits an agency to forego the notice and comment period under certain circumstances, such as when a rulemaking is technical and not substantive. NCUA finds good cause that notice and public comment are unnecessary under Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). NCUA also finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delayed effective date requirement under Section 553(d)(3) of the APA. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The rule will, therefore, be effective immediately upon publication. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a rule may have on a substantial number of small entities (those credit unions under ten million dollars in assets). This rule provides minor, technical changes and clarifications to certain sections of NCUA's regulations. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions, and, therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act NCUA has determined that this rule will not increase paperwork requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and regulations of the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This rule will 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. NCUA has determined that this rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999—Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families The NCUA has determined that this rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) (SBREFA) provides generally for congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the APA. 5 U.S.C. 551. The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not a major rule for purposes of SBREFA. As required by SBREFA, NCUA will file the appropriate reports with Congress and the General Accounting Office so this rule may be reviewed. List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 701 Credit unions, indemnity payments, insurance. 12 CFR Part 703 Credit unions, investments. 12 CFR Part 707 Advertising, consumer protection, credit unions, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, truth in savings. 12 CFR Part 710 Credit unions, liquidations. 12 CFR Part 722 Appraisals, credit unions, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 12 CFR Part 723 Credit, credit unions, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 12 CFR Part 742 Credit unions, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. By the National Credit Union Administration Board on May 24, 2007. Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board. For the reasons discussed above, NCUA is amending 12 CFR parts 701, 703, 707, 710, 722, 723, and 742 as follows: PART 701—ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS OF FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS 1. The authority citation for part 701 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1787, and 1789. Section 701.6 is also authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq.* , 42 U.S.C. 1861 and 42 U.S.C. 3601-3610. Section 701.35 is also authorized by 42 U.S.C. 4311-4312. 2. Section 701.21 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (a), by replacing the last word, “part” with the word “chapter”; and b. in paragraph (i)(1),introductory text, by removing the word “this.” 3. Section 701.33(b)(2)(ii) is amended by adding the phrase “except that a credit union must comply with federal and state laws providing departing officials the right to maintain health insurance coverage at their own expense” after “if any;” and before “and” at the end. 4. Section 701.33 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows: § 701.33 Reimbursement, insurance, and indemnification of officials and employees.

(4)Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(1) through

(3)of this section, a federal credit union may not indemnify a dual employee for duties performed for any employer other than the federal credit union. For purposes of this subsection, a dual employee is a federal credit union employee who also performs work functions for another entity as part of a sharing arrangement between the federal credit union and the other entity. 5. Section 701.38 is amended by adding new paragraph

(b)to read as follows: § 701.38 Borrowed funds from natural persons.

(b)Federal credit unions must comply with the maximum borrowing authority of § 741.2 of this chapter. PART 703—INVESTMENT AND DEPOSIT ACTIVITIES 6. The authority citation for part 703 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1757(7), 1757(8), 1757(15). 7. Section 703.4 is amended by replacing references to “§ 701.12” wherever they appear with references to “§ 715.4.” PART 707—TRUTH IN SAVINGS 8. The authority citation for part 707 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 4311. 9. Appendix B to Part 707 is amended as follows: a. Section B-3 is amended by replacing the “d” with “c” in the topic heading. b. Section B-6 is amended by removing the phrase “, but must be at least 6 months”. c. Section B-6, paragraph 12, in the “Note:” portion is amended by removing the sentence, “If this were a passbook account, then the requirements of Art. IV, Receipting for Money—Passbooks, in the NCUA Standard FCU Bylaws would also be included in item no. 9.” d. Section B-6, paragraph 12, in the “Note:” portion is amended by removing the phrase “, and Art. XIV, § 3 of the NCUA Standard FCU Bylaws”. e. Section B-7, paragraph 9 is amended by removing the phrase “, but must be at least 6 months”. f. Section B-11 in the “Note:” portion is amended by removing the phrase “, except for the overdraft transfer fee of $1.00 per overdraft and the excessive share transfer fee of $1.00 per item, which are set in the NCUA Standard FCU Bylaws, Art. III, § 4 and § 5(f), respectively”. 10. Appendix C to Part 707 is amended as follows: a. Section 707.4(b)(2)(ii)(1) is amended by removing the parenthetical “(members have at least six months to replenish membership share before membership terminates and account is deemed closed)”. b. Section 707.7(b)(3) is amended by removing the parenthetical “(members have at least 6 months to replenish membership share before membership can terminate and the account is deemed closed)”. c. Section 707.11(b)(5) is amended by removing the open quotation marks between the words “overdrafts” and “created.” PART 710—VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION 11. The authority citation for part 710 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1766(a), 1786, and 1787. 12. Section 710.3(a) introductory text is amended by removing the phrase “, in accordance with the provisions of Article V of the Federal Credit Union Bylaws”. PART 722—APPRAISALS 13. The authority citation for part 722 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1766, 1789, and 3339. 14. Section 722.3(d) is amended by adding “and (a)(5)” after the words “paragraphs (a)(1).” PART 723—MEMBER BUSINESS LOANS 15. The authority citation for part 723 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1756, 1757, 1757A, 1766, 1785, 1789. 16. Section 723.7(a) introductory text is amended by changing the reference to “§ 723.4” to read “§ 723.3”. PART 742—REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM 17. The authority citation for part 742 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1756 and 1766. 18. Section 742.4(a)(3) is amended by removing “(b) and (c)” after “701.36(a)”. [FR Doc. E7-10392 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28241; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-07-AD; Amendment 39-15062; AD 2007-11-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76A, B, and C Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-76A, B, and C helicopters. This action requires a one-time ultrasonic inspection of the main rotor shaft assembly (M/R shaft) for cracking. This amendment is prompted by the discovery of cracking that occurred during the manufacturing of certain M/R shafts. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect cracking in the M/R shaft, which could result in separation of the main rotor and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. DATES: Effective June 15, 2007. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 15, 2007. Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before July 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this 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; or • *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. You may get the service information identified in this AD from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, Connecticut, phone

(203)383-4866, e-mail address *tsslibrary@sikorsky.com.* *Examining the Docket:* You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management System

(DMS)Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk Gustafson, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone

(781)238-7190, fax

(781)238-7170. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment adopts an AD for Sikorsky Model S-76A, B, and C helicopters. This action requires, within 75 hours time-in-service (TIS), a one-time ultrasonic inspection of the M/R shaft for cracking. This amendment is prompted by the manufacturer's discovery of cracking that occurred during the manufacturing of certain M/R shafts. During a heat-treatment process of these M/R shafts, inadequate time was allowed for the M/R shafts to cool to a proper temperature between the heat-treatment cycles, which reduced the M/R shaft's ductility (capability of the M/R shaft being fashioned into a new form), and increased the potential for cracking to occur during subsequent cold-work forming of the M/R shaft. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect cracking in the M/R shaft, which could result in separation of the main rotor and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. *We have reviewed the following alert service bulletins:* • Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin

(ASB)No. 76-66-45A, Revision A, which is applicable to all S-76 model helicopters, with a M/R shaft, P/N 76351-09630-041, with certain serial numbers, installed; and • Sikorsky ASB No. 76-66-46, which is applicable to all Model S-76A helicopters, with a M/R shaft, P/N 76351-09030-all dash numbers, with certain serial numbers, installed. Both ASBs are dated February 7, 2007, and both describe a one-time ultrasonic inspection of the M/R shaft for cracking, for main gear box

(MGB)assemblies installed on helicopters, for MGB assemblies not installed on a helicopter, and for M/R shafts not installed on MGBs. This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design. Therefore, this AD is being issued to detect cracking in the M/R shaft, which could result in separation of the main rotor and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. This AD requires a one-time ultrasonic inspection of the M/R shaft for cracking, instructions for reassembly of the lower bearing housing assembly installation of the MGB and performance of a ground run leak test. Accomplish the inspection by following specified portions of the ASBs described previously. The ultrasonic inspection of the M/R shaft must be performed by a Level II or Level III inspector, qualified under the guidelines established by MIL-STD-410E, ATA Specification 105, AIA-NAS-410, or an FAA-accepted equivalent for qualification standards of Nondestructive Testing inspection/evaluation personnel. Recurrent training and examinations are part of the qualification requirements. The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability or structural integrity of the helicopter. The Model S-76 helicopter fleet is comprised of a large number of aircraft operating in an off-shore logistics support role for the petroleum industry. As such, many aircraft operate at high utilization rates approaching 200 hours TIS per month and this rate could translate to a higher potential for cracks that may have formed during manufacturing to propagate, leading to failure of the M/R shaft. Therefore, performing a one-time ultrasonic inspection of the M/R shaft for cracking within 75 hours TIS, which may equate to less than 2 weeks time-in-service, along with replacing any cracked M/R shaft with an airworthy M/R shaft before further flight, justify issuance of this AD immediately. Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days. We estimate that this AD will affect 41 M/R shafts—20 M/R shafts to be removed from helicopters, 16 M/R shafts to be inspected before they are assembled into the MGB for installation on a helicopter, 5 M/R shafts that must be removed from a MGB for inspection before installation on a helicopter. We estimate that, at a labor rate of $80 per work hour, it will take approximately: • 100 work hours for the entire fleet of operators to determine whether they have an affected M/R shaft; • For the 20 M/R shafts installed in helicopters—80 work hours to remove the MGB and M/R shaft for inspection; 80 work hours to reinstall the M/R shaft and MGB; and 12 work hours to return the aircraft to service; • For the 5 M/R shafts installed in a MGB, but not installed in a helicopter—2 work hours to remove the M/R shaft from the MGB; and • 4 work hours to ultrasonic inspect each of the 41 M/R shafts. Also, we estimate that for the 25 M/R shafts that must be removed from a MGB for inspection, reassembly will require $100 in consumable parts for each MGB. Based on these figures, we estimate that the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators will be $299,620, assuming that operators do not find a M/R shaft with a crack. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28241; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-07-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the 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 AD. Using the search function of our docket Web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment. 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.* Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 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 an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the DMS to examine the economic evaluation. 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **2007-11-05 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation:** Amendment 39-15062. Docket No. FAA-2007-28241; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-07-AD. *Applicability:* Model S-76A, B and C helicopters with a main rotor shaft assembly (M/R shaft) listed in the following table installed, certificated in any category. M/R shaft part No. Serial No. 76351-09030-all dash numbers B015-00782 through B015-00791; B015-00811 through B015-00816; E015-00844 through E015-00865; and E015-00908 through E015-00918. 76351-09630-041 C213-00436 through C213-00454; D213-00537 through D213-00545; and D213-00575 through D213-00585. *Compliance:* Required within 75 hours time-in-service, unless accomplished previously. To detect cracking in the M/R shaft, which could result in separation of the main rotor and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:

(a)Perform a one-time ultrasonic inspection of the M/R shaft for cracking in accordance with Nondestructive Testing/Inspection Technique, Ultrasonic Technique

(UT)Number 5043, latest version. The ultrasonic inspection of the M/R shaft must be performed by a Level II or Level III inspector, qualified under the guidelines established by MIL-STD-410E, ATA Specification 105, AIA-NAS-410, or an FAA-accepted equivalent for qualification standards of Nondestructive Testing inspection/evaluation personnel. Recurrent training and examinations are part of the qualification requirements.

(1)For Model S-76A, B and C helicopters with a M/R shaft, P/N 76351-09630-041, installed, remove and inspect the M/R shaft in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.(1)(a) through 3.B.(1)(d) *5* of Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin

(ASB)No. 76-66-45A, Revision A, dated February 7, 2007.

(2)For Model S-76A helicopters with a M/R shaft, P/N 76351-09030—all dash numbers, installed, remove and inspect the M/R shaft in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.(1)(a) through 3.B.(1)(d) *5* of Sikorsky ASB No. 76-66-46, dated February 7, 2007.

(3)If a crack is found, replace the M/R shaft with an airworthy M/R shaft that has been ultrasonically inspected in accordance with paragraph

(a)of this AD before further flight.

(4)Reassemble the lower bearing housing assembly, install the main gear box, and perform the ground run leak test in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.(1)(f) through 3.B.(1)(l) of either ASB No. 76-66-45A, Revision A or ASB No. 76-66-46, both dated February 7, 2007, as appropriate for your part-numbered M/R shaft.

(b)Before installing an affected M/R shaft, ultrasonically inspect the M/R shaft and reassemble the lower bearing housing assembly, install the main gear box, and perform the ground run leak test in accordance with the requirements of paragraph

(a)of this AD.

(c)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, *ATTN:* Kirk Gustafson, Aviation Safety Engineer, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone

(781)238-7190, fax

(781)238-7170, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.

(d)The ultrasonic inspection shall be done in accordance with the specified portions of Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin

(ASB)No. 76-66-45A, Revision A, and Sikorsky ASB No. 76-66-46, both dated February 7, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, Connecticut, phone

(203)383-4866, e-mail address *tsslibrary@sikorsky.com.* Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas or at 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.*

(e)This amendment becomes effective on June 15, 2007. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 16, 2007. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-10126 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24171; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-08-AD; Amendment 39-15075; AD 2007-11-18] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF6-50C Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain General Electric Company

(GE)CF6-50C series turbofan engines. This AD requires reworking certain forward fan stator cases and installing a fan module secondary containment shield. This AD results from reports of uncontained fan blade failures causing damage and separation of airplane hydraulic lines. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained fan blade failures, which can result in separation of airplane hydraulic lines, damage to critical airplane systems, and possible loss of airplane control. DATES: This AD becomes effective July 5, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of July 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD from General Electric Company via GE-Aviation, Attn: Distributions, 111 Merchant St., Room 230, Cincinnati, Ohio 45246, telephone

(513)552-3272; fax

(513)552-3329. You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *tara.chaidez@faa.gov* ; telephone

(781)238-7773; fax

(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to GE CF6-50C series turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the **Federal Register** on April 17, 2006 (71 FR 19661). That action proposed to require reworking certain forward fan stator cases and installing a fan module secondary containment shield. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Reworked and Re-Identified Fan Stator Cases A private citizen states that some fan stator cases with certain part numbers (P/Ns) listed in the proposed AD might have been be reworked and re-identified to different P/Ns, per GE Service Bulletin

(SB)No. CF6-50 S/B 72-0277. The commenter feels that the rework P/Ns should also be listed in the AD. We agree. We added P/Ns 9173M37G01, G02, G03, G04, G05, and G06 to the list of affected fan stator cases in the AD. Updated Service Bulletin Since we issued the proposed AD, GE issued Revision 2 to the SBs incorporated by reference in this AD. These revisions contain minor formatting changes to the text, incorporate improved illustrations, and add fan stator case P/Ns. We want operators to use the Revision 2 SBs. We removed the incorporations by reference to the original, and Revision 1 of the SBs that appeared in the proposed AD and incorporated by reference Revision 2 of the SBs into this AD. Compliance Date Is Not Justified by the Risk FedEx Express states that the proposed AD compliance date of no later than June 30, 2007, is not consistent with the historical importance associated with this design deficiency. They reference GE CF6-50 engine Service Bulletin No. 72-0986, issued in 1991 and revised in 1998, which contain GE's recommended compliance of “at operator convenience”. FedEx Express states that they feel this recommendation is consistent with their fan blade separation service experience, of never having an event of uncontained fan blades on the CF6-50C engine. FedEx Express further states that they feel that this current regulatory action is only in response to a test cell incident from April 2003. They suggest that this compliance date would create an unnecessary operational and financial burden. FedEx Express requests that the proposed AD action be done only at next engine shop visit. We partially agree. We reviewed our risk assessment and found that the risk can be managed by extending the compliance date three years. We changed the AD compliance date to no later than June 30, 2010. We do not agree with eliminating the compliance date. This AD results from six reported fan uncontainment events with hydraulic line damage that occurred during aircraft operation. This is the safety concern we are addressing in this AD. We did not eliminate the compliance date from the AD. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 226 CF6-50C series turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2.5 work hours per engine to perform the actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $9,451 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $2,181,126. 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:*

(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)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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **2007-11-18 General Electric Company:** Amendment 39-15075. Docket No. FAA-2006-24171; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-08-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective July 5, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to General Electric Company

(GE)CF6-50C, CF6-50C1, CF6-50C2, CF6-50C2B, CF6-50C2F, and CF6-50C2R turbofan engines, with a forward fan stator case, part number (P/N) 9064M53G04, GO5, G06, G07, G08, G09, G10, G12, or G13, or P/N 9173M37G01, G02, G03, G04, G05, or G06 installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A300, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 series, and DC-10-30F (KC-10A, KDC-10) airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of uncontained fan blade failures causing damage and separation of airplane hydraulic lines. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained fan blade failures, which can result in separation of airplane hydraulic lines, damage to critical airplane systems, and possible loss of airplane control. 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.

(f)At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, but no later than June 30, 2010, rework the forward fan stator case and install the fan module secondary containment shield.

(1)For engines on Airbus 300 series airplanes, use paragraph 3, Accomplishment Instructions, of GE Service Bulletin

(SB)No. CF6-50 S/B 72-0985, Revision 2, dated March 21, 2007, to do the rework and installation.

(2)For engines on McDonnell Douglas airplanes, use paragraph 3, Accomplishment Instructions, of GE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 72-0986, Revision 2, dated March 21, 2007, to do the rework and installation.

(g)The rework and installation specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(2) of this AD can also be done on-wing. Previous Credit

(h)Previous credit is allowed for fan stator cases reworked and containment shields installed using GE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 72- 0985, dated December 2, 1991 or Revision 1, dated September 15, 1998, or GE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 72-0986, dated December 2, 1991 or Revision 1, dated September 15, 1998, before the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(i)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(j)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2004-0007, dated December 15, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD.

(k)Contact Tara Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *tara.chaidez@faa.gov* ; telephone

(781)238-7773; fax

(781)238-7199, for more information about this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(l)You must use the General Electric Company service information specified in Table 1 of this AD to perform the rework and installations required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in Table 1 of this AD in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact General Electric Company via Lockheed Martin Technology Services, 10525 Chester Road, Suite C, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215, telephone

(513)672-8400, fax

(513)672-8422, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Table 1.—Incorporation by Reference Service Bulletin No. Page Revision Date CF6-50 S/B 72-0985 All 2 March 21, 2007. *Total Pages:* 13 CF6-50 S/B 72-0986 All 2 March 21, 2007. *Total Pages:* 13 Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 22, 2007. Peter A. White, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-10316 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28114; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-044-AD; Amendment 39-15076; AD 2007-11-19] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; MORAVAN a.s. Model Z242L Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Installation of G-load monitoring units on some Zlin Z 42 series airplanes has revealed that certain aircraft during aerobatic manoeuvres exceeded the limit loads initially defined for the certification. As a consequence to restore the safety margins on aircraft operated in Utility (“U”) category; this Airworthiness Directive

(AD)mandates a modification of the Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM)so as to limit the permissible manoeuvres in “U” category flights. This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: This AD becomes effective June 5, 2007. On June 5, 2007 the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. We must receive comments on this AD by July 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *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. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4059; fax:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued Emergency AD No: 2007-110-E, dated April 23, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Installation of G-load monitoring units on some Zlin Z 42 series airplanes has revealed that certain aircraft during aerobatic manoeuvres exceeded the limit loads initially defined for the certification. As a consequence to restore the safety margins on aircraft operated in Utility (“U”) category; this Airworthiness Directive

(AD)mandates a modification of the Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM)so as to limit the permissible manoeuvres in “U” category flights. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD. Relevant Service Information Moravan Aviation s.r.o. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin Z242L/49a, dated February 15, 2007, which incorporates the AFM revision 8, dated November 24, 2006, which limits certain maneuvers in Utility Category. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might have also required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These requirements take precedence over those copied from the MCAI. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule, because there is a risk of structural damage in the wing area if the currently allowed maneuvers in the Utility Category are continued. It is imperative that the required limitations take effect immediately, so the operator is aware of these changes and does not exceed the new limits needed in order to maintain the integrity of the structure. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28114; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-044-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because 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 we receive about this AD. 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 determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

(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)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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-11-19 MORAVAN** a.s.: Amendment 39-15076; Docket No. FAA-2007-28114; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-044-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective June 5, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model Z242L airplanes, serial numbers 0490, 0541, and 0651 through 0659, certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 5: Time Limits. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Installation of G-load monitoring units on some Zlin Z 42 series airplanes has revealed that certain aircraft during aerobatic manoeuvres exceeded the limit loads initially defined for the certification. As a consequence to restore the safety margins on aircraft operated in Utility (“U”) category; this Airworthiness Directive

(AD)mandates a modification of the Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM)so as to limit the permissible manoeuvres in “U” category flights. Actions and Compliance

(f)Unless already done, within 10 days after June 5, 2007 (the effective date of this AD) modify the Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM)following Moravan Aviation s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin Z242L/49a, dated February 15, 2007, by incorporating AFM, revision 8, dated November 24, 2006. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4059; fax:

(816)329-4090. 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.

(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et.seq.), the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)Emergency AD No: 2007-0110-E, dated April 23, 2007; and Moravan Aviation s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin Z242L/49a, dated February 15, 2007, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Moravan Aviation s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin Z242L/49a, dated February 15, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Moravan Aviation s.r.o., ZLIN Service, 765 81 Otrokovice, Czech Republic.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on May 22, 2007. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-10237 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27072 Airspace Docket No. 07-AWP-1] RIN 2120-AA66 Modification of Class E Airspace; St. Johns, AZ AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action modifies the Class E airspace area at St. Johns, AZ. The establishment of an Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedure

(SIAP)to Runway 32 at St. Johns Industrial Air Park, St. Johns, AZ, has made this action necessary. Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is needed to contain aircraft executing the RNAV

(GPS)IAP to RWY 32 at St. Johns Industrial Air Park makes this proposal necessary. The intended effect of this action is to provide adequate controlled airspace for aircraft executing the RNAV

(GPS)SIAP to RWY 32 at St. Johns Industrial Air Park, St. Johns, AZ. EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 30, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francie Hope, System Support Specialist, Western Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, Washington 98056; telephone

(425)917-6721. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On March 12, 2007, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 by establishing a Class E Airspace area at St. Johns Industrial Air Park, St. Johns, AZ (72 FR 10953). Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is needed to contain aircraft executing the RNAV

(GPS)SIAP to RWY 32 at St. Johns Industrial Air Park, St. Johns, AZ. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments to the proposal were received. The Rule This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace area at St. Johns Industrial Air Park, St. Johns, AZ. The establishment of an Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedure

(SIAP)to Runway 32 at St. Johns Industry Air Park, St. Johns, AZ., has made this action necessary. Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is needed to contain aircraft executing the RNAV

(GPS)SIAP to RWY 32 at St. Johns Industrial Air Park, St. Johns, AZ. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is Incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in this Order. 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. Therefore, this regulation:

(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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, 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 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS. 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above. AWP AZ E5 St. Johns, AZ [Amended] St. Johns Industrial Air Park, AZ (Lat. 34 31′07″ N, long. 109 22′ 44″ W) St. Johns VORTAC (Lat. 34 25′27″ N, long. 109 08′ 37″ W) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 4.3 miles each side of the St. Johns VORTAC 296° radial extending from the St. Johns VORTAC to 23 miles northwest of the VORTAC, and that airspace beginning at lat. 34°23′30″ N, long. 109°14′30″ W, to lat. 34°22′00″ N, long. 109°20′00″ W, to lat. 34°26′00″ N, long. 109°21′00″ W, to the point of beginning. That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within 8.7 miles southeast and 6.1 miles northwest of the St. Johns VORTAC 067° and 247° radials, extending from the 7.8 miles northeast to 17.4 miles southwest of the VORTAC, excluding the portion within the state of New Mexico, and that airspace beginning at lat. 34°47′41″ N, long. 109°49′22″ W, to lat. 34°42′54″ N, long. 109°35′03″ W, to lat. 34°40′56″ N, long. 109°37′33″ W, to lat. 34°47′33″ N, long. 109°54′19″ W, to the point of beginning and that airspace bounded by lat. 34°37′06″ N, long. 109°48′33″ W, to lat. 34°28′39″ N, long. 109°2′729″ W, to lat. 34°26′21″ N, long. 109°41′35″ W, to lat.34°33′51″ N, long, 109°52′12″ W, to the point of beginning. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 11, 2007. Clark Desing, Manager, System Support Group Western Service Center. [FR Doc. E7-10259 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30551 Amdt. No. 3219] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, Weather Takeoff Minimums; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or 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 31, 2007. The compliance date for each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums 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 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 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 and Weather Takeoff Minimums 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 and Weather Takeoff Minimums 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 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5 and 8260-15A. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above. The large number of SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, 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 and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums but refer to their 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 and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums 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 and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. 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 and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a Flight Data Center

(FDC)Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP, and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided. Further, the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation involves only 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

(GPS)RWY 16, Orig McGrath, AK, McGrath, LOC/DME RWY 16, Amdt 3 McGrath, AK, McGrath, VOR-A, Amdt 8 McGrath, AK, McGrath, VOR/DME-C, Amdt 1 McGrath, AK, McGrath, VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 16, Amdt 1 McGrath, AK, McGrath, GPS RWY 16, Orig, CANCELLED McGrath, AK, McGrath, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 St. Michael, AK, St. Michael, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 20, Amdt 1 Selawik, AK, Selawik, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 4, Orig Selawik, AK, Selawik, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 27, Orig Selawik, AK, Selawik, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 22, Orig Selawik, AK, Selawik, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 22, Orig Selawik, AK, Selawik, VOR RWY 4, Amdt 1 Selawik, AK, Selawik, VOR RWY 22, Amdt 1 Selawik, AK, Selawik, GPS RWY 27, Orig, CANCELLED Selawik, AK, Selawik, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Auburn, AL, Auburn-Opelika Robert G Pitts, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Orig Auburn, AL, Auburn-Opelika Robert G Pitts, LOC RWY 36, Amdt 3, CANCELLED Auburn, AL, Auburn-Opelika Robert G Pitts, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Birmingham, AL, Birmingham Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 24, Amdt 1 Decatur, AL, Pryor Field Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Amdt 1 Hartselle, AL, Rountree Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig Hartselle, AL, Rountree Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Orig Hartselle, AL, Rountree Field, GPS RWY 36, Orig, CANCELLED Hartselle, AL, Rountree Field, NDB OR GPS-A, Amdt 2, CANCELLED Hartselle, AL, Rountree Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Ozark, AR, Ozark-Franklin County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Hayward, CA, Hayward Executive, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 28L, Orig Hayward, CA, Hayward Executive, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 28L, Orig Hayward, CA, Hayward Executive, GPS RWY 28L, Orig-A, CANCELLED Long Beach, CA, Long Beach/Daugherty Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 35R, Orig Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 35R, Amdt 2 Pueblo, CO, Pueblo Memorial, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 26R, Amdt 1A Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 12, Amdt 8 Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 19L, Amdt 13 Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, CONVERGING ILS RWY 19L, Amdt 7 Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, CONVERGING ILS RWY 19R, Amdt 7 Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 19R, ILS RWY 19R (CAT II), ILS RWY 19R, (CAT III), Amdt 24 Dover/Cheswold, DE, Delaware Airpark, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Dover/Cheswold, DE, Delaware Airpark, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 9, Orig Dover/Cheswold, DE, Delaware Airpark, GPS RWY 9, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Dover/Cheswold, DE, Delaware Airpark, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 27, Orig Dover/Cheswold, DE, Delaware Airpark, GPS RWY 27, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Middletown, DE, Summit, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 17, Amdt 1A Daytona Beach, FL, Daytona Beach Intl, LOC BC RWY 25R, Amdt 16 Fort Myers, FL, Southwest Florida Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 6, Amdt 1B Fort Myers, FL, Southwest Florida Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 24, Amdt 1B Fort Myers, FL, Southwest Florida Intl, VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 23, Orig, CANCELLED Fort Myers, FL, Southwest Florida Intl, NDB RWY 5, Orig, CANCELLED Fort Myers, FL, Southwest Florida Intl, LOC RWY 5, Orig, CANCELLED Melbourne, FL, Melbourne Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 St Petersburg, FL, Albert Whitted, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 6, Orig St Petersburg, FL, Albert Whitted, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig St Petersburg, FL, Albert Whitted, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Orig St Petersburg, FL, Albert Whitted, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 7 Tampa, FL, Tampa Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 7 Albany, GA, Southwest Georgia Regional, NDB RWY 4, Amdt 12 Atlanta, GA, Cobb County-McCollum Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 9, Amdt 2 Atlanta, GA, Cobb County-McCollum Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 27, Amdt 2 Atlanta, GA, Fulton County Arpt-Brown Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 26, Orig Atlanta, GA, Fulton County Arpt-Brown Field, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 8, Orig Atlanta, GA, Fulton County Arpt-Brown Field, GPS RWY 26, Orig, CANCELLED Honolulu, HI, Honolulu Intl, RNAV

(RNP)Z RWY 4R, Orig Honolulu, HI, Honolulu Intl, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 4R, Amdt 1 Lihue, HI, Lihue, VOR-A, Amdt 4 Lihue, HI, Lihue, VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 21, Amdt 4 Lihue, HI, Lihue, VOR OR TACAN RWY 35, Amdt 7 Lihue, HI, Lihue, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 21, Orig-B Lihue, HI, Lihue, RNAV

(RNP)Z RWY 21, Orig Lihue, HI, Lihue, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 35, Orig-D Lihue, HI, Lihue, RNAV

(RNP)Z RWY 35, Orig Chicago, IL, Chicago-O'Hare Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 32L, Amdt 2 Chicago, IL, Chicago-O'Hare Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 32R, Amdt 1 Chicago, IL, Chicago-O'Hare Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 14 Estherville, IA, Estherville Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 16, Amdt 1 Estherville, IA, Estherville Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 34, Amdt 1 Estherville, IA, Estherville Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Garden City, KS, Garden City Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 12, Orig Garden City, KS, Garden City Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 17, Orig Garden City, KS, Garden City Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 30, Orig Garden City, KS, Garden City Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 35, Orig Garden City, KS, Garden City Regional, VOR RWY 17, Amdt 11 Garden City, KS, Garden City Regional, VOR/DME RWY 30, Amdt 1 Garden City, KS, Garden City Regional, VOR/DME RWY 35, Amdt 2 Garden City, KS, Garden City Regional, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Elizabethtown, KY, Addington Field, LOC RWY 5, Orig Middlesboro, KY, Middlesboro-Bell County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Vineyard Haven, MA, Marthas Vineyard, ILS OR LOC RWY 24, Amdt 2 Vineyard Haven, MA, Marthas Vineyard, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 6, Orig Vineyard Haven, MA, Marthas Vineyard, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 24, Amdt 1 Detroit, MI, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County, ILS OR LOC RWY 22L, Amdt 28 Bolivar, MO, Bolivar Municipal, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig Bolivar, MO, Bolivar Municipal, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Orig Bolivar, MO, Bolivar Municipal, GPS RWY 18, Orig, CANCELLED Bolivar, MO, Bolivar Municipal, GPS RWY 36, Orig, CANCELLED Bolivar, MO, Bolivar Municipal, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Columbus/W Point/Starkville, MS, Golden Triangle Regional, GPS RWY 18, Orig-A, CANCELLED Columbus/W Point/Starkville, MS, Golden Triangle Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig Laurel, MS, Hesler-Noble Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 13, Orig Laurel, MS, Hesler-Noble Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 31, Orig Laurel, MS, Hesler-Noble Field, GPS RWY 13, Orig, CANCELLED Laurel, MS, Hesler-Noble Field, GPS RWY 31, Orig, CANCELLED Starkville, MS, George M Bryan, LOC/DME RWY 36, Orig Anaconda, MT, Bowman Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Imperial, NE, Imperial Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 13, Orig Imperial, NE, Imperial Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 31, Amdt 1 Newark, NJ, Newark Liberty Intl, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 22L, Amdt 1B Akron, OH, Akron-Canton Rgnl, Radar 1, Amdt 23 Salem, OR, McNary Fld, ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 28 Latrobe, PA, Arnold Palmer Regional, ILS OR LOC RWY 23, Amdt 16 Latrobe, PA, Arnold Palmer Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 5, Orig Latrobe, PA, Arnold Palmer Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 23, Orig Latrobe, PA, Arnold Palmer Regional, GPS RWY 05, Orig, CANCELLED Pottstown, PA, Pottstown Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Darlington, SC, Darlington County Jetport, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 23, Orig Darlington, SC, Darlington County Jetport, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 1 Darlington, SC, Darlington County Jetport, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Darlington, SC, Darlington County Jetport, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 7 Elizabethton, TN, Elizabethton Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Nashville, TN, Nashville Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 2R, Amdt 6, ILS RWY 2R (CAT II), ILS RWY 2R (CAT III) Nashville, TN, Nashville Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 8 Dallas, TX, Dallas Love Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 31L, Amdt 20 Dallas, TX, Dallas Love Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 31R, Amdt 4 Dallas, TX, Dallas Love Field, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 13L, Orig Dallas, TX, Dallas Love Field, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 13R, Orig Dallas, TX, Dallas Love Field, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 13L, Orig-A Dallas, TX, Dallas Love Field, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 13R, Orig-A Front Royal, VA, Front Royal-Warren County, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig Lynchburg, VA, Falwell, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Newport News, VA, Williamsburg Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Wise, VA, Lonesome Pine, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 6, Orig Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, ILS OR LOC RWY 21R, Amdt 11 Pasco, WA, Tri-Cities, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 21R, Orig Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 34C, Amdt 1, ILS RWY 34C (CAT II) Eagle River, WI, Eagle River Union, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 22, Orig Eagle River, WI, Eagle River Union, NDB RWY 22, Amdt 6 [FR Doc. E7-10265 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30552; Amdt. No. 3220] 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 31, 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 31, 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 modifiedby the 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 18, 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: 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 Number Subject 05/07/07 CA DAVIS/WOODLAND/WINTERS YOLO COUNTY-DAVIS/WOODLAND/WINTERS 7/0469 VOR RWY 34, ORIG 05/10/07 AK KOYUK KOYUK ALFRED ADAMS 7/0925 NDB/DME RWY 1, AMDT 1 05/10/07 AK KOYUK KOYUK ALFRED ADAMS 7/0930 NDB RWY 1, AMDT 1 [FR Doc. E7-10250 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of the Secretary 15 CFR Part 4 [Docket No. 060518134-6246-02] RIN 0605-AA22 Disclosure of Government Information; Responsibility for Responding to Freedom of Information Act Requests AGENCY: Department of Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) publishes this action to finalize its interim final rule that established the date that the Department uses in identifying those records that it may consider when responding to a Freedom of Information Act request. The Department takes this action pursuant to a court order that enjoined it from further use of its regulations. DATES: This rule is effective on May 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Dolan, 202-482-3258. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce published and requested comments on an interim final rule that amended its regulations to establish the date that the Department uses in identifying those records that it may consider when responding to a Freedom of Information Act request (71 FR 31073). The interim final rule revised the regulations to state that the records that are considered responsive to a FOIA request include those records that are within the Department's possession and control as of the date the Department begins its search for those records. We received no public comments on the interim final rule. Therefore, the provisions of the interim final rule published on June 1, 2006 are adopted without change. Classification It has been determined that this notice is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. The Department finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). In order to implement, in a timely manner, the Department's new regulation that establishes the date that the Department uses in identifying those records that it may consider when responding to a request for records, the Department waives the 30-day delay in effectiveness. If the Department delayed the effectiveness of this action, the Department would violate an April 24, 2006 court order that requires the Department to no longer use the regulations. To ensure timely compliance with the Court's order, the Department makes this rule effective upon publication. Dated: May 23, 2007. Brenda Dolan, Departmental Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer. List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 4 Freedom of Information and Privacy. For the reasons set forth above, the Department adopts without change the provisions in the interim final rule published on June 1, 2006 (71 FR 31073). [FR Doc. E7-10435 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-17-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-07-012] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Sail Virginia 2007, Port of Hampton Roads, VA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily establishing special local regulations for “Sail Virginia 2007” marine event. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters before, during, and after Sail Virginia 2007 activities. This special local regulation is intended to restrict vessel traffic in the vicinity of the tall ship parade as the parade transits the Chesapeake Bay, Hampton Roads, the James and Elizabeth Rivers and Norfolk Harbor. DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. June 8, 2007 to 11 p.m. on June 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD05-07-012) and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG TaQuitia Winn, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads, at

(757)668-5580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On March 19, 2007, we published a Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Sail Virginia 2007, Port of Hampton Roads, Virginia in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 12746). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, support craft and other vessels transiting the event area. However, advance notifications will be made to affected waterway users via marine information broadcasts, area newspapers, and local radio stations. Background and Purpose During the period June 7-12, 2007, the City of Norfolk and Norfolk Festevents Ltd. will sponsor “Sail Virginia 2007”, a tall ships marine event. The six-day event will include more than twenty tall ships from around the world in recognition of the Jamestown 1606-1607 voyage, commemorating the 400th anniversary of our nation's birth place. More than 25 tall ships from around the world have been invited to participate. Planned events in the Port of Hampton Roads include: The arrival of more than 20 tall ships and other vessels at Lynnhaven Anchorage on June 7 and 8, 2007; a Parade of Sail of approximately 20 tall ships and other vessels from their respective anchorages to Town Point Park, downtown Norfolk, on June 8, 2007; fireworks display adjacent to the Norfolk and Portsmouth seawalls on June 9, 2007; and the scheduled departure of the majority of vessels on June 12, 2007. This event will be combined with the annual Norfolk Harborfest held each June. The parade of sails event planned during this period will be conducted on the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, Hampton Roads the Elizabeth River and Norfolk Harbor, Virginia. Vessels participating in the “Tall Ships Parade of Sails” will rendezvous on June 8, 2007 in the vicinity of Thimble Shoal Channel lighted bell buoy “13” LLNR 9275 as depicted on NOAA Chart 12222 and will proceed inbound through the Elizabeth River to Norfolk Harbor Entrance Reach terminating at the Norfolk Harbor waterfront. On the evening of June 9, 2007, a fireworks display will be launched from several barges in Norfolk harbor. The fireworks hazardous fall out area will extend on and over Norfolk harbor waters. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather near the event site to view the fireworks display. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels. The Coast Guard anticipates numerous spectator craft for these events. Operators should expect significant vessel congestion along the parade route and viewing areas for the fireworks display. The purpose of these regulations is to promote maritime safety and protect participants and the boating public in the Port of Hampton Roads during the “Tall Ship's Parade of Sails” event. The regulations will establish a clear parade route for the participating vessels and no wake zones along the parade route. The regulations will impact the movement of all vessels operating in the specified areas of the port. Vessel operators are also reminded that Norfolk Naval Base will be strictly enforcing the existing restricted area defined at 33 CFR 334.300 during all Sail Virginia 2007 activities. We recommend that vessel operators visiting the Port of Hampton Roads for this event obtain up to date editions of the following charts of the area: Nos. 12222, 12245, 12253, and 12254 to avoid anchoring within charted cable or pipeline areas. With the arrival of Sail Virginia 2007 and spectator vessels in the Port of Hampton Roads for this event, it may be necessary to curtail normal port operations to some extent. Interference will be kept to the minimum considered necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and after the scheduled events. Because of the danger posed by numerous sailing vessels maneuvering in close proximity of each other during the parade, special local regulations are necessary. For the safety concerns noted and to address the need for vessel control and vessel safety, all vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted in the vicinity of the parade to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard did not receive comments in response to the Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)published in the **Federal Register** . Accordingly, the Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Port of Hampton Roads, Virginia. The Coast Guard previously stated in the preamble for the Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this temporary final rule published on March 19, 2007, entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Sail Virginia 2007, Port of Hampton Roads, Virginia in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 12746), that it would implement the regulation found at 33 CFR 100.501 for the fireworks portion of this event. The intent of that statement in the NPRM was to convey that a regulated area of the same dimensions as that found at 33 CFR 100.501 would be implemented as part of this regulation to provide safety for the maritime community during this fireworks event. As the regulatory text for this area was already in place at 33 CFR 100.501, we did not include a description of that regulated area in the NPRM for this event. The Coast Guard will not implement that regulation at 33 CFR 100.501 as was previously discussed in the NPRM for this event. The regulation at 33 CFR 100.501 is intended to be implemented for marine events listed at Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.114. Instead of stating we will implement the regulation found at 33 CFR 100.501 in this final rule, we are publishing the dimensions of the regulated area found at 33 CFR 100.501 and describing for clarity in this temporary final rule our original intention—to use those dimensions for a regulated area for the fireworks event described herein. Thus in an effort to make this rule more clearly understood we describe the regulated area here and in the regulatory text herein that will be enforced during the fireworks display on the evening of June 9, 2007 in Norfolk harbor, Virginia. The fireworks fall out area will include the following regulated area: The waters of the Elizabeth River and its branches from shore to shore, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn across the Port Norfolk Reach section of the Elizabeth River between the northern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, latitude 36°50′51.0″ North, longitude 76°18′09.0″ West and the north corner of the City of Norfolk Mooring Pier at the foot of Brooks Avenue located at latitude 36°51′00.0″ North, longitude 76°17′52.0″ West; bounded on the southwest by a line drawn from the southern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, at latitude 36°50′50.0″ North, longitude 76°18′10.0″ West, to the northern end of the eastern most pier at the Tidewater Yacht Agency Marina, located at latitude 36°50′29.0″ North, longitude 76°17′52.0″ West; bounded to the south by a line drawn across the Lower Reach of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, between the Portsmouth Lightship Museum located at the foot of London Boulevard, in Portsmouth, Virginia at latitude 36°50′10.0″ North, longitude 76°17′47.0″ West, and the northwest corner of the Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock, Berkley Plant, Pier No. 1, located at latitude 36°50′08.0″ North, longitude 76°17′39.0″ West; and to the southeast by the Berkley Bridge which crosses the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River between Berkley at latitude 36°50′21.5″ North, longitude 76°17′14.5″ West, and Norfolk at latitude 36°50′35.0″ North, longitude 76°17′10.0″ West. 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. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The primary impact of these regulations will be on vessels wishing to transit the affected waterways during the Parade of Sail. Although these regulations prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Chesapeake Bay and Elizabeth River during this event, that restriction is limited to approximately seven hours in duration, affects only a limited area that is totally contained within an already established regulated navigation area, and will be well publicized to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the affected area. Moreover, the nature of the event itself may hamper or prevent transit of the waterway, even absent these regulations designed to ensure it is conducted in a safe and orderly fashion. Extensive advance notifications will be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, area newspapers and local radio stations, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate or anchor in portions of the Chesapeake Bay, Hampton Roads, Elizabeth River, Norfolk Harbor from 7 a.m. until 3 p.m. June 8, 2007 during this event. This rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule would be in effect for only a limited period, affect only limited areas that are totally contained within an already established regulated navigation area, and marine advisories will be issued allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly. Vessel traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated areas with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through a regulated area during an event, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the event. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact U.S. Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads, at the address listed under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This 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 would 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This 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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section. Under figure 2-1, paragraph

(34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. Add a temporary § 100.35-T05-012 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-012, Special Local Regulations; Sail Virginia 2007, Port of Hampton Roads, VA.

(a)*Regulated area.*

(1)The regulated area in support of the “Sail Virginia 2007” parade of sails marine event includes navigable waters within and 100 yards abeam of, 300 yards ahead of, and all waters between participating vessels transiting the Chesapeake Bay Thimble Shoal Channel, Hampton Roads Norfolk Harbor Entrance Reach, Elizabeth River Craney Island Reach, Lambert Bend, Lambert Bend to Pinner Point, Pinner Point to Town Point Reach, Town Point Reach to Norfolk Harbor, Virginia.

(2)The fireworks fall out area will include the following regulated area: The waters of the Elizabeth River and its branches from shore to shore, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn across the Port Norfolk Reach section of the Elizabeth River between the northern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, latitude 36°50′51.0″ North, longitude 76°18′09.0″ West and the north corner of the City of Norfolk Mooring Pier at the foot of Brooks Avenue located at latitude 36°51′00.0″ North, longitude 76°17′52.0″ West; bounded on the southwest by a line drawn from the southern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, at latitude 36°50′50.0″ North, longitude 76°18′10.0″ West, to the northern end of the eastern most pier at the Tidewater Yacht Agency Marina, located at latitude 36°50′29.0″ North, longitude 76°17′52.0″ West; bounded to the south by a line drawn across the Lower Reach of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, between the Portsmouth Lightship Museum located at the foot of London Boulevard, in Portsmouth, Virginia at latitude 36°50′10.0″ North, longitude 76°17′47.0″ West, and the northwest corner of the Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock, Berkley Plant, Pier No. 1, located at latitude 36°50′08.0″ North, longitude 76°17′39.0″ West; and to the southeast by the Berkley Bridge which crosses the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River between Berkley at latitude 36°50′21.5″ North, longitude 76°17′14.5″ West, and Norfolk at latitude 36°50′35.0″ North, longitude 76°17′10.0″ West.

(b)*Definitions.*

(1)Coast Guard Patrol Commander means any commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads.

(2)Official Patrol means any person or vessel authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads to enforce this special local regulation.

(3)Sail Virginia 2007 Vessels includes all vessels participating in Sail Virginia 2007 under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads.

(4)Parade of sail is the inbound procession of Sail Virginia 2007 vessels as they navigate designated routes in the Port of Hampton Roads on June 8, 2007.

(5)Spectator vessel includes any vessel, commercial or recreational, being used for pleasure or carrying passengers that are in the Port of Hampton Roads to observe part or all of the events attendant to Sail Virginia 2007.

(c)*Special local regulations.*

(1)Except for the Official Patrol, participants, and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

(2)Any person in the regulated area must stop immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.

(3)All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.

(4)When authorized to transit within the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the parade and near other persons and vessels.

(4)The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on VHF-FM Marine Band Radio, Channels 13 and 16. Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads can be contacted at telephone number

(757)638-6633.

(5)Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads will notify the public of changes in the status of this section by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF-FM Marine Band Radio, Channel 22 (157.1 MHz).

(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 6 a.m. June 8, 2007, to 11 p.m. June 9, 2007. Dated: May 15, 2007. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-10504 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-07-016] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing special local regulations during the “Ocean City Maryland Offshore Challenge”, a power boat race to be held on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the shoreline at Ocean City, MD. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in the regulated area during the power boat race. DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 16 and 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD05-07-016) and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Inspections and Investigations Branch, at

(757)398-6204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On March 21, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 13219). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, support craft and other vessels transiting the event area. However, advance notifications will be made to affected waterway users via marine information broadcasts and area newspapers. Background and Purpose On June 16 and 17, 2007, the Offshore Performance Association, Inc. will conduct the “Ocean City Maryland Offshore Challenge”, on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean along the shoreline near Ocean City, MD. The event will consist of approximately 45 V-hull and twin-hull inboard hydroplanes racing in heats counter-clockwise around an oval race course. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to view the competition. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard did not receive comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)published in the **Federal Register** . Accordingly, the Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, Maryland. The Coast Guard changed the regulated area by moving it 700 yards in an easterly direction away from the shoreline thereby increasing the safety buffer between the race course and the Ocean City, Maryland shoreline. The changes to the race course have placed the western boundary of the regulated area approximately 1000 yards offshore and parallel with the Ocean City, Maryland shoreline. 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. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a small segment of the Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, MD during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be enforced. Extensive advance notifications will be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, area newspapers, and local radio stations, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Atlantic Ocean during the event. This rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only a limited period. Although the regulated area will apply to waters of the Atlantic Ocean near the Ocean City, Maryland shoreline, traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander. In the case where the patrol commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This 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 would 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This 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 guides 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)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. Add a temporary § 100.35-T05-016 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-016 Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD.

(a)*Regulated area.* The regulated area is established for the waters of the Atlantic Ocean bounded by a line drawn from a position along the shoreline near Ocean City, MD at latitude 38°22′01″ N, longitude 075°03′29″ W, thence easterly to latitude 38°21′50″ N, longitude 075°03′00″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 38°20′10″ N, longitude 075°03′42″ W, thence westerly to a position near the shoreline at latitude 38°20′15″ N, longitude 075°04′12″ W, thence northerly along the shoreline to the point of origin. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.

(b)*Definitions.*

(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads.

(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

(3)*Participant* includes all vessels participating in the Ocean City Maryland Offshore Challenge under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads.

(c)*Special local regulations.*

(1)Except for event participants and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.

(3)All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.

(4)When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course.

(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 16 and 17, 2007. Dated: May 15, 2007. L.L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-10506 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD08-07-012] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Illinois Waterway, Beardstown, IL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operations of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge, Mile 88.8, at Beardstown, Illinois across the Illinois Waterway. The deviation is necessary to allow time for replacement of rail ties which only can be done when the bridge is in the closed-to-navigation position. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed-to-navigation during a 4-hour interval each day for eight days in a two week period. DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 a.m. June 4, 2007, to 1 p.m. June 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Room 2.107F in the Robert A. Young Federal Building, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis, MO 63103-2832, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 314-269-2300. The Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator,

(314)269-2378. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company requested a temporary deviation for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge, mile 88.8, at Beardstown, Illinois across the Illinois Waterway. It has a vertical clearance of 19.6 feet above normal pool in the closed position. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.393(a) which requires that the bridge be maintained in the open-to-navigation position; closing only when a train needs to transit the bridge. The deviation period is from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., each day, June 4-7 and 11-14, 2007, when the draw span will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position. During this time rail ties will be pulled from the tracks and replaced. Both commercial vessels and recreational watercraft use the waterway. Most commercial vessels can not pass underneath the bridge while it is in the closed position. If an emergency arises, it would be possible to open the bridge, once workers and equipment have been moved from the drawspan. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Illinois Waterway. The Corps of Engineers will be performing repairs to the Melvin Price Lock and Dam, mile 200.8, Upper Mississippi River for maintenance from May 10 to June 24, 2007 which will minimize commercial vessel movements between the bridge and the lock locations. Minimal impact to navigation is expected. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), the drawbridge shall return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: May 21, 2007. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-10496 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-014] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Baileys Harbor Fireworks, Baileys Harbor, Baileys Harbor, WI AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has established a temporary safety zone on Baileys Harbor, Baileys Harbor, WI. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Baileys Harbor during the Baileys Harbor July 5, 2007 fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 5, 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 [CGD09-07-014] and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan (spw), 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at

(414)747-7154. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On May 2, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled Safety Zone; Baileys Harbor Fireworks, Baileys Harbor, Baileys Harbor, WI in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 24196). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined fireworks launches in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Comments and Changes No comments were received concerning this rule. No changes were made. 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. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The Coast Guard's use of this safety zone will be temporary lasting only two hours. This safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the harbor not affected by the zone. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of this zone. 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. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104- 121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This 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. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 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 may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these special local regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that 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. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this proposed rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This 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

(34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule establishes a regulated navigation area and as such is covered by this paragraph. An “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security 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. Add § 165.T09-014 to read as follows: § 165.T09-014 Safety zone; Baileys Harbor Fireworks, Baileys Harbor, Baileys Harbor, WI.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: all waters of Lake Michigan, Baileys Harbor, within the arc of a circle with a 600-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 45°04′03″ N, 087°06′08″ W (NAD 83).

(b)*Effective period.* This regulation is effective from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 5, 2007.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entering into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his designated on-scene representative.

(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his designated on-scene representative.

(3)“On-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on his behalf and is aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.

(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative. Dated: May 14, 2007. Bruce C. Jones, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. E7-10444 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-003] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Kenosha Harbor, Kenosha, WI AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in Kenosha Harbor at the east end of the south pier. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of Lake Michigan and Kenosha Harbor during a fireworks display on August 11, 2007. This zone is necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on August 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD09-07-003 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53207 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Warrant Officer Brad Hinken, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Prevention Department, 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53207,

(414)747-7154. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On March 22, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled Safety Zone, Kenosha Harbor, Kenosha, WI in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 13450). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined fireworks launches in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Comments and Changes We received no public comments on the proposed rule. No changes have been made. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Kenosha Days of Discovery fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. on August 11, 2007. The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of Lake Michigan and Kenosha Harbor within a 300 yard radius of position 42°35′14″ N, 087°48′29″ W (NAD 83). All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 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. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation. 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 rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Kenosha Harbor and Lake Michigan between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. on August 11, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this rule will be in effect for only two hours for one event. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This 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 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. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect 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 concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these special local regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Proposed 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. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system 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, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security 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. Add § 165.T09-003 to read as follows: § 165.T09-003 Safety Zone, Kenosha Harbor, Kenosha, WI.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All Waters of Lake Michigan and Kenosha Harbor within a 300-yard radius of position 42°-35′-14″ N, 087°-48′29″ W (NAD 83).

(b)*Effective period.* This regulation is effective from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on August 11, 2007.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his designated on-scene representative.

(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his designated on-scene representative.

(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on his behalf and is aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.

(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative. Dated: May 16, 2007. Bruce C. Jones, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. E7-10446 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05-07-037] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Patuxent River, Calvert County, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone upon certain waters of the Patuxent River during a fireworks display. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during a fireworks display launched from a barge, located near Solomons, in Calvert County, Maryland. This action will restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the Patuxent River. DATES: This rule is effective from 7:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 5, 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 CGD05-07-037 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at

(410)576-2674 or

(410)576-2693. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On April 11, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled “Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Patuxent River, Calvert County, MD” in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 18176). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose Each year, thousands of spectators attend outdoor fireworks displays discharged from vessels or floating platforms on or near the navigable waters of the United States. Accidental discharge of fireworks and falling hot embers are a safety concern during such events. The Coast Guard has the authority to impose appropriate controls on marine events that may pose a threat to persons, vessels and facilities under its jurisdiction. The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced during a fireworks display held over the Patuxent River, near Solomons, in Calvert County, Maryland. The rule is needed to control movement through a portion of the waterway that is expected to be populated by vessels seeking to view the fireworks display. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received no written correspondence in response to the NPRM. No public meeting was requested and none was held. Discussion of Rule On July 4, 2007, the Solomons Island Business Association will sponsor an Independence Day celebration fireworks display launched from two adjoining barges located on the Patuxent River near Solomons, in Calvert County, Maryland. The planned event includes an aerial fireworks display beginning at 9 p.m. Due to the need for vessel control during the fireworks display, vessel traffic will be restricted to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels. The purpose of this rule is to promote maritime safety, and to protect the environment and mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards due to falling embers or other debris associated with a fireworks display from a barge. This rule establishes a safety zone on the waters of the Patuxent River, within a radius of 400 yards around a fireworks barge, which will be located at position latitude 38° 19′ 03.0″ N, longitude 076° 26′ 07.6″ W. The Coast Guard anticipates a large recreational boating spectator fleet during this event. The rule will impact the movement of all vessels operating in a specified area of the Patuxent River. Interference with normal port operations is unlikely; however, if required, will be kept to the minimum considered necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and after the scheduled event. Regulatory Evaluation This 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. 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 rule will affect the following entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate, remain or anchor within certain waters of the Patuxent River, within a radius of 400 yards around a fireworks barge located at position latitude 38° 19′ 03.0″ N, longitude 076° 26′ 07.6″ W, from 7:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2007, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 7:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 5, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for two and one-half hours, commercial vessel traffic in this area is limited, vessels not constrained by their draft may proceed safely around the safety zone, and the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river before the effective period. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This 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. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 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 would 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This 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. This rule establishes a safety zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be 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, Security 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. Add temporary § 165.T05-037 to read as follows: § 165.T05-037 Safety zone; Fireworks Display, Patuxent River, Calvert County, MD.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Patuxent River near Solomons, in Calvert County, Maryland, surface to bottom, within a radius of 400 yards around a fireworks barge which will be located at position latitude 38° 19′ 03.0″ N, longitude 076° 26′ 07.6″ W. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.

(b)*Definition.* As used in this section the *designated representative* means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

(c)*Regulations.* The general regulations governing safety zones, found in Sec. 165.23, apply to the safety zone described in paragraph

(a)of this section.

(1)All vessels and persons are prohibited from entering this zone, except as authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland or his designated representative.

(2)Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage within the zone must request authorization from the Captain of the Port or his designated representative by telephone at

(410)576-2693 or by marine band radio on VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

(3)All Coast Guard vessels enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on marine band radio VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

(4)The operator of any vessel within or in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone shall:

(i)Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign, and

(ii)Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.

(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2007, or if necessary due to inclement weather, from 7:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 5, 2007 instead. Dated: May 15, 2007. Brian D. Kelley, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. [FR Doc. E7-10447 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP San Francisco Bay 07-019] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Whales Transiting the San Francisco Bay and Delta Region, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary, moving safety zones on the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay and Delta Region to contribute to the safety of the boating public where whales have been sighted swimming up river from the San Francisco Bay. These safety zones are established to ensure the safety of persons and vessels from hazards, injury, and damage associated with higher-than-normal levels of recreational boating traffic on the water as individuals attempt to view the whales. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. May 17, 2007, until 11:59 p.m. June 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of the docket COTP San Francisco Bay 07-019 and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California, 94130, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ensign Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at

(415)556-2950 extension 136. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The Coast Guard only recently learned of whales transiting the bay, river and delta region. Any delay in implementing this rule would have been impracticable and contrary to the public interest since immediate action was necessary to protect the public from hazards associated with the transiting whales. For the same reasons listed in the previous paragraph, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Any delay in the effective date of this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the whales. Background and Purpose On May 14, 2007 the presence of possibly four and at least two whales swimming northerly in the Sacramento River was reported to the Coast Guard. The presence of these whales was confirmed by the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These safety zones are established to ensure the safety of persons and vessels from hazards, injury, and damage associated with higher-than-normal levels of recreational boating traffic on the water as individuals attempt to view the whales. The Coast Guard has established that there are two Humpback whales, and these safety zones will apply to each whale individually. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing temporary, moving safety zones in the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay and Delta Region wherever the whales are located. While the whales are in transit these safety zones will apply to the navigable waters around and under each whale within a radius of 500 yards. The effect of the temporary, moving safety zones will be to restrict general navigation in the vicinity of the whales while the whales transit the waters of the bay, and delta. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone. These safety zones are needed to keep people and vessels a safe distance away from the whales to ensure the safety of people and vessels. 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. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zones, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public broadcast notice to mariners to ensure the safety zones will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and commercial vessels. 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 is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities, some of which may be small entities. This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft, engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, and commercial vessels. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons:

(i)Vessel traffic can pass safely around the area,

(ii)vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the effected portion of navigable waters to engage in these activities,

(iii)this rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and

(iv)the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via broadcast notice to mariners. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions, options for compliance, or assistance in understanding this rule, please contact Ensign Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at

(415)556-2950 extension 136. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). 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. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 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 may 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus alternatives. 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. Paragraph (34)(g) is applicable because this rule establishes a safety zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be 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, Security 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. Add temporary § 165.T11-192 to read as follows: § 165.T11-192 Safety Zones; Whales transiting San Francisco Bay and Delta Region, CA.

(a)*Location.* These temporary, moving safety zones are established for the waters of San Francisco Bay and Delta Region surrounding whales that are swimming through the area. During the whales' transit these safety zones will encompass the navigable waters around and under each whale within a radius of 500 yards.

(b)*Enforcement Period.* This section will be enforced from 12:01 a.m. May 17, 2007, to 11:59 p.m. June 5, 2007. If the whales leave the area before the scheduled end date, the Coast Guard will cease enforcement of these safety zones and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

(c)*Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transit through, or anchoring within these safety zones by all vessels and persons is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, San Francisco, or his designated representative.

(d)*Enforcement.* All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. Patrol personnel can be comprised of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard onboard Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels. Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of these safety zones by local law enforcement as necessary. Dated: May 17, 2007. W. J. Uberti, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco. [FR Doc. E7-10503 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0383; FRL-8318-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request to amend the Missouri State Implementation Plan

(SIP)to include the base year inventory for the Missouri portion of the St. Louis 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area and a demonstration of Missouri's emissions statement authority. The Missouri portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area consists of the City of St. Louis and Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles and St. Louis Counties. The nonattainment area also includes four counties in Illinois. This amendment would fulfill Missouri's obligation, as a moderate nonattainment area, to submit a base year inventory for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to demonstrate adequate authority to address the emissions statement requirement as required under Section 182(a)(1) and Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act, respectively. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 30, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 2, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0383, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: rios.shelly@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Shelly Rios-LaLuz, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver your comments to Shelly Rios-LaLuz, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0383. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://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 *http://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. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelly Rios-LaLuz at

(913)551-7296, or by e-mail at *rios.shelly@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions: What is a SIP? What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? What is being addressed in this document? Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? What action is EPA taking? What is a SIP? Section 110 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA)requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP. Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body. Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us. All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations

(MDNR)to amend its SIP to include the *2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area.* The Missouri portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area consists of the City of St. Louis and Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles and St. Louis Counties. The St. Louis area was designated a moderate nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) on April 15, 2004. This designation became effective on June 15, 2004. Moderate nonattainment areas must comply with requirements under the CAA Section 182(b), which states, in part, that moderate nonattainment areas shall make submissions that are required under subsection

(a)relating to marginal areas. Section 182(a)(1) states that areas subject to Section 182(a) must submit a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in accordance with EPA guidance. Such plans must be submitted within two years after the initial designation of June 15, 2004. In addition, Section 182(a)(3)(B) requires that the SIP include requirements that owner and operators of the sources emitting ozone precursors must submit annual statements of their emissions. This action addresses both of these requirements for the Missouri portion of the St. Louis 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA's *Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations* (EPA-454/R-05-001, August 2005) was used as the basis for the development of the base year inventory submittal. MDNR chose 2002 as the base year for the St. Louis 8-hour ozone nonattainment area emissions inventory as recommended by the November 18, 2002, EPA memorandum *2002 Base Year Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hour Ozone, PM* 2.5 *and Regional Haze Programs.* The inventory addresses actual annual and actual ozone season day

(OSD)emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and carbon monoxide

(CO)from stationary point and area sources, onroad and nonroad mobile sources, and biogenic sources within the Missouri portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattaiment area in accordance with the EPA's emission inventory guidance referenced above. The MDNR defined OSD emissions as those occurring during a typical weekday during the high ozone season, which takes place from June through August. This definition is consistent with the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule

(CERR)where ozone daily emissions are defined as summer work weekday emissions. In addition, this period correlates to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS exceedences that occurred in 2002 and with the modeling episodes used in the attainment demonstration, which is currently under development by the state. The entire ozone season is from April-October. Emissions for Missouri's portion of the St. Louis 8-hour ozone nonattainment area for the 2002 base year inventory are summarized in Table 1. Table 1.—2002 Base Year Emissions Summary by Source Category Type Source type VOC tons/yr VOC tons/OSD NO X tons/yr NO X tons/OSD CO tons/yr CO tons/OSD Point 10,868.4 29.0 44,018.3 126.8 9,207.0 26.4 Area 28,947.0 73.3 10,014.2 19.1 20,976.8 30.6 Offroad Mobile 13,881.3 45.3 19,329.0 60.2 188,365.9 642.6 Onroad Mobile 25,973.0 68.2 60,311.7 159.0 399,726.4 863.5 Anthropogenic Totals 79,669.7 215.7 133,673.2 365.1 618,276.1 1,563.2 Biogenics 56,878.50 385.8 886.5 3.5 4,813.60 28.7 Total

(All)136,548.20 601.5 134,559.70 368.60 623,089.70 1,591.90 Missouri's obligation under Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, which requires that all states with ozone nonattainment areas collect emission statements of the actual VOC and NO X emissions from the owner or operators of each stationary source in the nonattainment area, was met by MDNR with its adoption of a revision to the Missouri SIP (rule 10 CSR 10-6.110), submitted to EPA on March 31, 1994, that demonstrated compliance with this requirement for the 1-hour ozone standard. Rule 10 CSR 10-6.110 was approved into the SIP on February 29, 1996 (61 FR 7714), and was effective on April 1, 1996. EPA's rationale for approving this rule can be found in the April 3, 1995, proposed rule (60 FR 16827). This rule requires sources that emit NO X , VOC and CO equal or greater to 10 tons per year to submit emissions statements of their actual emissions to the state of Missouri. EPA has reviewed Missouri's rule and agrees that it is adequate for purposes of the emissions statement requirement for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this document, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations. What action is EPA taking? We are approving the request to amend Missouri's SIP to include the base year inventory for the Missouri portion of the St. Louis 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. We are processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 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 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 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). 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 approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This 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 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 CAA. 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 CAA. 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. This 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.* ). 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** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by *July 30, 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) 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: May 14, 2007 John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 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 AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320(e) the table is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read as follows: § 52.1320 Identification of Plan.

(e)* * * EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * *

(52)Submittal of the 2002 Base Year Inventory for the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis 8-hour ozone nonattaiment area and Emissions Statement SIP St. Louis 06/15/06 05/31/07 *[insert FR page number where the document begins]* [FR Doc. E7-10231 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0124; FRL-8320-3] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)for the purpose of revising the general emission rate for particulate matter. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 30, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 2, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0124, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: Hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0124. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* website 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 *http://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. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at

(913)551-7039, or by e-mail at *Hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions: What is a SIP? Wha t is the Federal approval process for a SIP? What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? What is being addressed in this document? Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? What action is EPA taking? What is a SIP? Section 110 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA)requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP. Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body. Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us. All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)at title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual state regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date. What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA. What is being addressed in this document? The Iowa Department of Natural Resources

(IDNR)has amended Chapter 23, “Emission Standards for Contaminants,” specifically subrule 23.3(2), paragraph “a” to revise the general emission rate for particulate matter (PM). This revision applies to sources constructed, modified or reconstructed after July 21, 1999, and states that the emission of PM from any process shall not exceed an emission standard of 0.1 grain per dry standard cubic foot of exhaust gas. For sources constructed before July 21, 1999, the revision further states that the emission of PM from any process shall not exceed the amount determined from Table I (the process weight rate limit), or amount specified in a permit if based on the revised emission standards, or established from standards provided in SIP-approved provisions for emission standards and specific processes (567-23.1)

(455B)and 567-23.4 (455B), respectively). In support of the revision, IDNR provided an analysis to show that the revised concentration limit is generally equivalent to the former process weight limit. Iowa reviewed a number of units to determine which standard might result in greater emissions. IDNR found that most of the units could emit higher levels of PM emissions based on the process weight table than the concentration limit. Of the sources reviewed, where the concentration standard resulted in greater PM emissions, the emissions were under the *de minimis* levels established in the state's permitting rules. IDNR also noted that, since the revised standard only applied to sources constructed after July 1999, several sources, as a result of NAAQS review for permitting purposes, were required to meet PM limits that were more stringent than either the process weight or concentration standard. EPA reviewed IDNR's technical justification for this SIP revision and found the justification to be acceptable. Therefore, EPA has determined that this revision will not constitute a relaxation of the SIP. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations. What action is EPA taking? EPA is approving this SIP revision for the purpose of revising the general emission rate for PM. We are processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 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 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 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). 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 approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This 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 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 CAA. 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 CAA. 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. This 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.* ). 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** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 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 30, 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 14, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 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 Q—Iowa 2. In § 52.820 the table in paragraph

(c)is amended by revising the entry for 567-23.3 to read as follows: § 52.820 Identification of plan.

(c)* * * EPA-Approved Iowa Regulations Iowa citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION [567] * * * * * * * Chapter 23—Emission Standards for Contaminants * * * * * * * 567-23.3 Specific Contaminants 12/15/04 5/31/2007 [insert FR page number where the document begins] Subrule 23.3(3)“d” is not SIP approved. * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-10490 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 209, 215, 225, 249, and 252 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical Amendments AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update organization names and to add references to the DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Michele Peterson, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone

(703)602-0311; facsimile

(703)602-7887. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule amends DFARS text to update organization names and office symbols, and to add references to internal DoD procedures found in the DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI). List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 209, 215, 225, 249, and 252 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 209, 215, 225, 249, and 252 are amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 209, 215, 225, 249, and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1. PART 209—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS 209.104-70 [Amended] 2. Section 209.104-70 is amended in paragraph (a), in the second sentence, by removing “(PAIC)” and adding in its place “(CPIC)”. PART 215—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION 3. Section 215.402 is added to read as follows: 215.402 Pricing policy. Follow the procedures at PGI 215.402 when conducting cost or price analysis, particularly with regard to acquisitions for sole source commercial items. 4. Section 215.403-1 is amended as follows: a. By revising the section heading; b. By adding paragraph (b); c. In paragraph (c)(3), by designating the text after “ *Commercial items* .” as paragraph (B); d. By adding paragraph (c)(3)(A); e. In newly designated paragraph (c)(3)(B), in the second sentence, by removing “(c)(3)” and adding in its place “(c)(3)(B)”; and f. In paragraph (c)(4)(A) *(3)* , by revising the second sentence to read as follows: 215.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data (10 U.S.C. 2306a and 41 U.S.C. 254b).

(b)*Exceptions to cost or pricing data requirements.* Follow the procedures at PGI 215.403-1(b).

(c)* * *

(3)* * *

(A)Follow the procedures at PGI 215.403-1(c)(3)(A) for pricing commercial items.

(4)* * *

(A)* * * *(3)* * * * Follow the procedures at PGI 215.403-1(c)(4)(A) for determining when an exceptional case waiver is appropriate, for approval of such waivers, for partial waivers, and for waivers applicable to unpriced supplies or services. 5. Section 215.403-3 is added to read as follows: 215.403-3 Requiring information other than cost or pricing data. Follow the procedures at PGI 215.403-3. 6. Section 215.404-1 is amended as follows: a. By redesignating paragraph

(a)as paragraph (2); b. By adding paragraph (1); and c. In newly designated paragraph (2), in the introductory text, by removing “ *General.* ”. The added text reads as follows: 215.404-1 Proposal analysis techniques.

(1)Follow the procedures at PGI 215.404-1 for proposal analysis. PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 225.872-5 [Amended] 7. Section 225.872-5 is amended in paragraph (a), in the last sentence, by removing “Program Acquisition” and adding in its place “Contract Policy”. 225.872-6 [Amended] 8. Section 225.872-6 is amended in paragraph

(b)by removing “Program Acquisition” and adding in its place “Contract Policy”. PART 249—TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS 249.7000 [Amended] 9. Section 249.7000 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing “Program Acquisition” and adding in its place “Contract Policy”. PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 252.225-7004 [Amended] 10. Section 252.225-7004 is amended as follows: a. By revising the clause date to read “(MAY 2007)”; b. In paragraph (c)(5), by removing “Program Acquisition” and adding in its place “Contract Policy”; and c. In paragraph (c)(5), by removing “(PAIC)” and adding in its place “(CPIC)”. 252.225-7006 [Amended] 11. Section 252.225-7006 is amended as follows: a. By revising the clause date to read “(MAY 2007)”; b. In paragraph (d), by removing “Program Acquisition” and adding in its place “Contract Policy”; and c. In paragraph (d), by removing “(PAIC)” and adding in its place “(CPIC)”. [FR Doc. E7-10336 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AV18 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Clarification of the Economic and Non-Economic Exclusions for the Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants in California and Southern Oregon AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Clarification of final critical habitat exclusions. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provide a clarification of the economic and non-economic exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), in support of the final designation of critical habitat for four vernal pool crustaceans and eleven vernal pool plants in California and Southern Oregon. We are taking this action in response to a court order. This clarification does not change the areas designated as critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825 (telephone 916-414-6600; facsimile 916-414-6712). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 6, 2003, the Service published a final rule designating critical habitat for 4 vernal pool crustaceans and 11 vernal pool plant species in California and southern Oregon (68 FR 46683). In January 2004, Butte Environmental Council and several other organizations filed a complaint alleging that we:

(1)Violated both the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), and the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)(5 U.S.C. 551 *et seq.* ) by excluding over 1 million acres from the final designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species;

(2)violated mandatory notice-and-comment requirements under the Act and APA; and

(3)engaged in an unlawful pattern, practice, and policy by failing to properly consider the economic impacts of designating critical habitat. On October 28, 2004, the court signed a Memorandum and Order in that case. The Memorandum and Order remanded the final designation to the Service in part. In particular, the court ordered us to:

(1)Reconsider the exclusions from the final designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species, with the exception of those lands within the 5 California counties that were excluded based on potential economic impacts, and publish a new final determination as to those lands within 120 days; and

(2)reconsider the exclusion of the 5 California counties based on potential economic impacts and publish a new final determination no later than July 31, 2005. On December 28, 2004, we published in the **Federal Register** a reopening of the comment period to solicit additional comments on the exclusions. On March 8, 2005, the Service published a confirmation of the non-economic exclusions (70 FR 11140) which addressed the first requirement of the October 2004 court-ordered remand. On August 11, 2005, the Service published a final rule (70 FR 46924) addressing the economic exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act which addressed the second requirement of the October 2004 court-ordered remand. On November 1, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a Memorandum and Order in *Home Builders Association of Northern California* *et al.* v. *U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service* *et al.* Case No. CIV S-05-0629 WBS-GGH. The court, in its opinion, noted that there were limited deficiencies in the existing rules designating critical habitat for 15 vernal pool plant and invertebrate species, variously listed as threatened or endangered under the Act. Specifically, the court found that the Service had not sufficiently articulated its rationale for excluding two census tracts containing public works projects from critical habitat, and that the Service failed to consider the recovery standard under the Act, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in *Gifford Pinchot Task Force* v. *U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,* 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) (hereinafter *Gifford Pinchot* ). The court remanded the rules to the Service for further action consistent with the court's findings, as well as all applicable laws, and ordered the Service to submit new final critical habitat rules to the **Federal Register** by March 1, 2007. On January 24, 2007, the court clarified its November 2006 Memorandum and Order stating that the Service had adequately considered the recovery standard under the Act, pursuant to *Gifford Pinchot* for the non-economic exclusions. However, the court confirmed the remand of the economic exclusions for consideration of the recovery benefits of critical habitat pursuant to the *Gifford Pinchot* decision. The court granted an additional 120 days from January 24, 2007 for the Service to address the issues in both orders. This clarification of final critical habitat exclusions complies with the court's November 2006 and January 2007 Memorandum and Orders. Since the publication of our August 11, 2005 final rule, we have received four petitions to revise critical habitat for the four vernal pool crustaceans and eleven vernal pool plants in California and Southern Oregon. Under the terms of the court ordered remand described above, we have reanalyzed the exclusions from critical habitat and separately evaluated the information contained within the petitions. We have concluded that the petitions do not contain substantial new information that would warrant revision of critical habitat. Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act There are multiple ways to provide management for species' habitat. Statutory and regulatory frameworks that exist at a local level can provide such protection and management. Finally, State, local, or private management plans, as well as management under Federal agencies' jurisdictions, can provide needed protections and management making designation of critical habitat unnecessary. When we consider a plan to determine its adequacy in protecting habitat, we consider whether the plan, as a whole, will provide the same level of protection that designation of critical habitat would provide. The plan needs to provide the equivalent protection of critical habitat. In making this determination, we examine whether the plan provides management, protection, or enhancement of the primary constituent elements

(PCEs)that is at least equivalent to that provided by a critical habitat designation, and whether there is a reasonable expectation that the management, protection, or enhancement actions will continue into the foreseeable future. Each review is particular to the species and the plan, and some plans may be adequate for some species and inadequate for others. The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) required each military installation that includes land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to complete, by November 17, 2001, an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP). An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found on the base. Each INRMP includes an assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species; a statement of goals and priorities; a detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and a monitoring and adaptive management plan. Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification, and wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife and enforcement of applicable natural resource laws. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: “The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.” We consult with the military on the development and implementation of INRMPs for installations with listed species. INRMPs developed by military installations located within the range of the critical habitat designation for the 15 vernal pool species were analyzed for exemption under the authority of section 4(a)(3) of the Act. Approved INRMPs Travis Air Force Base Travis Air Force Base

(AFB)has several vernal pool complexes that support the vernal pool fairy shrimp and *Lasthenia conjugens* and that also contain PCEs for *Neostapfia colusana,* Conservancy fairy shrimp, *Tuctoria mucronata,* and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. As a result of wetland surveys, Travis AFB had identified 235 vernal pools on approximately 100 acres

(ac)(40 hectares (ha)) of the 1,100 ac (445 ha) that are not developed on the base. To date, only *Lasthenia conjugens* and the vernal fairy shrimp have been discovered on Travis AFB within these 100 ac (40 ha). Travis AFB has a Service-approved INRMP in place that provides a benefit for the vernal pool fairy shrimp and *Lasthenia conjugens* and that provides protection of the PCEs for *Neostapfia colusana,* Conservancy fairy shrimp, *Tuctoria mucronata,* and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. The INRMP was approved on April 16, 2003. Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will provide benefits to the vernal pool fairy shrimp and *Lasthenia conjugens,* *Neostapfia colusana,* Conservancy fairy shrimp, *Tuctoria mucronata,* and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Therefore, Travis AFB is exempt from inclusion in the designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. This does not result in a change to the areas currently designated as critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species. Beale Air Force Base Beale Air Force Base

(AFB)has several substantial vernal pool complexes that support the vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp, especially on the western side of the base. A final revised INRMP was approved by the Service on February 26, 2006, and provides a benefit for the vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. The completed INRMP provides for management and conservation of vernal pools within the base and establishes a Vernal Pool Conservation and Management Area to protect vernal pool complexes on the western side of the base. The Beale AFB is also currently preparing a Habitat Conservation Management Plan

(HCMP)for the area. We will consult with Beale AFB under section 7 of the Act on the development and implementation of the HCMP and base comprehensive plan. The Beale AFB INRMP provides a benefit for the vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will provide benefits to the vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Therefore, Beale AFB is exempt from inclusion in the designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. This does not result in a change to the areas currently designated as critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species. Camp Roberts Camp Roberts has substantial vernal pool complexes that support the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Camp Roberts completed their INRMP in 1999. We will consult with Camp Roberts under section 7 of the Act on the development and implementation of their revised INRMP. The INRMP that is currently in place provides for the vernal pool fairy shrimp and the features essential to its conservation and recovery occurring on Camp Roberts. Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will provide benefits to the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Therefore, Camp Roberts is exempt from inclusion in the designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. This does not result in a change to the areas currently designated as critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species. Fort Hunter Liggett Fort Hunter Ligget has several substantial vernal pool complexes that support the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Fort Hunter Liggett completed its INRMP in 2004. The INRMP provides for management and conservation of vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pools, and establishes sensitive resource protection areas (SRPA). High quality vernal pools are found in SRPA 3, where current and proposed uses include vehicle travel on existing roads only, foot traffic, maintenance of roads and facilities, landings by helicopters, and habitat improvement projects. Ground disturbing activities are restricted. All other activities require coordination with the Environmental Office to ensure sensitive resources are not adversely affected. Fort Hunter Liggett's INRMP was approved by the Service in a programmatic biological opinion (1-8-02-F-29R) in March 2005. Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will provide benefits to the vernal pool fairy shrimp on Fort Hunter Liggett. Therefore, Fort Hunter Liggett is exempt from inclusion in the designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. This does not result in a change to the areas currently designated as critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species. Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that determination, the Congressional record is clear that the Secretary is afforded broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in considering whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If an exclusion is contemplated, then we must determine whether excluding the area would result in the extinction of the species. In the following sections, we address a number of general issues that are relevant to the exclusions we considered. Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat Educational Benefits of Critical Habitat A benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that the designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and local governments, and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area. This helps focus and promote conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value for the 15 vernal pool species. In general, the educational benefit of a critical habitat designation always exists, although in some cases it may be redundant with other educational effects. For example, Habitat Conservation Plans

(HCPs)have significant public input and may largely duplicate the educational benefit of a critical habitat designation. This benefit is closely related to a second educational benefit: that the designation of critical habitat would inform State agencies and local governments about areas that could be conserved under State laws or local ordinances. However, we believe that there would be little additional educational benefit gained from the designation of critical habitat for the exclusions that we made in the final rules re-evaluating non-economic and economic exclusions (70 FR 11140, March 8, 2005; 70 FR 46924, August 11, 2005, respectively) because these areas were included in the proposed rule (67 FR 59884, September 24, 2002) as having habitat containing the features essential to the conservation of the species. Consequently, we believe that the educational benefits are already provided, even though these areas are not designated as critical habitat. Additionally, the purpose normally served by the designation, that of informing State agencies and local governments about areas which would benefit from protection and enhancement of habitat for the 15 vernal pool species, is already well established among State and local governments, and Federal agencies in those areas that we excluded from critical habitat in the final rules on the basis of other existing habitat management protections such as those on National Wildlife Refuges, State protected lands, or local government Habitat Conservation Plans. The information provided in this section applies to all the discussions below concerning the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of critical habitat. Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover without the cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60 percent of the United States is privately owned (National Wilderness Institute 1995), and at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened species occur either partially or solely on private lands (Crouse *et al.* 2002). Stein *et al.*

(1995)found that only about 12 percent of listed species were found almost exclusively on Federal lands (90 to 100 percent of their known occurrences restricted to Federal lands) and that 50 percent of federally listed species are not known to occur on Federal lands at all. Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-Federal landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998; Crouse *et al.* 2002; James 2002). Building partnerships and promoting voluntary cooperation of landowners is essential to understanding the status of species on non-Federal lands and is necessary to implement recovery actions such as reintroducing listed species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection. Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction in contributing to endangered species recovery. The Service promotes these private-sector efforts through the Department of the Interior's Cooperative Conservation philosophy. This philosophy is evident in Service programs such as Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), Safe Harbor Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances, and conservation challenge cost-share. Many private landowners, however, are wary of the possible consequences of encouraging endangered species to utilize their property, and there is mounting evidence that some regulatory actions by the Federal government, while well-intentioned and required by law, can (under certain circumstances) have unintended negative consequences for the conservation of species on private lands (Wilcove *et al.* 1996; Bean 2002; Conner and Mathews 2002; James 2002; Koch 2002; Brook *et al.* 2003). Many landowners fear a decline in their property value due to real or perceived restrictions on land-use options where threatened or endangered species are found. Consequently, harboring endangered species is viewed by many landowners as a liability, resulting in anti-conservation incentives because maintaining habitats that harbor endangered species represents a risk to future economic opportunities (Main *et al.* 1999; Brook *et al.* 2003). The Department of the Interior's Cooperative Conservation philosophy is the foundation for developing the tools of conservation. These tools include conservation grants, funding for Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, the Coastal Program, and cooperative-conservation challenge cost-share grants. Our Private Stewardship Grant program and Landowner Incentive Program provide assistance to private landowners in their voluntary efforts to protect threatened, imperiled, and endangered species, including the development and implementation of HCPs. Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners (HCPs, contractual conservation agreements, easements, and stakeholder-negotiated State regulations) enhance species conservation by extending protections for species beyond those available through section 7 consultations. In the past decade, we have encouraged non-Federal landowners to enter into conservation agreements, based on a view that we can achieve greater species conservation on non-Federal land through such partnerships than we can through coercive methods (61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996). The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies under section 7 of the Act, can sometimes be counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands. According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat on private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners will support and carry out conservation actions (Main *et al.* 1999; Bean 2002; Brook *et al.* 2003). The magnitude of this negative outcome is greatly amplified in situations where active management measures (such as reintroduction, fire management, control of invasive species) are necessary for species conservation (Bean 2002). The Service believes that the judicious use of excluding specific areas of non-federally owned lands from critical habitat designations can contribute to species recovery and provide a superior level of conservation than critical habitat alone. General Principles of Section 7 Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2) Balancing Process The most direct, and potentially largest, regulatory benefit of critical habitat is that federally authorized, funded, or carried out activities require consultation under section 7 of the Act to ensure that they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. There are two limitations to this regulatory effect. First, it only applies where there is a Federal nexus—if there is no Federal nexus, designation itself does not restrict actions that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Second, it only limits destruction or adverse modification. By its nature, the prohibition on adverse modification is designed to ensure those areas that contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species or unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of the species are not eroded. Critical habitat designation alone, however, does not require specific steps toward recovery. Once consultation under section 7 of the Act is triggered, the process may conclude informally when the Service concurs in writing that the proposed Federal action is not likely to adversely affect the listed species or its critical habitat. However, if the Service determines through informal consultation that adverse impacts are likely to occur, then formal consultation would be initiated. Formal consultation concludes with a biological opinion issued by the Service on whether the proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, with separate analyses being made under both the jeopardy and the adverse modification standards. For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a determination of no destruction or adverse modification may contain discretionary conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effects to primary constituent elements, but it would not contain any mandatory reasonable and prudent measures or terms and conditions. Mandatory measures and terms and conditions to implement such measures are only specified when the proposed action would result in the incidental take of a listed animal or species. Reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed Federal action would only be suggested when the biological opinion results in a jeopardy or adverse modification conclusion. We also note that for 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in *Gifford Pinchot* , the Service combined the jeopardy standard with the standard for destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat when evaluating Federal actions that affect currently occupied critical habitat. However, in *Gifford Pinchot* the Court ruled that the two standards are distinct and that adverse modification evaluations require consideration of impacts on the recovery of species. Thus, under the *Gifford Pinchot* decision, critical habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species. However, we believe the conservation achieved through implementing HCPs or other habitat management plans is typically greater than would be achieved through multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, section 7 consultations involving consideration of critical habitat. Management plans commit resources to implement long-term management and protection to particular habitat for at least one and possibly other listed or sensitive species. Section 7 consultations only commit Federal agencies to prevent adverse modification to critical habitat caused by the particular project, and they are not committed to provide conservation or long-term benefits to areas not affected by the proposed project. Thus, any HCP or management plan that considers enhancement or recovery as the management standard will often provide as much or more benefit than a consultation for critical habitat designation conducted under the standards required by the Ninth Circuit in the *Gifford Pinchot* decision. The information provided in this section applies to all the discussions below that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of critical habitat in that it provides the framework for the consultation process. Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs or Other Approved Management Plans From Critical Habitat The benefits of excluding lands with HCPs or other approved management plans from critical habitat designation include relieving landowners, communities, counties, and States of any additional regulatory burden that might be imposed by a critical habitat designation. Most HCPs and other conservation plans take many years to develop and, upon completion, are consistent with the recovery objectives for listed species to the extent known that are covered within the plan area. Many conservation plans also provide conservation benefits to unlisted sensitive species. Imposing an additional regulatory review as a result of the designation of critical habitat may undermine conservation efforts and partnerships designed to proactively protect species to ensure that listing under the Act will not be necessary. Designation of critical habitat within the boundaries of management plans that provide conservation measures for a species could be viewed as a disincentive to those entities currently developing these plans or contemplating them in the future, because one of the incentives for undertaking conservation is greater ease of permitting where listed species are affected. Addition of a new regulatory requirement would remove a significant incentive for undertaking the time and expense of management planning. In fact, designating critical habitat in areas covered by a pending HCP or conservation plan could result in the loss of some species' benefits if participants abandon the planning process, in part because of the strength of the perceived additional regulatory compliance that such designation would entail. The time and cost of regulatory compliance for a critical habitat designation do not have to be quantified for them to be perceived as additional Federal regulatory burden sufficient to discourage continued participation in plans targeting listed species' conservation. A related benefit of excluding lands within management plans from critical habitat designation is the unhindered, continued ability to seek new partnerships with future plan participants including States, counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we would be unable to accomplish otherwise. When critical habitat is designated on a managed area, it increases the likelihood that the managers of that area will perceive the designation to be an additional regulatory control over their management plan. If lands within approved management plan areas are designated as critical habitat, it would likely have a negative effect on our ability to establish new partnerships to develop and implement these plans, particularly plans that address landscape-level conservation of species and habitats. By preemptively excluding these lands, we preserve our current partnerships and encourage additional conservation actions in the future. Furthermore, an HCP or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP)/HCP application must itself be consulted upon. Such a consultation would review the effects of all activities covered by the HCP which might adversely impact the species under a jeopardy standard, including possibly significant habitat modification (see definition of “harm” at 50 CFR 17.3), even without the critical habitat designation. In addition, Federal actions not covered by the HCP in areas occupied by listed species would still require consultation under section 7 of the Act and would be reviewed for possibly significant habitat modification in accordance with the definition of harm referenced above. The information provided in this section applies to the discussion below regarding the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of critical habitat. Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act After consideration under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the following areas of habitat have been excluded from critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species: San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan; Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve; Warm Springs Unit of the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge Complex; Kern, San Luis, and Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complexes; and the Coleman National Fish Hatchery Complex; Battle Creek, Big Sandy, Grizzly Island, Hill Slough, North Grasslands, and Oroville California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Areas; State-owned lands within Allensworth, Boggs Lake, Butte Creek Canyon, Calhoun Cut, Carrizo Plains, Dales Lake, Fagan Marsh, Phoenix Field, San Joaquin River, Stone Corral, and Thomes Creek Ecological Reserves; Carrizo Plain National Monument; Mechoopda Tribal lands; and other areas where the designation of critical habitat has been determined to show a disproportionately high economic cost (See Economics section below). We believe that:

(1)These lands' value for conservation has been addressed by existing protective actions or

(2)they are appropriate for exclusion pursuant to the “other relevant factor” provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. A detailed analysis of our exclusion of these lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act is provided in the paragraphs that follow. Relationship of Critical Habitat to Habitat Conservation Plan Lands—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act We consider a current plan to provide adequate management or protection if it meets three criteria:

(1)The plan is complete and provides the same or better level of protection from adverse modification or destruction than that provided through a consultation under section 7 of the Act;

(2)there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and actions will be implemented based on past practices, written guidance, or regulations; and

(3)the plan provides conservation strategies and measures consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology. We believe that the San Joaquin County Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan and the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan fulfill these criteria, and we excluded non-federal lands covered by these plans that provide for the conservation of the 15 vernal pool species. San Joaquin County Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan

(MSCP)The San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (SJMSCP) encompasses all of San Joaquin County with the exception of Federally-owned lands and the following specific projects: Tracy Hills, the American River Water Resources Investigation Project, Folsom South Canal Connection of the East Bay Municipal Utility District Supplemental Water Supply Program, and the South County Surface Water Supply Project. The SJMSCP identifies the vernal pool fairy shrimp and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp as covered species. The SJMSCP also identifies and classifies areas where growth and development are expected to occur as build-out areas. A portion of one of these build-out areas overlaps with the San Joaquin Unit 18 for vernal pool fairy shrimp. The SJMSCP limits the amount of vernal pool loss to 15 wetted ac (6 ha) per year up to a maximum cap of 707 wetted ac (286 ha) and 5,894 ac (2,385 ha) of vernal pool grassland over the 50-year life of the plan. Additionally, the SJMSCP requires the preservation of 2 acres and creation of 1 acre of vernal pool habitat for every 1 acre that is impacted; resulting in a total of 3 acres of vernal pool preserves for each impacted acre. Preserves include both wetted surface area and upland grasslands surrounding vernal pools, thereby protecting both the vernal pools and their watersheds. The creation component of this mitigation emphasizes restoration of pre-existing vernal pools, wherever feasible. The SJMSCP has been finalized and includes participants from seven cities; the County of San Joaquin; the San Joaquin Council of Governments; various water districts within the County; the California Department of Transportation; East Bay Municipal Utility District; and the San Joaquin Area Flood Control District. The SJMSCP is a subregional plan under the State's Natural Community Conservation Planning

(NCCP)program and was developed in cooperation with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Within the county-wide planning area of the SJMSCP, approximately 71,837 ac (29,071 ha) of diverse habitats are proposed for conservation. The proposed conservation of 71,837 ac (29,071 ha) will compliment other existing natural and open space areas that are already conserved through other means (e.g., State Parks, USFWS, and County Park lands). For a complete discussion of the SJMSCP, please refer to our August 6, 2003 (68 FR 46684) and March 8, 2005 (70 FR 11140) final designations. Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion We have reviewed and evaluated the SJMSCP and have determined that the benefits of excluding the 10 ac (4 ha) of designated critical habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp protected by the SJMSCP outweigh the benefits of maintaining these lands as critical habitat. As discussed above in detail and outlined below, the SJMSCP will provide for significant preservation and management of habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp and other listed vernal pool species. Implementation of the SJMSCP will help reach the recovery goals for each of the species. Additionally, by excluding critical habitat for the listed species, we are enhancing our relationship with these conservation partners and facilitating future conservation partnerships. Furthermore, implementation of the SJMSCP will contribute to the recovery of vernal pool fairy shrimp and other listed vernal pool species under the Act in part by maintaining and managing the geomorphic and ecological processes of the landscape in large, well-placed blocks of habitat where the vernal pool fairy shrimp are found within the SJMSCP such that vernal pool fairy shrimp are likely to be conserved and therefore persist indefinitely. Since the PCEs required by the listed vernal pool fairy shrimp are similar, the conservation measures outlined in the SJMSCP will benefit both vernal pool fairy shrimp and other listed vernal pool species. These conservation measures include limiting the amount of vernal pool impact to 15 wetted ac (6 ha) per year up to a maximum cap of 707 wetted ac (286 ha) and 5,894 ac (2,385 ha) of vernal pool grassland over the 50-year life of the plan and requiring preservation of 2 acres and creation of 1 acre of vernal pool habitat for every 1 acre that is impacted, resulting in a total of 19,803 acres of vernal pool preserves. Preserves include both wetted surface area and upland grasslands surrounding vernal pools and protecting their watersheds. The creation component of this mitigation emphasizes restoration of pre-existing vernal pools, wherever feasible. The collection of preconstruction survey information is required to ensure that vernal pool compensation habitat reflects vernal pool types that are impacted. Measures to minimize take include conducting preconstruction surveys, excavating, leveling, or filling pools only after they have completely dried, and removing the topmost soil layer from pools prior to impacts for possible use as inoculum of future created vernal pool habitats. Protection and management of the PCEs within the SJMSCP occurs primarily through the formation of vernal pool preserves that protect habitat in perpetuity and maintain the physical and ecological characteristics of occupied habitat within the vernal pool preserves. Designation of critical habitat alone does not achieve recovery or require management of those lands identified in the critical habitat rule; however, management and habitat conservation associated with implementation of the SJMSCP will help provide for recovery of vernal pool species, even though we are not designating critical habitat in this area. We believe that the recovery benefits of excluding these lands and implementing the SJMSCP outweighs the recovery benefits of including these lands in critical habitat. We also believe that the benefits of implementation of the SJMSCP outweigh the regulatory benefits of designation of critical habitat under section 7 of the Act. The Service has completed section 7 consultation on the SJMSCP (1-1-00-F-231) and should the lands covered by the SJMSCP be designated as critical habitat, consultations under section 7 would only commit Federal agencies to prevent adverse modification to the critical habitat and not require the conservation, long-term benefits, positive improvements, or enhancement of habitat described in the SJMSCP. Therefore, implementation of the SJMSCP that provides for the conservation of these species provides more benefit than would critical habitat designation of these lands for these species. We have reviewed and evaluated the proposed exclusion of the portion of Unit 18 within the SJMSCP from the final designation of critical habitat, and have determined that the benefits of excluding the portion of Unit 18 within the SJMSCP outweigh the benefits of including these lands. The SJMSCP contains limits to conversions of vernal pool habitats and requires the collection of preconstruction survey information to ensure that vernal pool compensation reflects pool types that are impacted. Additionally, the SJMSCP contains a variety of measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for effects on listed vernal pool species. Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat conversion require 1:1 creation and 2:1 preservation for vernal pool habitats. Measures to minimize take include conducting preconstruction surveys and filling, excavating, or leveling vernal pools only after they have completely dried, and taking the topmost soil layer from pools prior to impacts for possible use in inoculation of future created vernal pool habitats. Of the 42,073 ac (17,026 ha) of suitable habitat for vernal pool crustaceans identified in the SJMSCP, only 707 wetted ac (286 ha) and 5,894 ac (2,385 ha) of vernal pool grassland are proposed for conversion. These specific conservation actions and management for listed vernal pool species and their PCEs as well as the general ecological benefits of large scale HCP planning exceed any conservation value provided as a result of any regulatory protections that may be afforded through a critical habitat designation. The exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will also help preserve the partnerships that we have developed with the local jurisdictions and project proponents in the development of the SJMSCP. The benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat outweigh the minimal benefits of including these lands as critical habitat, including the educational benefits of critical habitat through informing the public of areas important for the long-term conservation of this species, because these educational benefits can still be accomplished from materials provided on our Web site ( *http://www.fws.gov/sacramento* ). Further, many educational benefits of critical habitat designation have already been achieved through the overall designation and notice and public comment, and will continue to occur whether or not this particular unit were to be designated. Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species We do not believe that the exclusion of a portion of Unit 18 from the final designation of critical habitat will result in the extinction of the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Overall, this area represents a small portion of the species range and the conservation measures as outlined in the SJMSCP greatly exceed those that may be afforded by the designation of critical habitat. The jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act and routine implementation of conservation measures through the section 7 process also provide assurances that the species will not go extinct. The exclusion of these lands from critical habitat leaves these protections unchanged from those that would exist if the excluded areas were designated as critical habitat. Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) The Western Riverside MSHCP has been finalized since the issuance of the August 6, 2003, rule. The Western Riverside MSHCP includes participants from 14 cities; the County of Riverside, including the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; the County Waste Department; the California Department of Transportation; and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The Western Riverside MSHCP is a subregional plan under the State's Natural Community Conservation Planning

(NCCP)program and was developed in cooperation with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Within the 1.26 million-ac (510,000-ha) planning area of the MSHCP, approximately 153,000 ac (62,000 ha) of diverse habitats are proposed for conservation. The proposed conservation of 153,000 ac (62,000 ha) will compliment other existing natural and open space areas that are already conserved through other means (e.g., State Parks, USFS, and County Park lands). For a complete discussion of this HCP, please refer to our August 6, 2003 (68 FR 46684) and March 8, 2005 (70 FR 11140) final rules. The strategy implemented by the Western Riverside County MSHCP is to conserve at least 3,123 ac (1,264 ha) of habitat in three core areas representing the three known populations of vernal pool fairy shrimp in Riverside County. Conservation in this area will cover units 34 and 35 and include large blocks of habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. In addition, other areas identified as important to the species will be conserved through the implementation of prescriptions set forth in the plan. The MSHCP requires that prior to construction activities, wetland habitats be identified and surveyed, and if significant impacts are proposed in occupied habitat, that 90 percent of the occupied portions of the site be conserved and therefore continue to provide for the long-term conservation of the vernal pool fairy shrimp. The Skunk Hollow mitigation bank (the official title is the Barry Jones Wetland Mitigation Bank) and the Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve are within the planning area of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Both of these areas are conserved as part of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The management actions undertaken as part of the Western Riverside County MSHCP benefit the endangered Riverside fairy shrimp, threatened *Navarretia fossalis* , and the endangered *Orcuttia californica* , which are included as covered species under this regional HCP. The management actions will also provide equal conservation benefits for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. The Skunk Hollow vernal pool basin (Unit 35) consists of a single, large vernal pool and associated watershed in western Riverside County. This unit and vernal pool basin are covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Several federally listed species have been documented as occurring in the Skunk Hollow vernal pool basin. These include the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Western Riverside County MSHCP 2003, pp. C18-26), the Riverside fairy shrimp (Service 2001, p. 29389), *Navarretia fossalis* , and *Orcuttia californica* (Service 1998, p. 9). The vernal pool complex and associated watershed are also currently protected as part of a reserve established within an approved wetland mitigation bank in the Rancho Bella Vista HCP area, and as part of the conservation measures contained in the Assessment District 161 Subregional HCP (AD161 HCP), all of which have been incorporated into the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Although the Skunk Hollow does not identify the vernal pool fairy shrimp as a covered species, it does list the endangered Riverside fairy shrimp as a covered species and protects all the vernal pool habitat within the area, as well as the PCEs upon which the species relies. In this case, since species which rely on the same ecosystem are the target of the HCP and mitigation bank, we are able to conclude that the plan will provide the necessary management to protect the vernal pools. In addition, since the entire habitat area is addressed under the HCP, preserve, and mitigation bank areas, and not just habitat with a federal nexus (as is the case with critical habitat), the existing management already provides more protection than can be provided by a critical habitat designation. The Western Riverside County MSHCP also encompasses lands within the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve (SRPER) (Unit 34 for vernal pool fairy shrimp), an area that covers approximately 8,300 ac (3,360 ha) near the town of Murrieta, California. The SRPER is situated on a large mesa composed of basaltic and granitic substrates and contains one of the largest vernal pool complexes remaining in southern Riverside County. Several endemic vernal pool species are known to occur within the complex, including the vernal pool fairy shrimp, Riverside fairy shrimp, Santa Rosa fairy shrimp ( *Linderiella santarosae* ), *Orcuttia californica* , *Brodiaea filifolia* (Threadleaved brodiaea), and *Eryngium aristulatum* var. *parishii* (San Diego button-celery). SRPER is owned and managed by CDFG. As a signatory to the Implementing Agreement for the Western Riverside County MSHCP, CDFG oversees the SRPER consistent with the conservation management scheme agreed to by all cooperating agencies and signatories. The CDFG has a broad authority to protect lands and conserve species (Fish and Game Code, sections 2700 et seq.) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion We have reviewed and evaluated the Western Riverside County MSHCP and have determined that the benefits of excluding the 10,214 ac (4,134 ha) of designated critical habitat for the vernal pool and Riverside fairy shrimp protected, directly and indirectly, by the Western Riverside County MSHCP outweigh the benefits of maintaining these lands as critical habitat. Although Riverside fairy shrimp is not addressed by the Western Riverside County MSHCP, it is anticipated that this species will benefit from the Western Riverside County MSHCP because this species occurs in areas also occupied by the listed vernal pool fairy shrimp, which is protected under the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Therefore, we believe that Riverside fairy shrimp will directly receive protection under the Western Riverside County MSHCP. We have determined that the management and protections afforded the vernal pool fairy shrimp in the Western Riverside County MSHCP are adequate for the long-term conservation of these species. The Western Riverside County MSHCP provides protection for the affected vernal pool complex and its associated watershed in perpetuity. Therefore it addresses the primary conservation needs of the species by protecting the ecosystem upon which it relies. As discussed above in detail and outlined below, the Western Riverside County MSHCP will provide for significant preservation and management of habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp and Riverside fairy shrimp. Implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP will help reach the recovery goals for each of the species. Additionally, by excluding critical habitat on these lands for the listed species, we are enhancing our relationship with these conservation partners and facilitating future conservation partnerships by providing an incentive to develop and complete existing and future habitat conservation measures for federally listed species. Furthermore, implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP will contribute to the recovery of vernal pool fairy shrimp and Riverside fairy shrimp under the Act in part by maintaining and managing the geomorphic and ecological processes of the landscape in large, well-placed blocks of habitat where these species are found within the Western Riverside County MSHCP such that the vernal pool fairy shrimp and Riverside fairy shrimp are likely to be conserved and therefore persist indefinitely. Since the PCEs required by the listed vernal pool fairy shrimp and Riverside fairy shrimp are similar, the conservation measures outlined in the Western Riverside County MSHCP will benefit these listed species. The strategy implemented by the Western Riverside County MSHCP is to conserve at least 3,123 ac (1,264 ha) of habitat in three core areas (representing the three known populations in Riverside County) comprised of large blocks of habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Designation of critical habitat would not achieve recovery, by itself, or require management of these lands. We believe that the recovery benefits of excluding these lands and implementing the Western Riverside County MSHCP outweighs the recovery benefits of including these lands in critical habitat. We also believe that the benefits of implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP outweigh the regulatory benefits of designation of critical habitat under section 7 of the Act. The Service has completed section 7 consultation on the Western Riverside County MSHCP and should the critical habitat remain in place, consultations under section 7 would only commit Federal agencies to prevent adverse modification to the critical habitat and not require the conservation, long-term benefits, positive improvements, or enhancement of habitat described in the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Therefore, implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP that provides for the conservation of these species provides more benefit than would the critical habitat designation of these lands for these species. Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species We do not believe that the exclusion of Units 34 and 35 from the final designation of critical habitat will result in the extinction of the vernal pool fairy shrimp. The strategy implemented by the Western Riverside County MSHCP is to conserve at least 3,123 ac (1,264 ha) of habitat in three core areas (representing the three known populations in Riverside County) comprised of large blocks of habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. In addition, other areas identified as important to the species will be conserved through the implementation of prescriptions set forth in the plan. Wetland habitats will be identified and surveyed, and, if significant impacts are proposed and survey results are positive, 90 percent of the occupied portions of the property that provide for the long-term conservation value for the vernal pool fairy shrimp will be conserved. The jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act and routine implementation of conservation measures through the section 7 process also provide assurances that the species will not go extinct. The exclusion of critical habitat leaves these protections unchanged from those that would exist if the excluded areas were to be designated as critical habitat. Relationship of Critical Habitat to National Wildlife Refuge and National Fish Hatchery Lands—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act We have determined that proposed critical habitat units on the Don Edwards, Kern, San Luis, and Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complexes, and the Coleman National Fish Hatchery Complex, warrant exclusion pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act because the benefits of excluding these lands from final critical habitat outweigh the benefits of their inclusion. For a complete discussion of these National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatchery Lands, please refer to our August 6, 2003 (68 FR 46684) and March 8, 2005 (70 FR 11140) final designations. National Wildlife Refuge and National Fish Hatchery lands are already managed for the conservation of wildlife, and the purpose of these lands is already to preserve natural resource values. Below we will discuss each of the Refuges and Fish Hatcheries separately, but we are providing one balancing discussion for all Service-owned and -managed lands. Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge Complex The Warm Spring Unit of the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge Complex has developed a draft Habitat Management Plan

(HMP)for vernal pool species and grassland ecosystem conservation. Approximately 275 ac (111 ha) of vernal pool grasslands occur on the Warm Springs Unit. An intra-Service section 7 consultation was conducted on the HMP, and a concurrence memorandum was completed in June 2003 (Service file 1-1-03-I-1852), stating that the management activities would not likely adversely affect the vernal pool tadpole shrimp or *Lasthenia conjugens* (Contra Costa goldfields). The HMP is expected to be finalized in 2008, with the completion of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The HMP establishes various habitat goals and objectives including habitat enhancement, restoration, and monitoring for vernal pool species. The HMP also establishes guidelines for management activities such as grazing, land disturbance activities, pesticide application, exotic plant removal, and water management for the refuge. These and other activities, when carried out as identified in the HMP, will assist in enhancing and conserving the vernal pool species and the vernal pool grassland ecosystem on the refuge. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex The Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges) has an approved and signed Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP)(Service 2004a, pp 109) that provides for the protection and management of all trust resources, including federally listed species and sensitive natural habitats. One goal of the CCP is to protect, preserve, and restore alkali sink, alkali playa, Northern Claypan vernal pool, and grassland habitats within the refuge for the conservation of vernal pool species and grassland ecosystems. To reach this goal, the approved CCP provides for implementing grazing, prescribed burning, monitoring, and status survey programs. The CCP for the Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex has been completed, and the associated biological opinion concluded that its implementation would not jeopardize the continued existence of these species (Service 2004, p. 4). In addition, the Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex will protect vernal pool and other wetland resources through willing seller acquisition, conservation easements, and partnerships to acquire additional natural lands within the approved refuge boundary to provide connectivity between units (Service 2004a, p 14). San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex Several federally listed species have been documented on the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex (San Luis NWR), including the vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Conservancy fairy shrimp, *Chamaesyce hooveri* (Hoover's spurge), *Neostapfia colusana* (Colusa grass), and the California tiger salamander ( *Ambystoma californiense* ). The San Luis NWR has developed and implemented several management activities to provide for the conservation of these species, including:

(1)Managing and providing habitat for endangered or sensitive species;

(2)maintaining and enhancing the overall biodiversity associated with the existing mix of vegetative communities; and

(3)providing an area for compatible, management-oriented research and education/interpretation and recreational programs which may include observation, photography, or hunting. Building upon the concepts originally outlined in the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan, a detailed habitat restoration plan has been developed specifically for the West Bear Creek Unit. Fish and Wildlife Service staff at San Luis NWR directed all aspects of the project planning, design, and implementation. The habitat restoration plan included construction of wetlands including vernal pools, and planting and restoration of native grassland and woody riparian habitat. In addition, the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game, under a cooperative agreement called the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan, are in the process of jointly developing a habitat acquisition and wetland enhancement project, including vernal pools, on approximately 23,500 ac (9,510 ha) of lands within the Northern San Joaquin River Basin. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex The Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Sacramento NWR) develops an annual Habitat Management Plan for each Refuge within the complex which details actions to be implemented for the year. The plan outlines various resource management and enhancement activities such as noxious weed removal, mowing, and water management for each unit within each refuge and identifies sensitive species concerns if they are present. The refuge also undertakes annual surveying and monitoring of the vernal pool resources on each refuge in the complex. A formal biological opinion was completed for refuge activities in April 1999 (Service file 1-1-98-F-13), stating that the management activities would not jeopardize the Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, *Orcuttia pilosa* (hairy Orcutt grass), *Tuctoria greenei* (Greene's tuctoria), and *Chamaesyce hooveri.* The Sacramento NWR is also in the process of developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP is expected to be drafted by August 2007 and finalized by August 2008. Coleman National Fish Hatchery The Coleman National Fish Hatchery (Coleman NFH) owns approximately 165 ac (67 ha) of land along Battle Creek in Shasta and Tehama Counties, California. Approximately 13 ac (5 ha) of grassland habitat were proposed as critical habitat for the vernal pool tadpole shrimp and *Orcuttia tenuis* (slender Orcutt grass). No vernal pools or vernal pool species occur on the hatchery lands. However, the grasslands may provide detritus and assist in maintaining the hydrologic functioning of the vernal pools and providing connectivity for the vernal pool resources in the area. The focus of the Coleman NFH is to provide spawning and rearing facilities for threatened or endangered salmonid species. The Coleman NFH currently does not have any plans to disturb or alter the areas identified as critical habitat in the proposed rule (67 FR 59884, September 24, 2002). Any activities that may impact these areas would be subject to intra-Service section 7 consultation. Benefits of Exclusion of Refuge and Hatchery Lands Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion We have reviewed and evaluated the National Wildlife Refuge and National Fish Hatchery complexes named above and have determined that the benefits of excluding the 42,914 ac (17,367 ha) of proposed critical habitat for the vernal pool species protected, directly and indirectly, within these areas outweigh the benefits of designating these lands as critical habitat. Critical habitat designation provides little gain in the way of increased recognition for special habitat values on lands that are expressly managed to protect and enhance those values. All of the refuges described above have or are developing comprehensive resource management plans that will provide for protection and management of all public trust resources, including federally listed species and sensitive natural habitats. These plans, and many of the management actions undertaken to implement them, must also complete consultation under section 7 of the Act. Therefore, any federal activity that is consistent with the terms of the CCP would be very unlikely to have an adverse effect on the primary constituent elements such that the habitat could no longer serve the intended conservation role for the species. We believe that the benefit of including these lands in critical habitat is low because they already are publicly owned and managed to protect and enhance unique and important natural resource values. In addition, by designating these lands the Service would be required to conduct internal consultations on activities to determine whether they adversely modify critical habitat. This extra and unnecessary regulatory process would require that funding be diverted from the management of the Refuge and Hatchery resources. The Service believes that the allocation of taxpayer funds to actions that more directly benefit species on the ground provides a more robust conservation benefit to the listed species. Exclusion of these lands will not increase the likelihood that management activities would be proposed that would appreciably diminish the value of the habitat for conservation of the species. Further, such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the vernal pool species. We, therefore, conclude that the benefits of excluding National Wildlife Refuge and National Fish Hatchery lands from the final critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including them. The lands essential for the conservation of the vernal pool species on refuge and hatchery lands are publicly owned and managed to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including the 15 species that are the subject of this rule. In addition, environmental education and interpretation are among the priority public uses of the refuge system. As a result, we conclude that the benefits of excluding National Wildlife Refuge and National Hatchery lands from the final critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including them. Exclusion of these lands will not increase the likelihood that management activities would be proposed which would appreciably diminish the value of the habitat for conservation of these species. Designation of critical habitat on refuge or hatchery lands would provide redundant, but no additional, conservation value for the vernal pool species in terms of management emphasis, public recognition, or education than currently exists. Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species We conclude that the benefits of excluding National Wildlife Refuge and National Fish Hatchery lands from the final critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including them. Such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the vernal pool species because these publicly owned lands are managed for the protection of natural resources. The vernal pool and grassland resources on the Don Edwards, Kern, San Luis, and Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complexes and Coleman National Fish Hatchery are being managed to protect, conserve, and restore all vernal pool species and their habitat through CCPs, specific management plans, or section 7 terms and conditions. The refuges have developed or are developing long-term ecosystem approaches for managing the vernal pools and vernal pool species occurring on the refuges. By implementing numerous management strategies and monitoring for conserving the vernal pool resources on the refuges and hatchery lands, the long-term conservation of the vernal pool species is insured. The jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act and routine implementation of conservation measures through the section 7 process also provide assurances that the species will not go extinct. The exclusion of these lands from critical habitat leaves these protections unchanged from those that would exist if the excluded areas were designated as critical habitat. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have excluded lands within the Don Edwards, Kern, San Luis, and Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complexes and Coleman National Fish Hatchery Complex from final critical habitat. The exclusion includes portions of Conservancy fairy shrimp Units 2 and 7; longhorn fairy shrimp Unit 2; vernal pool fairy shrimp Units 10, 23, 27a and 27b; vernal pool tadpole shrimp Units 2, 5, 14, and 16; Colusa grass Unit 7b; Contra Costa goldfields Unit 8; Greene's tuctoria Unit 5; hairy Orcutt grass Unit 3; Hoover's spurge Units 3 and 6; and slender Orcutt grass Unit 3. Relationship of Critical Habitat to State-Managed Ecological Reserves and Wildlife Areas—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act We contacted local California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG)resource managers and staff at the various locations to verify that no significant changes to vernal pool habitat and the management of this habitat have occurred since the August 6, 2003, final rule (68 FR 46684). These areas continue to be managed for the benefit of common and special-status species and their habitats. We proposed as critical habitat, but excluded from the final designation, the CDFG-owned lands within the Battle Creek, Big Sandy, Grizzly Island, Hill Slough, North Grasslands, and Oroville Wildlife Areas and State-owned lands within Allensworth, Boggs Lake, Butte Creek Canyon, Calhoun Cut, Carrizo Plains, Dales Lake, Fagan Marsh, Phoenix Field, San Joaquin River, Stone Corral, and Thomes Creek Ecological Reserves. These State-managed ecological reserves and wildlife areas were excluded from critical habitat designation in our August 6, 2003 (68 FR 46684) and March 8, 2005 (70 FR 11140), final designations. The State of California establishes ecological reserves to protect threatened or endangered native plants, wildlife, or aquatic organisms or specialized habitat types, both terrestrial and nonmarine aquatic, or large heterogeneous natural gene pools (Fish and Game Code, section 1580). They are to be preserved in a natural condition, or are to be provided some level of protection as determined by the Fish and Game Commission, for the benefit of the general public to observe native flora and fauna and for scientific study or research (Fish and Game Code, section 1584). Wildlife areas are for the purposes of propagating, feeding, and protecting birds, mammals, and fish (Fish and Game Code, section 1525); however, they too provide habitat and are managed for the benefit of listed and sensitive species (CDFG 2003). Take of species except as authorized by State Fish and Game Code is prohibited on both State ecological reserves and wildlife areas (Fish and Game Code, section 1530 and section 1583). While public uses are permitted on most wildlife areas and ecological reserves, such uses are only allowed at times and in areas where listed and sensitive species are not adversely affected (CDFG 2003). The management objectives for these State lands include: “to specifically manage for targeted listed and sensitive species to provide protection that is equivalent to that provided by designation of critical habitat; to provide a net benefit to the species through protection and management of the land; to ensure adequate information, resources, and funds are available to properly manage the habitat; and to establish conservation objectives, adaptive management, monitoring and reporting processes to assure an effective management program, and monitoring and reporting processes to assure an effective management program (CDFG 2003).” Additional Benefits of Exclusion The consultation requirement associated with critical habitat on the CDFG's ecological reserves and wildlife areas require the use of resources to ensure regulatory compliance that could otherwise be used for on-the-ground management of the targeted listed or sensitive species. In the past, the State of California (State) has expressed a concern that the designation of these lands and associated regulatory requirements may cause delays that could be expected to reduce their ability to respond to vernal pool management issues that arise on the ecological reserves and wildlife areas. Therefore, the benefits of exclusion include relieving additional regulatory burden that might be imposed by the designation of critical habitat for vernal pool species, which could divert resources from substantive resource protection to procedural regulatory efforts. Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion We have reviewed and evaluated the State-managed ecological reserves and wildlife areas named above and have determined that the benefits of excluding the 12,373 ac (5,007 ha) of proposed critical habitat for the vernal pool species protected, directly and indirectly, within these areas outweigh the benefits of designating these lands as critical habitat. We believe that the benefits of inclusion for these lands are low as these lands already are publicly owned and managed by a wildlife agency to protect and enhance unique and important natural resource values. Therefore, designation of critical habitat would add little value. The management objects for State ecological reserves already include specifically managing for targeted listed and sensitive species; therefore, the benefit from additional consultation is likely also to be minimal. As discussed above, the State's management activities will provide for significant preservation and management of habitat for the vernal pool species. Implementation of the management activities will help reach the recovery goals for each of the species. Additionally, by excluding these lands from critical habitat for the listed species, we are enhancing our relationship with the State and facilitating future conservation partnerships. Furthermore, the State's management activities will contribute to the recovery of the vernal pool species under the Act in part by maintaining and managing the geomorphic and ecological processes of the landscape in large, well-placed blocks of habitat where the species are found such that the species are likely to be conserved and therefore persist indefinitely. Designation of critical habitat would not achieve recovery or require management of these lands. We believe that the recovery benefits of excluding these lands and implementing the management actions outlined by the State outweigh the recovery benefits of including these lands in critical habitat. We also believe that the benefits of State management outweigh the regulatory benefits of designation of critical habitat under section 7 of the Act. Should the critical habitat remain in place, consultations under section 7 would only commit Federal agencies to prevent adverse modification to the critical habitat and not require the conservation, long-term benefits, positive improvements, or enhancement of habitat. The benefits of exclusion are higher, as Federal actions on these lands may result in the need for consultation, most often on activities that would enhance wildlife conservation. These consultations would result in additional administrative burdens without significant accompanying conservation benefits. For plant species, section 7 consultations are limited to jeopardy and/or adverse modification analysis; biological opinions do not include an incidental take statement, and there are no reasonable and prudent measures issued to minimize the effect of any predicted incidental take. Any measures taken to minimize effects to the plant species or their habitat are completely voluntary. Therefore, the State management actions within the ecological reserves and wildlife areas that provide for the conservation of these species provide more benefit than would a critical habitat designation on these lands for these species. The benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of designating these lands as critical habitat, including the educational benefits of critical habitat through informing the public of areas important for the long-term conservation of this species, because these educational benefits can still be accomplished from materials provided on our Web site ( *http://www.fws.gov/sacramento* ). Many educational benefits of critical habitat designation have been achieved through the designation process, and notice and public comment, and these benefits will continue to occur whether or not these lands are designated as critical habitat. In summary, we believe that the benefits of inclusion for these lands are minimal as these lands already are publicly owned and managed to protect and enhance unique and important natural resource values. Therefore, any federal activity that is consistent with the State code for activity on both State ecological reserves and wildlife areas would be very unlikely to have an effect on the primary constituent elements such that the habitat could no longer serve the intended conservation role for the species. Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species We conclude that the benefits of excluding CDFG ecological reserves and wildlife areas from the final critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including them. Such exclusion will not result in the extinction of listed vernal pool species because ecological reserves are set aside to protect threatened or endangered native plants, wildlife, or aquatic organisms or specialized habitat types. The Reserves are to be preserved in a natural condition, or are to be provided some level of protection as determined by the Fish and Game Commission, for the benefit of the general public to observe native flora and fauna and for scientific study or research (Fish and Game Code, section 1584). Further, we do not believe that such exclusion will increase the likelihood that activities would be proposed that would appreciably diminish the value of the habitat for the conservation of these species. The jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act and routine implementation of conservation measures through the section 7 process also provide assurances that the species will not go extinct. The exclusion of these lands from critical habitat leaves these protections unchanged from those that would exist if the excluded areas were designated as critical habitat. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have excluded California Department of Fish and Game-owned lands within the Battle Creek, Big Sandy, Grizzly Island, Hill Slough, North Grasslands, and Oroville Wildlife Areas, and State-owned lands within Allensworth, Boggs Lake, Butte Creek Canyon, Calhoun Cut, Carrizo Plains, Dales Lake, Fagan Marsh, Phoenix Field, San Joaquin River, Stone Corral, and Thomes Creek Ecological Reserves. The exclusion includes portions of Conservancy fairy shrimp Units 3 and 7; longhorn fairy shrimp Units 2 and 3; vernal pool fairy shrimp Units 6, 16, 17, 23, 26a, 26c, 27b, 29b, and 30; vernal pool tadpole shrimp Units 11, 16, 18a and 18c; Colusa grass Unit 2; Contra Costa goldfields Unit 4; Hoover's spurge Unit 7a and 7d; Sacramento Orcutt grass Unit 1; San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass Unit 6a; slender Orcutt grass Units 3 and 5a; Solano grass Unit 2; and fleshy owl's-clover Unit 4. Relationship of Critical Habitat to Tribal Lands—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to gather information regarding the designation of critical habitat and its effects from all relevant sources, including Indian Pueblos and Tribes. In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, “American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act” (June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951); and Executive Order 13175, we recognize the need to consult with federally recognized Indian Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. The Secretarial Order 3206 “American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act (1997)” provides that critical habitat should not be designated in an area that may impact Tribal trust resources unless it is determined to be essential to conserve a listed species. Mechoopda Trust Lands The Mechoopda trust lands includes 644 ac (261 ha) of lands in Unit 4. These lands contain suitable habitat for the vernal pool tadpole shrimp. The Mechoopda Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for the management of the Tribe's natural resources, and recognizes the importance of implementing conservation measures that will contribute to the conservation of federally listed species on their lands. The Mechoopda tribe continues to work with the Service on developing and implementing conservation measures to benefit federally listed species on their lands. Additional Benefits of Exclusion In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206, “American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act” (June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments;” and the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, wildlife, and other natural resources on tribal lands are better managed under tribal authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal regulation wherever possible and practicable. Based on this philosophy, we believe that, in many cases, designation of Tribal lands as critical habitat provides very little additional benefit to threatened and endangered species. Conversely, such designation is often viewed by tribes as an unwanted intrusion into tribal self governance, thus compromising the government-to-government relationship essential to achieving our mutual goals of managing for healthy ecosystems upon which the viability of threatened and endangered species populations depend. In our critical habitat designations, we use the provision outlined in section 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those specific areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species to determine which areas to propose and subsequently finalize (i.e., designate) as critical habitat. On the basis of our evaluation, discussed below, we excluded certain lands from the final designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species. Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion The benefits of including Mechoopda trust lands in critical habitat for vernal pool species is low. The total amount of tribal lands is small relative to the remainder of the critical habitat designation and relative to those lands that are currently set aside in conservation banks. Minor educational benefits may arise from the designation of critical habitat on Tribal lands. However, the Mechoopda Environmental Protection Agency, which is responsible for the management of the Tribe's natural resources, recognizes the importance of implementing conservation measures that will contribute to the conservation of federally listed species on their lands and have developed a management plan for sensitive species and habitats (Mechoopda Indian Tribe Environmental Management Plan, March 2003 (EMP)). Any conservation measures implemented by the Mechoopda Environmental Protection Agency will contribute to the recovery of the vernal pool species under the Act. Designation of critical habitat would not achieve recovery or require management of these lands. The benefits of including the Tribe's land are limited to minor educational benefits. The benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of designating these lands as critical habitat, including the educational benefits of critical habitat through informing the public of areas important for the long-term conservation of this species, because these educational benefits can still be accomplished from materials provided on our Web site ( *http://www.fws.gov/sacramento* ). Many educational benefits of critical habitat designation have been achieved through the designation process and notice and public comment, and these benefits will continue to occur whether or not these lands are designated as critical habitat. Because one or more of the species occupies all these areas, consultation on federal actions will occur regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. While some additional benefit might accrue from adverse modification analyses, we expect them to be small. Tribal areas represent a small proportion of vernal pool habitat within the designation, and the Tribe has demonstrated the willingness and ability to manage these lands in a manner that preserves the lands' conservation benefits as outlined in their EMP. The benefits of excluding these areas from critical habitat are more significant, and include our policy of maintaining a government-to-government relationship with tribes, as well as encouraging the continued development and implementation of special management measures. The Mechoopda Environmental Protection Agency recognizes the importance of implementing conservation measures that will contribute to the conservation of federally listed species on their lands. The Mechoopda Tribe has already demonstrated their willingness to work with us to address the habitat needs of listed species that may occur on Mechoopda lands. The exclusion of critical habitat for the Mechoopda trust lands is consistent with our published policies on Native American natural resource management by allowing the Mechoopda Tribe to manage their own natural resources. Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the direction provided in section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have determined that the benefits of excluding 644 ac (261 ha) of Mechoopda Tribal land as critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including it as critical habitat for the vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Unit 4) and will not result in the extinction of the vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Given the importance of our government-to-government relationship with Tribes, the benefit of maintaining our commitment to the Executive Order by excluding these lands outweighs the benefit of including them in critical habitat. For a complete discussion of these Tribal lands, please refer to our August 6, 2003 (68 FR 46684) and March 8, 2005 (70 FR 11140), final designations. Relationship of Critical Habitat to Conservation Partnerships—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act Carrizo Plain National Monument The Carrizo Plain National Monument (Monument) is cooperatively managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game and provides habitat for other listed species in addition to the vernal pool fairy shrimp and the longhorn fairy shrimp. In 2005, we reviewed a draft of the Carrizo Plain Resource Management Plan (CPRMP). At that time, the cooperatively developed CPRMP was based on a conservation standard of long-term conservation and recovery for “listed plants and animals and the natural communities on which they depend.” Specific measures and goals outlined in the 2005 draft CPRMP include:

(1)Improve and sustain populations of federally and State listed plant and animal species to meet conservation and recovery goals;

(2)Implement agency-approved protocols for listed species surveys, take avoidance, and conservation measures;

(3)Survey for sensitive resources prior to conducting any activities that have the potential to affect natural communities and species of management concern;

(4)Avoid areas supporting the longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp to the greatest extent possible;

(5)Require personnel familiar with the sensitive resource to be present during activities which may affect sensitive resources to ensure that activities are conducted in such a way as to avoid and minimize disruption and disturbance of these resources; and

(6)Compensate for unavoidable adverse effects (BLM 2005). However, since the publication of our August 2005 final rule (70 FR 46924), the BLM stopped the planning process for the CPRMP to gather additional information and provide for public input for the CPRMP. The BLM expects to restart the CPRMP environmental impact statement planning process in the spring of 2007, and complete all environmental documents within 2 years. We have no reason to believe that the BLM will significantly change the direction of management of listed species, including vernal pool species based on past management of the area and we fully expect the BLM to initiate section 7 consultation on the CPRMP once a draft plan has been developed. In the interim, BLM is actively managing public lands within the Monument in accordance with existing biological opinions and for the recovery of federally listed species (S. Larsen, BLM 2005, p. 1) and is currently managing the area in accordance with the existing Caliente Resource Management Plan

(RMP)which includes Carrizo Plain (Saslaw 2007, p. 1). The BLM-managed land overlaps portions of vernal pool fairy shrimp Unit 30 (16,033 ac (6,488 ha)) and longhorn fairy shrimp Unit 3 (16,033 ac (6,488 ha)) in San Luis Obispo County. Benefits of Inclusion The designation of critical habitat would require consultation with us for any action undertaken, authorized, or funded by a Federal agency that may affect the species or its designated critical habitat. However, there would be minimal benefit from designating critical habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp within the Carrizo Plain National Monument lands because these lands are public trust lands managed for the conservation of natural resources. Critical habitat designation would provide little gain in the way of increased recognition for special habitat values on lands that are expressly managed to protect and enhance those values. The primary benefit of including an area within a critical habitat designation is the protection provided by section 7(a)(2) of the Act that directs Federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat may provide a different level of protection under section 7(a)(2) for vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp that is separate from the obligation of a Federal agency to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. Under the *Gifford Pinchot* decision, critical habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species than was previously believed. However, the protection provided is still a limitation on the adverse effects that may occur to designated critical habitat, as opposed to a requirement to affirmatively provide a conservation benefit on those lands. Another potential benefit of critical habitat would be to signal the importance of these lands to Federal agencies, scientific organizations, State and local governments, and the public to encourage conservation efforts to benefit vernal pool species such as vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp and their habitats. However, the importance of protecting the biological resource values of these lands, including vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp, has already been clearly and effectively communicated to Federal, State, and local agencies and other interested organizations and members of the public through previous and future management planning processes. Benefits of Exclusion Excluding lands managed by the BLM within the Carrizo Plain National Monument will preserve the partnerships that we have developed with the BLM and CDFG in the cooperative management of the Monument. The Service issued a biological opinion in 1996 (Service file 1-1-95-F-149) that covers routine activities on the monument. BLM has demonstrated its proactive commitment to conservation in the development of a previous draft of the CPRMP. Excluding 16,033 ac (6,488 ha) of BLM lands from critical habitat designation recognizes BLM's commitment to conservation and recovery of vernal pool species and other species, and provides additional incentive to BLM to maintain and strengthen the partnerships in the management of the Monument. BLM's commitment to species' conservation in development of a new CPRMP, as outlined in the biological opinion, and subsequent letters and correspondence (Service file 1-1-95-F-149; S. Larsen, BLM 2005, p. 1; Saslaw 2007, p. 1), is in line with the agency's requirement to utilize its programs for the furtherance of the purposes of the Act under section 7(a), and may exceed the conservation value provided by a critical habitat designation alone because BLM is able to focus limited Federal resources toward proactive conservation of sensitive species. Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion The educational benefits of critical habitat, including informing the public of areas that are essential for the long-term survival and conservation of the species, are still accomplished through the BLM's land use planning processes and associated outreach and public participation. Based on our evaluation of previous draft management plans for this area, we expect the new, revised CPRMP to be consistent with previous management strategies and expect that the longhorn fairy shrimp and the vernal pool fairy shrimp will be managed on BLM administered lands under a conservation standard of long-term conservation and recovery for “listed plants and animals and the natural communities on which they depend.” We would likely lose the benefits that accrue from the partnerships that have been developed, while realizing no additional conservation benefit, should critical habitat be designated for the two listed crustacean species in the area covered by the CPRMP. For these reasons, we believe that the benefits of exclusion of 16,033 ac (6,488 ha) of land exceed the benefits of designating critical habitat on lands administered by BLM within the Carrizo Plain National Monument within Unit 3 for longhorn fairy shrimp and Unit 30 for vernal pool fairy shrimp. Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species We believe that exclusion of these lands, which are considered to be occupied habitat, will not result in extinction of vernal pool fairy shrimp or longhorn fairy shrimp. Any actions that might adversely affect these two crustaceans would have a Federal nexus and must undergo a consultation with the Service under the requirements of section 7 of the Act. The jeopardy standard of section 7, and routine implementation of habitat conservation through the section 7 process as discussed in the economic analysis, provide assurance that the species will not go extinct. In addition, the two crustacean species are protected from take under section 9 of the Act. The exclusion of these lands from critical habitat leaves these protections unchanged from those that would exist if the excluded areas were designated as critical habitat. Additionally, critical habitat is designated for both crustacean species in other areas that are protected from adverse modification by Federal actions using the conservation standard based on the Ninth Circuit decision in *Gifford Pinchot* . Vernal pool fairy shrimp are also protected on lands such as conservation banks covered by perpetual conservation easements and managed specifically for listed vernal pool species and their habitat. The jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act and routine implementation of conservation measures through the section 7 process also provide assurances that the species will not go extinct. The exclusion of these lands from critical habitat leaves these protections unchanged from those that would exist if the excluded areas were designated as critical habitat. Economics Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude areas from critical habitat for economic reasons if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion exceed the benefits of designating the area as critical habitat, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned. Congress has provided this discretionary authority to the Secretary with respect to critical habitat. Although economic and other impacts may not be considered when listing a species, Congress has expressly required this consideration when designating critical habitat. In making the following exclusions, we have in general considered that all of the costs and other impacts predicted in the economic analysis may not be avoided by excluding the areas, because all of the areas in question are currently occupied by the listed species and there will still be requirements for consultation under section 7 of the Act, or for permits under section 10 (henceforth “consultation”), for any take of these species, and other protections for the species exist elsewhere in the Act and under State and local laws and regulations. In conducting economic analyses, we are guided by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling in the *New Mexico Cattle Growers Association* case (248 F.3d at 1285), which directed us to consider all impacts, “regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co-extensively to other causes.” As explained in the analysis, due to possible overlapping regulatory schemes and other reasons, some elements of the analysis may also overstate some costs. Conversely, the Ninth Circuit has recently ruled ( *Gifford Pinchot* , 378 F.3d at 1071) that the Service's regulations defining “adverse modification” of critical habitat are invalid because they define adverse modification as affecting both survival and recovery of a species. The Court directed us to consider that determinations of adverse modification should be focused on impacts to recovery. While we have not yet proposed a new definition for public review and comment, compliance with the Court's direction may result in additional costs associated with the designation of critical habitat (depending upon the outcome of the rulemaking). In light of the uncertainty concerning the regulatory definition of adverse modification, our current methodological approach to conducting economic analyses of our critical habitat designations is to consider all conservation-related costs. This approach would include costs related to sections 4, 7, 9, and 10 of the Act, and should encompass costs that would be considered and evaluated in light of the *Gifford Pinchot* ruling. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned. Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the potential economic effects of the designation. The draft analysis was made available for public review on June 30, 2005 (70 FR 37739). We accepted comments on the draft analysis until July 20, 2005. The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species. This information is intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits of including those areas in the designation. This economic analysis considers the economic efficiency effects that may result from the designation, including habitat protections that may be co-extensive with the listing of the species. It also addresses distribution of impacts, including an assessment of the potential effects on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by the Secretary to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. This analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of the rule. However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in the absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and enforceable management plans and best management practices applied by other State and Federal agencies. Economic impacts that result from these types of protections are not included in the analysis as they are considered to be part of the regulatory and policy baseline. The draft economic analysis published on June 30, 2005 (70 FR 37739) reanalyzed the economic effects to the 35 counties in which we had proposed designating critical habitat. The counties most impacted by the critical habitat designation to the new housing industry include Sacramento ($374 million), Butte ($145 million), Placer ($120 million), Solano ($87 million), Fresno ($43 million), Stanislaus ($33 million), Madera ($32 million), Monterey ($29 million), Shasta ($20 million), Tehama ($19 million), and Merced ($16 million). Further, economic impacts are unevenly distributed within these counties. The analysis was conducted at the census tract level, resulting in a high degree of spatial precision compared to our previous economic analysis (March 14, 2003; 68 FR 12336), in which economic effects could not be deconstructed below the county level. In the base scenario where critical habitat reduces the amount of new housing, designation of vernal pool critical habitat results in nearly $1.0 billion in losses to consumers and producers between 2005 and 2025. In the event that on-site avoidance can be accomplished through density increases alone, welfare losses from vernal pool critical habitat would be $820 million over the same time period. Sacramento County is expected to experience the largest economic impacts from critical habitat—nearly $375 million in consumer and producer surplus losses. As shown in the map of impacts in Sacramento County, these impacts are concentrated in census tracts close to downtown Sacramento. Economic impacts generally decline in those census tracts that are progressively farther from the city center. This pattern is generally repeated in other counties. A copy of the final economic analysis with supporting documents may be obtained by contacting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act—Economic Exclusion to 23 Census Tracts and Two Public Sector Projects We have considered designating, but have excluded from critical habitat for 3 of the 4 listed vernal pool crustaceans and 11 listed vernal pool plants, the 23 census tracts and counties listed in Table 1. No critical habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp is contained within any of the 23 census tracts. Therefore, land occupied by 14 of the 15 listed vernal species is affected by exclusion of critical habitat for economic reasons. Table 1.—Excluded Census Tracts, Associated Species, and Costs Census tract Species County Welfare impact in draft EA ($) Adjustments after public comment and review Total adjusted cost 06067008701 Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, *Orcuttia viscida, Orcuttia tenuis* Sacramento 304,224,384 −70,565,264 233,659,120 06007000900 Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, *Limnanthes floccosa* ssp. *californica* Butte 88,974,848 0 88,974,848 06061021301 Vernal pool fairy shrimp Placer 74,583,712 0 74,583,712 06061021303 Vernal pool fairy shrimp Placer 37,184,144 0 37,184,144 06095252309 *Lasthenia conjugens* , Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Vernal pool fairy shrimp Solano 28,771,992 0 28,771,992 06095253500 Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, Conservancy fairy shrimp, *Tuctoria mucronata, Lasthenia conjugens, Neostapfia colusana* Solano 27,448,252 0 27,448,252 06053014103 *Lasthenia conjugens* Monterey 26,854,790 0 26,854,790 06067009315 *Orcuttia viscida, Orcuttia tenuis* , Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Vernal pool fairy shrimp Sacramento 24,236,570 0 24,236,570 06019005515 Vernal pool fairy shrimp, *Orcuttia inaequalis, Castilleja campestris* ssp. *succulenta* Fresno 22,912,350 0 22,912,350 06067009200 Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, *Orcuttia viscida, Orcuttia tenuis* Sacramento 21,195,492 0 21,195,492 06099000102 Vernal pool fairy shrimp, *Castilleja campestris* ssp. *succulenta, Chamaesyce hooveri, Tuctoria greenei, Neostapfia colusana* Stanislaus 16,931,104 0 16,931,104 06007000101 Vernal pool fairy shrimp Butte 16,364,906 0 16,364,906 06067008600 Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, *Orcuttia tenuis* Sacramento 16,254,806 0 16,254,806 06019005511 *Orcuttia inaequalis, Castilleja campestris* ssp. *succulenta* , Vernal pool fairy shrimp Fresno 13,001,144 0 13,001,144 06039000105 Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, *Tuctoria greenei, Orcuttia pilosa, Castilleja campestris* ssp. * succulenta, Orcuttia inaequalis* Madera 12,117,652 0 12,117,652 06007001400 Conservancy fairy shrimp, Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, *Limnanthes floccosa* ssp. *californica, Tuctoria greenei, Orcuttia pilosa, Chamaesyce hooveri, Orcuttia tenuis* Butte 11,405,310 +2,436,015 13,841,325 06089010802 *Orcuttia tenuis* Shasta 10,167,456 0 10,167,456 06099000101 Vernal pool fairy shrimp, *Neostapfia colusana* Stanislaus 9,925,463 0 9,925,463 06007002200 Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, *Limnanthes floccosa* ssp. *californica, Tuctoria greenei, Orcuttia pilosa, Chamaesyce hooveri* Butte 8,825,428 0 8,825,428 06095252502 *Lasthenia conjugens* Solano 7,993,725 0 7,993,725 06047001901 *Vernal pool fairy shrimp, Conservancy fairy shrimp, Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Orcuttia inaequalis, Neostapfia colusana, Castilleja campestris* ssp. * succulenta* Merced 5,759,870 +10,000,000 15,759,870 06103000900 *Vernal pool fairy shrimp, Conservancy fairy shrimp, Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Tuctoria greenei, Orcuttia pilosa, Orcuttia tenuis, Chamaesyce hooveri* Tehama 5,359,834 +6,093,965 11,453,799 06061020902 *Vernal pool fairy shrimp* Placer 2,462,844 *** 74,583,712 Total 779,373,528 740,920,792 *** Placer Vineyards straddles two census tracts; impacts for tracts 06061020902 and 06061021301 were aggregated in the final analysis. See the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section in the August 11, 2005 final rule (70 FR 46924). The notice of availability of the revised draft economic analysis (June 30, 2005, 70 FR 37739) solicited public comment on the potential exclusion of the 20 highest cost areas. As we finalized the economic analysis, we identified high costs associated with the critical habitat designation to public projects in Merced and Tehama County. These public projects were the development of the University of California

(UC)Merced campus and the widening of Highway 99 in Tehama County. The final economic analysis indicates additional costs in census tracts in which these projects were located were $10,000,000 for UC Merced and $6,093,965 for Highway 99. On the basis of the significance of these costs, we determined these two census tracts should be excluded from critical habitat. In addition, information received during the comment period indicated that the Placer Vineyards Specific Plan was located in two census tracts in Placer County, one of which was identified in the draft economic analysis as being in one of the 20 highest cost areas, and one of which was not. As a result, impacts for the two affected census tracts were aggregated in the final analysis, which significantly increased the costs in the second census tract (See the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section in the August 11, 2005 (70 FR 46924) final rule). For this reason, it too, was excluded from the final critical habitat designation. Benefits of Inclusion of the 23 Excluded Census Tracts and 2 Public Sector Projects The areas excluded are currently occupied by one or more of the 3 listed vernal pool crustaceans or the 11 listed vernal pool plants, as shown in Table 1. If these areas were designated as critical habitat, any actions with a Federal nexus which may adversely affect the critical habitat would require a consultation with us. All but three of the census tracts described in Table 1 are currently occupied by one or more of the crustacean species, and, therefore, consultation for activities which may adversely affect the species, including possibly significant habitat modification (see definition of “harm” at 50 CFR 17.3), would be required, even without the critical habitat designation. The requirement to conduct such consultation would occur regardless of whether the authorization for incidental take occurs under either section 7 or section 10 of the Act. For the three units occupied only by one or more of the plant species, there is a requirement for a jeopardy analysis to ensure Federal actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. In addition to the consultation requirements outlined above, if these areas were included in the critical habitat designation, the primary constituent elements in these areas would be protected from destruction or adverse modification by federal actions using a conservation standard based on the Ninth Circuit's decision in *Gifford Pinchot* . This requirement would be in addition to the requirement that proposed Federal actions avoid likely jeopardy to the species' continued existence. The additional conservation standard would assure that lands designated as critical habitat would provide for species recovery. In other words, there may be discretionary Federal actions that would not trigger the jeopardy standard, but would adversely modify critical habitat. As a result there may be additional avoidance of impacts to areas with critical habitat through the conservation standard of adverse modification, instead of just the jeopardy standard through section 7. We determined in the economic analysis that designation of critical habitat could result in approximately $800,000,000 in costs in these 23 census tracts, the majority of which are directly related to residential development impacts. We believe that the potential decrease in residential housing development that could be caused by the designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species would minimize impacts to and potentially provide some protection to the species, the vernal pool complexes where they reside, and the physical and biological features essential to their conservation (i.e., their primary constituent elements). Thus, this decrease in residential housing development would directly translate into a conservation benefit to the species if these areas were included in the critical habitat designation. Another possible benefit of a critical habitat designation is education of landowners and the public regarding the potential conservation value of these areas. This may focus and contribute to conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation values for certain species. However, we believe that this education benefit has largely been achieved, or is being achieved in equal measure, by other means. There have been three previous iterations of the critical habitat process for these lands, which has included both public comment periods and litigation, all with accompanying publicity. In addition, we published the *Draft Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon* in October 2004, and the final recovery plan on June 14, 2006. The draft recovery plan identified areas that are important for the conservation of each of the 15 listed vernal pool species. Upon publication of the draft recovery plan, we held numerous workshops throughout the State to educate the public about recovery strategies for the species covered by the plan, including all 15 of the listed vernal pool species that are the subject of this document. In addition to identifying specific areas that are important for the conservation of the 15 listed vernal pool species, the final recovery plan details the actions necessary to achieve self-sustaining populations of each listed species in the wild so that they will no longer require protection under the Act. The designation of critical habitat and the identification of vernal pool recovery core areas were based on similar methodologies and criteria of using vernal pool regions as classified by Keeler-Wolf *et al.* (1998, pp. 1-159) as a base for determining the extent of the respective recovery or critical habitat areas. The vernal pool regions encompass the range and variation of vernal pool habitats which are the focus of the recovery plan for habitat protection and conservation efforts. As a result of using similar methodologies and criteria the critical habitat boundaries make up a large part of the “Zone 1” core areas identified in the final recovery plan and are an intricate part of recovery for the 15 vernal pool species. The final recovery plan provides information geared to the general public, landowners, and agencies about areas that are important for the conservation of each listed vernal pool species and what actions they can implement to further the conservation of vernal pool species within their own jurisdiction and capabilities. The final recovery plan also contains provisions for ongoing public outreach and education as part of the recovery process. As implied above, another possible benefit of a critical habitat designation is its contribution to the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as-(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features

(I)essential to the conservation of the species and

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

(ii)specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. In identifying those lands, the Service must consider the recovery needs of the species and its habitat, which, if managed, could provide for the survival and recovery of the species. Furthermore, once critical habitat has been designated, Federal agencies must consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act to ensure that their actions will not either adversely modify designated critical habitat or jeopardize the continued existence of the species. As noted previously, in the Ninth Circuit's *Gifford Pinchot* decision, the Court ruled that the jeopardy and adverse modification standards are distinct, and that adverse modification evaluations require consideration of impacts to the recovery of species. Thus, through the section 7(a)(2) consultation process, critical habitat designations provide recovery benefits to species by ensuring that Federal actions will not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat also assists in focusing recovery efforts outlined in recovery plans by identifying, developing and potentially protecting core areas which will assist in conserving the species. In summary, we believe that inclusion of the 23 census tracts and 2 public sector projects as critical habitat would provide some additional Federal regulatory benefits for the species. However, that benefit is limited to some degree by the fact that the habitat is occupied by the species, and therefore Federal agencies must in any case consult with the Service over any action which may affect one or more of the 14 listed vernal pool species within those 23 census tracts. The additional educational benefits which might arise from critical habitat designation are largely accomplished through the multiple opportunities for public notice and comments that accompanied the development of the 15 vernal pool species critical habitat regulations, publicity over the prior litigation, and public outreach associated with the development of the draft recovery plan, and ultimately the implementation of the final recovery plan, for vernal pool species. Benefits of Exclusion of the 23 Excluded Census Tracts and 2 Public Sector Projects The economic analysis conducted estimates that the costs associated with designating these 23 census tracts would be approximately $740,920,792. These costs would be associated with each of the 14 listed vernal pool species in amounts shown in Table 1. By excluding these census tracts, some or all of these costs will be avoided. The exclusion of two important public-sector projects, UC Merced in Merced County and the widening of Highway 99 in Tehama County, will avoid additional costs associated with critical habitat designation. Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion of the 23 Census Tracts and 2 Public Sector Projects We believe that the benefits of excluding these lands from the designation of critical habitat-avoiding the potential economic and human costs, both in dollars and jobs, predicted in the economic analysis-exceed the educational, regulatory, and recovery benefits which could result from including those lands in the designation of critical habitat. We have evaluated and considered the potential economic costs on the residential development industry and two public sector projects relative to the potential benefit for the 14 vernal pool species and their primary constituent elements that could result from the designation of critical habitat. We believe that the potential economic impact of up to approximately $800 million on the development industry, $10 million on the University of California, and over $6 million on the Federal and State transportation projects in Tehama County significantly outweighs the potential conservation and protective benefits for the species and their primary constituent elements derived from residential development, highways and transportation networks, and higher educational facilities not being constructed as a result of this designation. We also believe that excluding these lands, and thus helping landowners avoid any additional costs that would result from compliance with the designation, will contribute to a more positive climate for Habitat Conservation Plans and other active conservation measures, which provide greater conservation benefits than would result from designation of critical habitat—even in the post- *Gifford Pinchot* environment—because designation requires only that there be no adverse modification resulting from actions with a Federal nexus. We therefore find that the benefits of excluding these areas from the designation of critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including them in the designation. The recently completed (December, 15, 2005) recovery planning process provided equivalent educational value to the public, State and local governments, scientific organizations, and Federal agencies in providing information about habitat that is essential to the conservation of the 3 vernal pool crustacean species and 11 vernal pool plants. The process also facilitated conservation efforts through heightened public awareness of the plight of the listed species. The final recovery plan contains explicit objectives for ongoing public education, outreach, and collaboration at local, State, and Federal levels, and between the private and public sectors, in recovering the four listed crustaceans. Furthermore, as previously described, we believe the educational benefits of designation were largely achieved through the multiple public notification processes associated with the previous and current iterations of the vernal pool species critical habitat rule. The identification of those lands that may need management and have features that are essential for the conservation of the species and that can provide for the recovery of a species is expected to contribute to the process of recovering the species. The process of proposing and finalizing a critical habitat rule provides the Service with the opportunity to determine lands essential for conservation as well as identify the primary constituent elements or features essential for conservation on those lands. The designation process includes peer review and public comment on the identified features and lands. This process is valuable to landowners and managers in developing conservation management plans for identified lands, as well as any other occupied habitat or suitable habitat that may not have been included in the Service's determination of essential habitat. This process is also valuable to Federal action agencies as they go though processes to fund, authorize, or carry out actions on any lands identified within a critical habitat rule, even if those lands end up being excluded from the final rule, particularly in areas containing occupied habitat where Federal agencies will initiate consultation under section 7 of the Act. For example, the UC Merced campus is covered by a programmatic biological opinion issued by the Service in 2002 (1-1-02-F-0107). The biological opinion requires the development and implementation of a conservation strategy that incorporates conservation measures for listed species including vernal pool plants and crustaceans. The conservation strategy is still under development and will be included in the Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)currently under preparation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The conservation strategy includes monitoring and adaptive management measures on some of the preserved lands that is consistent with the implementation of the recently published Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. In addition, approximately 25,964 ac (10,507 ha) of vernal pool habitat has been conserved through conservation easements or fee title that contribute to recovery of the species. Therefore, we believe that the exclusion of the UC Merced campus will facilitate long-term conservation and recovery of listed vernal pool species. The economic costs associated with the designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species on a public transportation project in Tehama County totals over $6 million. The project includes widening approximately 5 mi (8 km) of State Route 99 which is a major transportation corridor for the State. The projected project start date for the project is in 2012, and is currently in the planning and development stage. The surplus cost identified for this census tract totals nearly $5.4 million. The cost including public projects for Tehama County in census tract 0610300900 totals over $11.4 million which places this census tract within the top 23 highest cost tracts. Tehama County as a whole has been identified as being in the top ten counties with the highest county-level welfare impacts and has the second highest percentage (1.9 percent) of economic impacts of all counties when looking at the relationship between the amount of surplus lost and the aggregate household income (CRA International 2005, p. 74). When evaluating the costs for Tehama County as a whole (transportation costs (over $6 million), census tract costs (over $5.4 million), and surplus loss ($18.8 million) compared to aggregate income (over $1 billion)), we have determined that exclusion of critical habitat for the Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, hairy Orcutt grass, Hoover's spurge, Greene's tuctoria, and slender Orcutt grass based on these factors is appropriate. We believe that exclusion of these units within the 23 census tracts and 2 public sector projects will not hinder recovery of the 15 vernal pool species. Other vernal pool complexes, including areas identified as critical habitat, in the general area of those excluded are occupied by one or more of the listed vernal pool species, contain functioning PCEs, and would therefore contribute to recovery. Sufficient habitat would be conserved in other areas designated as critical habitat and in other areas, such as perpetual conservation easements, to contribute to the recovery of the 15 listed vernal pool species. Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species Conservancy Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp We believe that exclusion of these lands, which we consider to be occupied habitat, will not result in the extinction of Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, or vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Actions which might adversely affect these three crustaceans are expected to have a Federal nexus, and would thus undergo a section 7 consultation with the Service. The jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act, and routine implementation of habitat preservation through the section 7 process, as discussed in the economic analysis, provide assurance that the species will not go extinct. In addition, the three crustaceans are protected from take under section 9 of the Act. The exclusion leaves these protections unchanged from those that would exist if the excluded areas were designated as critical habitat. Critical habitat is designated for all three crustacean species in other areas that are accorded the protection from adverse modification by Federal actions using the conservation standard based on the Ninth Circuit decision in *Gifford Pinchot.* Additionally, all species occur on lands protected and managed either explicitly for the species, or indirectly through more general objectives to protect natural values; this provides protection from extinction and contributes to the recovery of the listed vernal pool crustaceans. For example, Conservancy fairy shrimp is protected on lands, such as conservation banks and other natural areas protected by perpetual conservation easements and managed specifically for the species (e.g., Viera-Sandy Mush, Vina Plains). The species also occurs on lands managed to protect and enhance wetland values under the Wetlands Reserve Program of the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vernal pool fairy shrimp are protected on lands, such as conservation banks, protected by perpetual conservation easements and managed specifically for the species and its habitat (e.g., Arroyo Seco, Bryte Ranch, Clay Station, Laguna Creek, Sunrise Douglas, Aqua Fria, Viera Sandy Mush, Kennedy Table, Dolan Ranch, Dove Ridge, Wildlands—Sheridan, Stillwater Plains, Campbell Ranch, and Fitzgerald Ranch; Sacramento NWR Complex, San Francisco NWR, and San Luis NWR Complex; and Vina Plains Ecological Reserve, Jepson Plains, Grasslands Ecological Area, Stone Corral Ecological Preserve, and Howard Ranch; and the lands preserved and protected through the UC Merced project). Vernal pool tadpole shrimp occur on lands with perpetual conservation easements managed explicitly for the species on conservation banks (e.g., Stillwater Plains, Campbell Ranch, Arroyo Seco, Bryte Ranch, Clay Station, Laguna Creek, Sunrise Douglas, Viera Sanda Mush, Kennedy Table, Dolan Ranch, Dove Ridge, Wildlands—Sheridan, and Fitzgerald Ranch; Sacramento NWR Complex, San Francisco NWR, and San Luis NWR Complex; and Nature Conservancy easements, Vina Plains Ecological Reserve, Jepson Plains, Grasslands Ecological Area, Dale's Lake Ecological Reserve, Stone Corral Ecological Preserve, and Big Table Mountain Ecological Preserve). Therefore these lands with perpetual conservation easements will contribute to the conservation and recovery of Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Eleven Listed Vernal Pool Plant Species We believe that exclusion of the 23 census tracts and 2 public sector projects, which we consider to be occupied habitat, will not result in extinction of any of the 11 listed vernal pool plants. Federal actions that might adversely affect these 11 listed plants would thus undergo a consultation with the Service under the requirements of section 7 of the Act. The jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act, and routine implementation of habitat preservation as part of the section 7 process, as discussed in the draft economic analysis, provide insurance that the species will not go extinct. The exclusion leaves these protections unchanged from those that would exist if the excluded areas were designated as critical habitat. Critical habitat is designated for all 11 species in other areas that are accorded the protection from adverse modification by federal actions using the conservation standard based on the Ninth Circuit decision in *Gifford Pinchot.* Additionally, all species occur on lands protected and managed either explicitly for the species, or indirectly through more general objectives to protect natural values. This protection and management will contribute to the recovery of the 11 listed vernal pool plant species. These factors acting in concert with the other protections provided under the Act for these lands, absent designation of critical habitat on them, and acting in concert with protections afforded each species by the designated critical habitat for each species, lead us to find that exclusion of these 23 census tracts and 2 public sector projects will not result in extinction of any of these 11 listed vernal pool plants. *Limnanthes floccosa* ssp. *californica* occurs on land protected by conservation easements on several small reserves in Butte County and at the Dove Ridge Conservation Bank. *Lasthenia conjugens* exists on protected lands on San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Fort Ord, Travis Air Force Base, and the State Route 4 Preserve. *Chamaesyce hooveri* occurs on the Sacramento NWR Complex, the Vina Plains Ecological Preserve, Stone Corral Ecological Reserve, and the Bert King Ranch. *Castilleja campestris* spp. *succulenta* occurs on protected lands within the Big Table Mountain Ecological Reserve and the Big Table Mountain Preserve, the Kennedy Table Conservation Bank, and the Flying M Ranch (Merced Co.). *Neostapfia colusana* occurs on protected lands within the Jepson Prairie Preserve and the Flying M Ranch. *Tuctoria greenei* occurs on protected lands within the Vina Plains Preserve and on the Sacramento NWR Complex. *Orcuttia pilosa* occurs on protected lands within the Vina Plains Preserve and on the Sacramento NWR Complex. *Orcuttia viscida* occurs on protected lands within the Phoenix Field Ecological Reserve, the Arroyo Seco Conservation Bank, and the Sunrise Douglas preserve. *Orcuttia inaequalis* occurs on protected lands on the Flying M Ranch and on an ecological reserve managed by the California Department of Fish and Game. *Orcuttia tenuis* occurs on protected lands at the Boggs Lake Preserve, the Vina Plains Preserve, the Dale's Lake Ecological Reserve, the Stillwater Plains Conservation Banks, the Arroyo Seco Conservation Bank, and the Sunrise Douglas preserve. *Tuctoria mucronata* occurs on protected land on the Jepson Prairie Preserve. References Cited A complete list of all reference cited herein is available upon request from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: May 23, 2007. Todd Willens, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E7-10448 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 RIN 0648-XA57 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason retention limit adjustment. SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that the Atlantic tunas General and Highly Migratory Species

(HMS)Angling categories daily Atlantic bluefin tuna

(BFT)retention limits should be adjusted for the 2007 fishing year, which begins on June 1, 2007, and ends December 31, 2007. The adjustment will allow for maximum utilization of the General category June through August time-period subquota, and will enhance recreational BFT fishing opportunities aboard HMS Angling and Charter/Headboat vessels in the early portion of the season. Therefore, NMFS increases the daily BFT retention limits to provide enhanced commercial and recreational fishing opportunities in all areas without risking overharvest of the General and Angling category quotas. DATES: The effective dates for the BFT daily retention limits are provided in Table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad McHale, 978-281-9260. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 *et seq.* ) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ) governing the harvest of BFT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) among the various domestic fishing categories. NMFS has proposed 2007 fishing year specifications to set BFT quotas and to set effort controls for the General category and Angling category (72 FR 16318, April 4, 2007). NMFS intends to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** to finalize the specifications and effort controls in June 2007. Daily Retention Limits Pursuant to this action, the daily BFT retention limits for the Atlantic tunas General, HMS Angling, and HMS Charter/Headboat categories are as follows: Table 1. Effective Dates for Retention Limit Adjustments Permit Category Effective Dates Areas BFT Size Class Limit Atlantic tunas General and HMS Charter/Headboat (while fishing commercially) June 1 through July 31, 2007, inclusive, or through the effective date of the final 2007 BFT specifications, whichever occurs first. All Three BFT per vessel per trip, measuring 73 inches (185 cm) curved fork length

(CFL)or greater. HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat (while fishing commercially) June 1 through July 31, 2007, inclusive, or through the effective date of the final 2007 BFT specifications, whichever occurs first. All One school BFT measuring 27 inches to less than 47 inches CFL (69 cm to less than 119 cm) and two large school/small medium BFT, measuring 47 inches to less than 73 inches CFL (119 cm to less than 185 cm) per vessel. Adjustment of Daily Retention Limits Under 50 CFR 635.23(a)(4), NMFS may increase or decrease the daily retention limit of large medium and giant BFT over a range of zero to a maximum of three per vessel to provide for maximum utilization of the General category quota for BFT. In addition, under 50 CFR 635.23(b)(3), NMFS may increase or decrease the retention limit for any size class of BFT, or change a vessel trip limit to an angler trip limit and vice versa to provide for maximum utilization of the Angling category quota for BFT over the longest period of time. Such adjustments, to either the commercial or recreational retention limits, are based on NMFS' consideration of the criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(8), which include: the usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock; the catches of the particular category quota to date and the likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no adjustment is made; the projected ability of the vessels fishing under the particular category quota to harvest the additional amount of BFT before the end of the fishing year; the estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories of the fishery might be exceeded; effects of the adjustment on BFT rebuilding and overfishing; effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the fishery management plan; variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of BFT; effects of catch rates in one area precluding vessels in another area from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the category's quota; and a review of dealer reports, daily landing trends, and the availability of the BFT on the fishing grounds. The proposed specification considered the same limits and received favorable public support. From June 1, 2007, until the final specifications take effect, the default commercial General category daily retention limit located at § 635.23(a)(2) is one large medium or giant BFT (measuring 73 inches (185 CM) curved fork length (CFL)) or greater per vessel per day/trip. This is the retention limit for General category permitted vessels and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels (when commercially fishing under the General category). Also starting on June 1, 2007, the default recreational Angling category retention limit at § 635.23(b)(2)(ii) is one school, large school or small medium BFT (measuring 27 inches (69 cm) to less than 73 inches (119 cm) CFL) per vessel per day/trip. This is the retention limit for permitted HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat vessels (when recreationally fishing under the Angling category). NMFS has considered the set of criteria listed above and their applicability to both the commercial and recreational BFT retention limits for the early portion of the 2007 fishing year until the final specifications become effective. Based on these considerations, NMFS has determined that the General category retention should be adjusted. Therefore, NMFS increases the General and Angling category retention limits from the default limits effective June 1 through July 31, 2007, or until the final specifications are effective. This adjustment increases the General category daily retention limit to three large medium or giant BFT, measuring 73 inches (185 cm) CFL or greater, per vessel per day/trip and Angling category daily retention limit to one school BFT (27 inches (69 cm) to less than 47 inches (119 cm)), and two large school/small medium BFT (measuring 47 inches (119 cm) to less than 73 inches (185 cm)) per vessel per day/trip. This General category retention limit is effective in all areas, except for the Gulf of Mexico, and apples to those vessel permitted in the General category as well as those HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels fishing commercially for BFT. This Angling category retention limit is effective in all areas, except for the Gulf of Mexico, and applies to those vessels permitted in the HMS Angling category as well as those HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels fishing recreationally. Monitoring and Reporting NMFS selected the daily retention limits and their duration after examining an array of data as it pertains to the determination criteria. This data included, but was not limited to current and previous catch and effort rates, quota availability, previous public comments on inseason management measures, stock status, etc. NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely through dealer landing reports, the Automated Landings Reporting System, state harvest tagging programs in North Carolina and Maryland, and the Large Pelagics Survey. Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional retention limit adjustments are necessary to ensure available quota is not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. Closures or subsequent adjustments to the daily retention limits, if any, will be published in the **Federal Register** . In addition, fishermen may call the Atlantic Tunas Information Line at

(888)872-8862 or

(978)281-9260, or access the internet at *www.hmspermits.gov* , for updates on quota monitoring and retention limit adjustments. Classification The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA), finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons: NMFS continues to receive information refining its understanding of both the commercial and recreational sector's specific needs regarding retention limits early in the 2007 season. NMFSassessments and analyses show that there is sufficient quota for an increase to the General category retention limit as well as an increase to the recreational BFT retention limit for the start of the 2007 season. Prior experience from the past several years also has shown that the General and Angling categories tend to start slowly and adjustment to the retention limits are necessary to maximize the utilization of the respective quotas. NMFS has recently become aware of increased availability of large medium and giant BFT off southern Atlantic fishing grounds from fishing reports, vessels participating in other fisheries, and landings data from dealers. This increase in abundance provides the potential to increase General category landings rates if fishery participants are authorized to harvest three large medium or giant BFT per day. NMFS has also recently become aware of increased availability of recreational size class BFT in close proximity to the shores of mid-Atlantic states, as reported by researchers and recreational fishermen in the area, as well as communications with staff from state agencies. This increase in abundance provides the potential to increase positive social and indirect economic benefits from this recreational portion of the BFT fishery. Another benefit of increasing the recreational retention limit would be the continuation of the NMFS length-weight conversion study, which is important to the management of BFT fisheries. The regulations implementing the HMS FMP provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment to implement these retention limits is impracticable as it would preclude NMFS from acting promptly to allow harvest of BFT that are available on the fishing grounds. Analysis of available data shows that the respective General and Angling category BFT retention limits may be increased with minimal risks of exceeding the ICCAT allocated quota. Delays in increasing these retention limits would adversely affect those General, Angling, and Charter/Headboat category vessels that would otherwise have an opportunity to harvest more than the default retention limits one BFT per day and may exacerbate the problem of low catch rates, quota rollovers, or lack of booked charters/private trips. Limited opportunities to harvest the respective quotas may have negative social and economic impacts to U.S. fishermen that either depend upon catching the available quota within the time periods designated in the HMS FMP, or depend on multiple BFT retention limits to attract individuals to book charters, as well as embarking on private recreational trips. For both the General and the recreational sectors, an adjustment to the retention limits needs to be effective June 1, the start of the season, for the impacted sectors to benefit from the adjustments so as to not preclude early season fishing opportunities from fishermen who only have access to the fishery at the beginning of the season. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, and because this action relieves a restriction (i.e., current default retention limit is one fish per vessel/trip but this action increases that limit and allows retention of more fish), there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness. This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.23(a)(4) and (b)(3) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 *et seq.* and 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 25, 2007. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 07-2692 Filed 5-25-07; 1:48 pm]

Connectionstraces to 47

Traces to 47 documents

U.S. Code