Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-06-01 · Unknown

Unknown. Final rule

83,637 words·~380 min read·/register/2007/06/01/07-2718

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-06-01.xml --- 72 105 Friday, June 1, 2007 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Cotton classing, testing, and standards: Classification services to growers; 2007 user fees, 30457-30458 E7-10675 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30536-30539 E7-10522 E7-10526 E7-10527 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Forest Service See Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Air Force Air Force Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30564 07-2705 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Exportation and importation of animals and animal products:
Classical swine fever; disease change status— Nayarit, Mexico, 30468-30470 E7-10641 Plant-related quarantine, domestic: Emerald ash borer, 30458-30460 E7-10560 Plant-related quarantine, foreign: Emerald ash borer material from Canada, 30462-30468 E7-10562 Wood packaging material; treatment modification, 30460-30462 E7-10559 Army Army Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30564 07-2715 Environmental statements; availability, etc.:
Camp Parks, Dublin, CA; real property master plan and exchange, 30564-30565 07-2722 Blind Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge operations: California, 30481-30483 E7-10564 E7-10572 Ports and waterways safety; regulated navigation areas, safety zones, security zones, etc.: Niagara River, North Tonawanda, NY, 30483-30485 E7-10500 Regattas and marine parades:
Carolina Cup Regatta, 30477-30479 E7-10511 Plymouth Drag Boat Race Series, 30479-30481 E7-10516 Commerce Commerce Department See International Trade Administration See National Institute of Standards and Technology See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement list; additions and deletions, 30541-30542 E7-10597 E7-10598 Copyright Copyright Office, Library of Congress NOTICES Copyright office and procedures: electronic Copyright Office (eCO); automated registration system development; beta testing participation request, 30641-30643 E7-10623 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 30554 07-2771 Defense Defense Department See Air Force Department See Army Department See Navy Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30554-30557 07-2711 07-2712 07-2713 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Mariana Islands Range Complex; meetings, 30557-30559 E7-10629 Travel per diem rates; non-foreign overseas; revised, 30559-30563 07-2704 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Hauge, Wayne Lee, 30632 E7-10485 Monson, David Carl, 30632 E7-10525 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30566-30567 E7-10571 Meetings:
Tribal Colleges and Universities, President's Board of Advisors, 30567-30568 E7-10635 Postsecondary education: Federal Pell Grant, Academic Competitiveness Grant, National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant, Federal Perkins Loan Programs et al.— Federal need analysis methodology for 2008-2009 award year, 30568-30572 E7-10621 Election Election Assistance Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 30572 07-2772 Employee Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Employee benefit plans; individual exemptions:
Hawaii Emergency Physicians Associated, Inc., et al., 30632-30639 E7-10488 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30639-30641 E7-10558 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: FutureGen Project; planning, design, construction, and operation, 30572-30574 E7-10563 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States; air quality planning purposes; designation of areas:
Virginia, 30485-30492 E7-10581 E7-10582 PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States; air quality planning purposes; designation of areas: Pennsylvania, 30509-30534 E7-10584 E7-10585 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Agency comment availability, 30589 E7-10600 Agency weekly receipts, 30589-30590 E7-10593 Pesticide registration, cancellation, etc.: Bayer CropScience, 30590-30591 E7-10519 Export Export-Import Bank NOTICES Economic impact policy; finance applications:
Russia; hot briquetted iron plant; correction, 30668 Z7-9803 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives: Cessna, 30474-30477 E7-10214 PROPOSED RULES Class E airspace, 30498-30501 E7-10565 E7-10567 E7-10569 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30659 07-2717 07-2723 FCC Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30591-30593 E7-10575 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30574-30575 E7-10543 Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 30582-30587 E7-10551 E7-10552 Environmental statements; availability, etc.:
Gulf South Pipeline Co., LP, 30587 E7-10532 Meetings: Southwest Power Pool Board of Directors/Members Committee et al., 30588 E7-10549 Transmission service; undue discrimination and preference prevention; technical conference, 30588 E7-10531 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 30575-30576 E7-10536 AmerenUE, 30576 E7-10534 Cameron LNG, LLC, 30576 E7-10544 CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co., 30576-30577 E7-10541 Gulf South Pipeline Co., LP, 30577 E7-10535 High Island Offshore System, L.L.C., 30577 E7-10542 ISO New England, Inc., 30578 E7-10550 Kern River Gas Transmission Co., 30578 E7-10540 Liberty Gas Storage, LLC, 30578-30579 E7-10545 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C., 30579 E7-10538 Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C., 30579-30580 E7-10546 Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 30580 E7-10539 RPL Holding, Inc., 30580 E7-10548 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 30580-30581 E7-10537 UGI Utilities, Inc., 30581 E7-10547 Wisconsin Electric Power Co., 30581-30582 E7-10533 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30660 E7-10612 Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Mohave County, AZ, 30660-30661 07-2727 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 30643 07-2731 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Meetings: Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, 30661 E7-10566 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Loans to executive officers, directors, and principal shareholders of member banks (Regulation O): Reporting requirements, 30470-30472 E7-10402 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Importation, exportation, and transportation of wildlife:
Marine mammals— Chukchi Sea et al., AK; Pacific walruses and polar bears; incidental take during year-round oil and gas industry exploration activities, 30670-30700 E7-10509 NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Incidental take permits— Williamson County, TX; regional habitat conservation plan; meeting, 30604-30606 E7-10576 Meetings: Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora International Trade Convention, 30606-30623 07-2714 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30594 E7-10617 Animal drugs, feeds, and related products:
Patent extension; regulatory review period determinations— ZILMAX, 30594-30595 E7-10602 Human drugs: Patent extension; regulatory review period determinations— LANTUS, 30595-30596 E7-10632 Medical devices: Patent extension; regulatory review period determinations— GEM 21S GROWTH-FACTOR ENHANCED MATRIX, 30598-30599 E7-10633 PHAKIC INTRAOCULAR LENSES, 30597-30598 E7-10631 X-STOP INTERSPINOUS PROCESS DECOMPRESSION SYSTEM, 30596-30597 E7-10618 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
Pandemic influenza vaccines; clinical data needed to support licensure, 30599-30600 E7-10499 Seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines; clinical data needed to support licensure, 30600-30601 E7-10497 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Shasta-Trinity National Forest, CA, 30539-30540 07-2718 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, OR, 30540-30541 07-2721 GIPSA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Meetings: Grain Inspection Advisory Committee, 30541 E7-10458 Health Health and Human Services Department See Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Meetings:
Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 30593-30594 E7-10440 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Homeless assistance; excess and surplus Federal properties, 30601-30604 E7-10368 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See Minerals Management Service IRS Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Excise taxes:
Pension excise taxes— Health savings accounts; employer comparable contributions; hearing, 30501-30505 E7-10529 NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Tax Counseling for the Elderly Program; application packages, 30666-30667 E7-10173 Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panels, 30667 E7-10530 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Polyester staple fiber from— China, 30545-30547 E7-10607 Antidumping and countervailing duties: Administrative review requests, 30542-30544 07-2730 Five year (sunset) reviews— Advance notification, 30544 E7-10473 Initiation of reviews, 30544-30545 E7-10472 Counterveiling duties:
In-shell roasted pistachios from— Iran, 30547 E7-10605 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations: Individually quick frozen red raspberries from— Chile, 30625-30627 E7-10408 Polyethylene terephthalate film from— India and Taiwan, 30627-30630 E7-10407 Justice Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Pollution control; consent judgments: Baldwinville Products, Inc., et al., 30630 07-2700 Kerr-McGee Corp., 30630 07-2701 Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., et al., 30630-30631 07-2699 Privacy Act; systems of records, 30631 E7-10523 E7-10524 Labor Labor Department See Employee Benefits Security Administration See Employment and Training Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Alaska Native claims selection:
Bering Straits Native Corp., 30623 E7-10596 E7-10613 Oil and gas leases: Wyoming, 30623-30624 E7-10608 Library Library of Congress See Copyright Office, Library of Congress Minerals Minerals Management Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30624-30625 E7-10615 Mine Mine Safety and Health Federal Review Commission See Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Agency records schedules; availability, 30643-30644 E7-10573 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30661-30663 E7-10603 E7-10604 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, E7-10578 30548-30553 E7-10579 E7-10580 E7-10591 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management:
Northeastern United States fisheries— Summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass, 30492-30497 E7-10614 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and threatened species: Cook Inlet beluga whale, 30534-30535 E7-10587 NOTICES Marine mammal permit applications, determinations, etc., 30553 E7-10586 Meetings: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 30553-30554 E7-10599 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: GPRA Performance Assessment Advisory Committee, 30644-30645 E7-10482 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30565-30566 07-2709 07-2710 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
CAROLFIRE Test Report Volumes 1 and 2: general test descriptions and analysis of circuit response data et al., 30645 E7-10611 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Investment Company Act of 1940: Prudential Unit Trusts Prudential Equity Trust Shares 1 et al., 30645-30647 E7-10561 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 30647 E7-10555 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 30647-30648 E7-10554 Deposit Trust Co., 30648-30652 E7-10553 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 30652-30657 E7-10556 Selective Selective Service System NOTICES Privacy Act; computer matching programs, 30657 E7-10528 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Rail carriers:
Control exemptions— US Rail Partners, Ltd., 30663 E7-10628 Railroad operation, acquisition, construction, etc.: Palouse River & Coulee City Railroad, Inc., 30664-30665 E7-10574 Washington State Department of Transportation, 30663-30664 E7-10636 Washington State Transportation Department, 30664 E7-10601 Railroad services abandonment: Canadian Pacific Railway Co., 30665-30666 E7-10298 TVA Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Mountain Reservoirs Land Management Plan, TN, NC, and GA, 30657-30659 E7-10637 Thrift Thrift Supervision Office RULES Savings associations:
Personal securities transactions; officer and employee reporting requirements, 30473-30474 E7-10401 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Railroad Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service See Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 30666 E7-10592 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department PROPOSED RULES Loan guaranty:
Housing loans in default; servicing, liquidating, and claims procedures, 30505-30509 E7-10630 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 30670-30700 E7-10509 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 105 Friday, June 1, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 28 [Docket Number:
AMS-CN-07-0060; CN-07-003] RIN 0581-AC68 User Fees for 2007 Crop Cotton Classification Services to Growers AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)will maintain user fees for cotton producers for 2007 crop cotton classification services under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act at the same level as in 2006. The fee is calculated in accordance with the formula provided in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987. The 2006 user fee for this classification service was $1.85 per bale. This rule would maintain the fee for the 2007 crop at $1.85 per bale. The fee and the existing reserve are sufficient to cover the costs of providing classification services, including costs for administration and supervision. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darryl Earnest, Deputy Administrator, Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2639-S, STOP 0224, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0224. Telephone
(202)720-2145, facsimile
(202)690-1718, or e-mail *darryl.earnest@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposed rule detailing the revisions was published in the **Federal Register** on April 19, 2007 (72 FR 19674). A 15-day comment period was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposed rule. During the 15-day comment period, one comment was received. A comment was received from a producers association in support of the proposed rule, the continued use of the legislative formula for establishing the cotton user fees, and the cotton classing services provided. Executive Order 12866 This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866; and, therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Executive Order 12988 This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule would not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures that may be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has determined that its implementation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. There are an estimated 30,000 cotton growers in the U.S. who voluntarily use the AMS cotton classing services annually, and the majority of these cotton growers are small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201). Continuing the user fee at the 2006 crop level as stated will not significantly affect small businesses as defined in the RFA because:
(1)The fee represents a very small portion of the cost-per-unit currently borne by those entities utilizing the services. (The 2006 user fee for classification services was $1.85 per bale; the fee for the 2007 crop would be maintained at $1.85 per bale; the 2007 crop is estimated at 19,900,000 bales).
(2)The fee for services will not affect competition in the marketplace; and
(3)The use of classification services is voluntary. For the 2006 crop, 21,729,000 bales were produced; and, almost all of these bales were voluntarily submitted by growers for the classification service.
(4)Based on the average price paid to growers for cotton from the 2005 crop of 46.9 cents per pound, 500 pound bales of cotton are worth an average of $234.50 each. The proposed user fee for classification services, $1.85 per bale, is less than one percent of the value of an average bale of cotton. Paperwork Reduction Act In compliance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320), which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the information collection requirements contained in the provisions to be amended by this rule have been previously approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581-AC58. Fees for Classification Under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act of 1927 The user fee charged to cotton producers for High Volume Instrument
(HVI)classification services under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 473a) was $1.85 per bale during the 2006 harvest season as determined by using the formula provided in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended by Public Law 102-237. The fees cover salaries, costs of equipment and supplies, and other overhead costs, including costs for administration, and supervision. This rule establishes the user fee charged to producers for HVI classification at $1.85 per bale during the 2007 harvest season. Public Law 102-237 amended the formula in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987 for establishing the producer's classification fee so that the producer's fee is based on the prevailing method of classification requested by producers during the previous year. HVI classing was the prevailing method of cotton classification requested by producers in 2006. Therefore, the 2007 producer's user fee for classification service is based on the 2006 base fee for HVI classification. The fee was calculated by applying the formula specified in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended by Public Law 102-237. The 2006 base fee for HVI classification exclusive of adjustments, as provided by the Act, was $2.45 per bale. An increase of 2.82 percent, or 7 cents per bale, due to the implicit price deflator of the gross domestic product added to the $2.45 would result in a 2007 base fee of $2.52 per bale. The formula in the Act provides for the use of the percentage change in the implicit price deflator of the gross national product (as indexed for the most recent 12-month period for which statistics are available). However, gross *national* product has been replaced by gross *domestic* product by the Department of Commerce as a more appropriate measure for the short-term monitoring and analysis of the U.S. economy. The number of bales to be classed by the United States Department of Agriculture from the 2007 crop is estimated at 19,900,000 bales. The 2007 base fee was decreased 15 percent based on the estimated number of bales to be classed (1 percent for every 100,000 bales or portion thereof above the base of 12,500,000, limited to a maximum decreased adjustment of 15 percent). This percentage factor amounts to a 38 cents per bale reduction and was subtracted from the 2007 base fee of $2.52 per bale, resulting in a fee of $2.14 per bale. However, with a fee of $2.14 per bale, the projected operating reserve would be 37.2 percent. The Act specifies that the Secretary shall not establish a fee which, when combined with other sources of revenue, will result in a projected operating reserve of more than 25 percent. Accordingly, the fee of $2.14 must be reduced by 29 cents per bale, to $1.85 per bale, to provide an ending accumulated operating reserve for the fiscal year of not more than 25 percent of the projected cost of operating the program. This would establish the 2007 season fee at $1.85 per bale. Accordingly, § 28.909, paragraph
(b)would reflect the continuation of the HVI classification fee at $1.85 per bale. As provided for in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended, a 5 cent per bale discount would continue to be applied to voluntary centralized billing and collecting agents as specified in § 28.909(c). Growers or their designated agents receiving classification data would continue to incur no additional fees if classification data is requested only once. The fee for each additional retrieval of classification data in § 28.910 would remain at 5 cents per bale. The fee in § 28.910(b) for an owner receiving classification data from the National database would remain at 5 cents per bale, and the minimum charge of $5.00 for services provided per monthly billing period would remain the same. The provisions of § 28.910(c) concerning the fee for new classification memoranda issued from the National database for the business convenience of an owner without reclassification of the cotton will remain the same at 15 cents per bale or a minimum of $5.00 per sheet. The fee for review classification in § 28.911 would be maintained at $1.85 per bale. The fee for returning samples after classification in § 28.911 would remain at 40 cents per sample. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** because this rule maintains user fees for 2007 crop cotton classification services under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act at the same level as in 2006 and a 15-day comment period was provided for public comment and one favorable comment was received. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 28 Administrative practice and procedure, Cotton, Cotton samples, Grades, Market news, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standards, Staples, Testing, Warehouses. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 28 is amended as follows: PART 28—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 28, subpart D, continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 471-476. 2. In § 28.909, paragraph
(b)is revised to read as follows: § 28.909 Costs.
(b)The cost of High Volume Instrument
(HVI)cotton classification service to producers is $1.85 per bale. 3. In § 28.911, the last sentence of paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 28.911 Review classification.
(a)* * * The fee for review classification is $1.85 per bale. Dated: May 30, 2007. Kenneth C. Clayton, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. 1 [FR Doc. E7-10675 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 301 [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0028] Emerald Ash Borer; Quarantined Areas; Maryland AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim rule and request for comments. SUMMARY: We are amending the emerald ash borer regulations by adding Prince George's County, MD, to the list of areas quarantined because of emerald ash borer. As a result of this action, the interstate movement of regulated articles from that county is restricted. This action is necessary to prevent the artificial spread of the emerald ash borer from Prince George's County, MD, into noninfested areas of the United States. DATES: This interim rule is effective June 1, 2007. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0028 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to APHIS-2007-0028, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to APHIS-2007-0028. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah McPartlan, Operations Officer, Pest Detection and Management Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-4387. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The emerald ash borer
(EAB)( *Agrilus planipennis* ) is a destructive wood-boring insect that attacks ash trees ( *Fraxinus* spp., including green ash, white ash, black ash, and several horticultural varieties of ash). The insect, which is indigenous to Asia and known to occur in China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, the Russian Far East, Taiwan, and Canada, eventually kills healthy ash trees after it bores beneath their bark and disrupts their vascular tissues. Quarantined Areas The EAB regulations in 7 CFR 301.53-1 through 301.53-9 (referred to below as the regulations) restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of EAB to noninfested areas of the United States. The States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio and portions of the State of Michigan have already been designated as quarantined areas. On August 22, 2006, two EAB larvae were recovered during an ongoing survey in Prince George's County, MD. Since then, EAB larvae have been recovered in three additional neighborhoods in Prince George's County. Officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)and officials of State and county agencies in Maryland are conducting intensive survey and eradication programs in the infested areas. The State of Maryland has quarantined Prince George's County to prevent the spread of EAB to noninfested areas in that State. However, Federal regulations are necessary to restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from the quarantined areas to prevent the spread of EAB from Maryland to other States. The regulations in § 301.53-3(a) provide that the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will list as a quarantined area each State, or each portion of a State, where EAB has been found by an inspector, where the Administrator has reason to believe that EAB is present, or where the Administrator considers regulation necessary because of its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from localities where EAB has been found. Less than an entire State will be designated as a quarantined area only under certain conditions. Such a designation may be made if the Administrator determines that:
(1)The State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of regulated articles that are equivalent to those imposed by the regulations on the interstate movement of regulated articles; and
(2)the designation of less than an entire State as a quarantined area will be adequate to prevent the artificial spread of the EAB. In accordance with these criteria and the recent EAB findings described above, we are amending § 301.53-3(c) to add Prince George's County, MD, to the list of quarantined areas. Emergency Action This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to help prevent the spread of EAB to noninfested areas of the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register.** We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the **Federal Register** . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866. We are amending the EAB regulations by adding Prince George's County, MD, to the list of quarantined areas. As a result of this action, the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas is restricted. This action is necessary to prevent the artificial spread of this plant pest into noninfested areas of the United States. Ash trees are a valuable resource for the nursery, landscaping, and timber industries in Maryland. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources estimates that about 20 percent of streamside trees in the State are ash trees. Ash trees account for over 3 percent of trees in naturally wooded areas. Ash wood is used for all traditional applications of hardwood from flooring and cabinets to baseball bats. The USDA has estimated that losses could reach almost $300 million in the Baltimore metropolitan area alone if EAB becomes established in the nearby county of Baltimore and the surrounding counties. It is estimated that the eradication efforts in the county of Prince Georges will cost more than $4 million in Federal funding. 1 1 *See http://www.naturalresources.umd.edu/ashborer.cfm* . This interim rule will affect business entities located within Prince George's County, MD. According to the U.S. Agricultural Census, in 2002 there were 22 nurseries in this county. 2 The exact number and size of any other affected entity or operation that will be subject to movement restriction in the quarantined area is unknown. However, only restricted articles moved out of the quarantine area will be affected. 2 2002 U.S. Agricultural Census, State and County Data, Maryland, table 34, page 298. It is reasonable to assume that most of the nurseries are small in size according to the U.S. Small Business Administration's standards. The small business size standard based upon the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 111421 (nursery and tree production) is $750,000 or less in annual receipts. The small business size standard based upon NAICS code 113210 (forest nursery and gathering of forest products, including nursery operations that sell deciduous shade trees) is $5 million or less in annual receipts. 3 The small business size standard based upon NAICS code 113310 (logging operations) is 500 or fewer persons employed by the operation. 3 “Nursery Crops: 2003 Summary” National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, July 2004. Under the regulations, regulated articles may be moved interstate from a quarantined area into or through an area that is not quarantined only if they are accompanied by a certificate or limited permit. An inspector or a person operating under a compliance agreement will issue a certificate for interstate movement of a regulated article if certain conditions are met, including that the regulated article is determined to be apparently free of EAB. Businesses could be affected by the regulations in two ways. First, if a business wishes to move regulated articles interstate from a quarantined area, that business must either:
(1)Enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS for the inspection and certification of regulated articles to be moved interstate from the quarantined area; or
(2)present its regulated articles for inspection by an inspector and obtain a certificate or a limited permit, issued by the inspector, for the interstate movement of regulated articles. The inspections may be inconvenient, but they should not be costly in most cases, even for businesses operating under a compliance agreement that would perform the inspections themselves. For those businesses that elect not to enter into a compliance agreement, APHIS would provide the services of the inspector without cost during normal business hours. There is also no cost for the compliance agreement, certificate, or limited permit for the interstate movement of regulated articles. Second, there is a possibility that, upon inspection, a regulated article could be determined by the inspector to be potentially infested with EAB, and, as a result, the article would be ineligible for interstate movement under a certificate. In such a case, the entity's ability to move regulated articles interstate would be restricted. However, the affected entity could conceivably obtain a limited permit under the conditions of § 301.53-5(b). Our experience with administering the EAB regulations and the regulations for other pests, such as the Asian longhorned beetle, that impose essentially the same conditions on the interstate movement of regulated articles lead us to believe that any economic effects on affected small entities will be small and are outweighed by the benefits associated with preventing the spread of EAB into noninfested areas of the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12372 This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.) Executive Order 12988 This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule:
(1)Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule;
(2)has no retroactive effect; and
(3)does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act This interim rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 301 as follows: PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Section 301.75-15 issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note). 2. In § 301.53-3, paragraph
(c)is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, an entry for Maryland to read as follows: § 301.53-3 Quarantined areas.
(c)* * * Maryland *Prince George's County* . The entire county. Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of May 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-10560 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0129] RIN 0579-AC32 Wood Packaging Material; Treatment Modification AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim rule and request for comments. SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations for the importation of unmanufactured wood articles to bring the methyl bromide treatment schedule into alignment with current international phytosanitary standards. This action is necessary because international phytosanitary standards have changed and the regulations need to be updated to reflect current standards. DATES: This interim rule is effective June 1, 2007. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0129 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0129, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0129. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hesham Abuelnaga, Import Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-0627. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The regulations in “Subpart-Logs, Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured Wood Articles” (7 CFR 319.40 through 319.40-11, referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of various logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood products into the United States. The regulations in § 319.40-3 cover general permits, including the requirements for articles that may be imported without specific permits or importer documents. Paragraph
(b)of that section covers the requirements for regulated wood packaging material, including requirements for treating wood packaging material. The treatment and other requirements of § 319.40-3(b) are intended to be consistent with the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 15, “Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging Material in International Trade” (ISPM 15). ISPM 15 is an international standard for wood packaging material established by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). Under ISPM 15 and our regulations, all regulated wood packaging material must be appropriately treated and marked under an official program developed and overseen by the national plant protection organization of the country of export. One of the treatments in § 319.40-3(b) is fumigation with methyl bromide. The methyl bromide treatment schedule in the regulations is the schedule that was in ISPM 15 at the time the regulations became effective. However, in April 2006, the membership of the IPPC—which includes the United States—adopted an amendment to ISPM 15 that modified the methyl bromide treatment standard to improve its efficacy. The modification changed the exposure time from 16 to 24 hours and adjusted the concentration readings per cubic meter accordingly; the dosage rate of methyl bromide remains unchanged. As a member of the standards committee of the IPPC, we agreed with this change to the standard. Therefore, in order for our regulations to remain consistent with ISPM 15 and provide for a more effective treatment, we are amending the methyl bromide treatment schedule that appears in § 319.40-3(b). The updated schedule is presented in the regulatory text at the end of this document. Immediate Action Immediate action is necessary to update the regulations so that the prescribed treatment for wood packaging materials is consistent with international standards. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this action effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the **Federal Register** . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. We are amending the regulations for the importation of unmanufactured wood articles to bring the methyl bromide treatment schedule into alignment with current international phytosanitary standards. This action is necessary because international phytosanitary standards have changed and the regulations need to be updated to reflect current standards. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Section 603 of the Act requires an agency to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA)describing the expected impact of a proposed rule on small entities, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. APHIS has prepared this IRFA in order that the public may have the opportunity to offer comments on expected small-entity effects of this interim rule. We address here items as required by section 603(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule will affect foreign exporters of goods that are shipped using wood packaging materials. No U.S. entities involved in the production or supply of unmanufactured wood packaging materials are expected to be negatively impacted by this rule because the revised treatment must occur in the country of origin. The impact on foreign entities is not expected to be large because only the treatment time and concentration reading have been changed; the methyl bromide dosage rate remains the same. It is possible that these foreign entities might pass on additional treatment costs, if any, to U.S. buyers. We welcome information that the public may offer that would either confirm or challenge the Agency's determination that effects, if any, on U.S. entities will be minimal. The interim rule has no mandatory reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for U.S. entities, other than the requirements that normally pertain to commodity importation. APHIS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict of the interim rule with other Federal rules. We do not foresee the interim rule having a significant economic impact on small entities, and therefore have not proposed significant alternatives to minimize impacts. The rule will simply align the U.S. methyl bromide treatment requirements for wood packaging materials with the standards established by the IPPC. This interim rule will benefit the United States by reducing the risk of introduction of pests via unmanufactured wood packaging materials. It may impact foreign exporters of goods to the United States who use unmanufactured wood packaging materials, which in turn may affect importers of these goods. However, cost increases, if any, due to the revised treatment requirements are not expected to significantly affect domestic entities and thus will not have a measurable impact on the flow of trade. We welcome information that the public may offer that would allow the Agency to better determine the effect, if any, that the interim rule will have on U.S. small entities. Executive Order 12988 This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule:
(1)Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule;
(2)has no retroactive effect; and
(3)does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. National Environmental Policy Act Section 1508.4 of the Council on Environmental Quality's
(CEQ)National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)implementing regulations define categorical exclusion as a “category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency in implementation of these regulations (section 1507.3) and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.” The changes to the treatment schedule do not increase the application rate for methyl bromide, but they do increase the length of time for the fumigation. The increase in time to 24 hours does not require more usage of methyl bromide if the fumigation enclosure is sealed well and the fumigation is conducted properly. The decrease in required concentrations over time within the fumigation enclosure in the revised treatment schedule makes allowance for additional adsorption of methyl bromide to the wood that occurs over the extended time period. APHIS also notified the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)of this change. The EPA responded that it does not consider the change to be significant. Based on this information, we have determined this revision meets the definition of a categorically excluded action under CEQ's regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). The record of categorical exclusion determination may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this proposed rule.) In addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Paperwork Reduction Act This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables. Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows: PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 2. In § 319.40-3, paragraph (b)(1)(ii), including the table, is revised to read as follows: § 319.40-3 General permits; articles that may be imported without either a specific permit or an importer document.
(b)* * *
(1)* * *
(ii)Fumigated with methyl bromide in an enclosed area for at least 24 hours at the following dosage, stated in terms of grams of methyl bromide per cubic meter of the enclosure being fumigated. Following fumigation, fumigated products must be aerated to reduce the concentration of fumigant below hazardous levels, in accordance with the label instructions approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Temperature (°C/°F) Dosage (g/m 3 ) Minimum required concentration g/m 3 after: 0.5 hr 2 hrs 4 hrs 12 hrs 24 hrs 21/70 or above 48 36 36 31 28 24 16/61 or above 56 42 42 36 32 28 10/50 or above 64 48 48 42 36 32 The minimum temperature should not be less than 10 °C/50 °F and the minimum exposure time should be 24 hours. Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of May 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-10559 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0125] RIN 0579-AC39 Importation of Emerald Ash Borer Host Material From Canada AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim rule and request for comments. SUMMARY: We are establishing regulations to prohibit or restrict the importation of certain articles from Canada that present a risk of being infested with emerald ash borer. This action is necessary to prevent the artificial spread of this plant pest from infested areas in Canada to noninfested areas of the United States and to prevent further introductions of this plant pest into the United States. DATES: This interim rule is effective June 1, 2007. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0125 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0125, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to APHIS-2006-0125. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hesham Abuelnaga, Import Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-6334. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The emerald ash borer (EAB, *Agrilus planipennis* ) is a destructive wood-boring insect that attacks ash trees ( *Fraxinus* spp., including green ash, white ash, black ash, and several horticultural varieties of ash). The insect, which is indigenous to Asia and known to occur in China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, the Russian Far East, and Taiwan, eventually kills healthy ash trees after it bores beneath their bark and disrupts their vascular tissues. EAB was first found in North America in ash trees in several counties in Michigan in July 2002, and subsequently in a small area in Ontario, Canada. On October 14, 2003, we published an interim rule in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 59082-59091, Docket No. 02-125-1) in which we quarantined 13 counties in Michigan and placed restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from those quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of EAB to other States. Additional detections of EAB were made in Ohio in November 2003, in Indiana in April 2004, and in Illinois in June 2006. Subsequent interim rules 1 have extended the quarantined area to additional counties in Michigan, and to the entire States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Officials of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)and of State, county, and city agencies have been conducting intensive survey and eradication programs in the infested areas in the affected States. Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio have quarantined the EAB-infested areas and imposed restrictions on the intrastate movement of certain articles from the regulated areas to prevent the artificial spread of EAB within each State. Similarly, provincial officials in Ontario and officials of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA)have been conducting extensive survey and eradication activities in the infested areas in Ontario. Plant health officials in the United States and Canada have been working cooperatively to establish a regulatory framework to address the risk of the artificial spread of EAB between the two countries. 1 These interim rules were published January 4, 2005 (70 FR 249-253, Docket No. 02-125-2), March 3, 2005 (70 FR 10315-10318, Docket No. 02-125-3), October 31, 2005 (70 FR 62230-62232, Docket No. 05-067-1), May 24, 2006 (71 FR 29762-29766, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0046), October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57871-57873, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0131), and April 2, 2007 (72 FR 15597-15598, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0005). The regulations in 7 CFR part 319, “Foreign Quarantine Notices,” prohibit or restrict the importation of certain plants and plant products to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests and noxious weeds into the United States. In order to prevent the artificial spread of EAB from Canada into noninfested areas of the United States, we are amending our regulations in part 319 to restrict or prohibit the importation of EAB host material into the United States from EAB-infested areas of Canada. These requirements are consistent with the requirements imposed by the CFIA with respect to the importation into Canada of EAB host material from EAB-infested areas of the United States. Nursery Stock The regulations contained in “Subpart-Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant Products,” §§ 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to below as the regulations), restrict, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation. Nursery stock, plants, and other propagative plant material that cannot be feasibly inspected, treated, or handled to prevent them from introducing plant pests new to or not known to be widely prevalent in or distributed within and throughout the United States are listed in § 319.37-2 as prohibited articles. Prohibited articles may not be imported into the United States unless imported by the USDA for experimental or scientific purposes, or under specified safeguards. Ash nursery stock imported into the United States from areas in Canada regulated under the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture and the CFIA's EAB Infested Place Orders 2 presents a significant risk of spreading the pest; therefore, we are amending § 319.37-2 to list any ash nursery stock originating in these EAB-regulated areas in Canada as prohibited articles. Previously, we believed that small ash trees (trees smaller than 460 millimeters or approximately 18 inches in height and half an inch or less in diameter) could not serve as a host for the pest. However, subsequently we found EAB on ash stock that measured less than half an inch in diameter. Therefore, we are prohibiting the importation into the United States of all ash trees, regardless of size, that originate in regions regulated by the CFIA under the EAB Infested Place Orders because of EAB. We have amended the entry for articles of the genus *Fraxinus* in the table of prohibited articles in paragraph
(a)of § 319.37-2 to indicate these restrictions. 2 Infested Place Orders are the means by which the CFIA regulates EAB-infested areas within Canada. Links to the Infested Place Orders for the infested areas in Canada and other information about Canada's EAB program can be viewed online at the CFIA's Web site at *http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/pestrava/agrpla/agrplae.shtml.* Alternately, nursery stock, plants, and other propagative plant material that can be inspected, treated, or handled to prevent them from spreading plant pests are designated in the regulations as restricted articles. Paragraph
(a)of § 319.37-3 lists restricted articles that may be imported or offered for importation into the United States after issuance of a written permit by the Plant Protection and Quarantine programs, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). We are adding a provision to this section to require that ash nursery stock that originates in counties or municipal regional counties not regulated for EAB but which are within Provinces or Territories in Canada regulated for EAB may only be imported after issuance of an import permit by APHIS. Nursery stock originating in unaffected Provinces or Territories ( *i.e.* , Provinces or Territories without areas regulated for EAB) and seeds of *Fraxinus* spp. from anywhere in Canada present little risk of spreading EAB into the United States and will not require import permits. We are adding a new paragraph (a)(19) to § 319.37-3 to reflect these changes. Paragraph
(a)of § 319.37-4 of the regulations states that, except for small lots of seed imported in accordance with § 319.37-4(d), any restricted article offered for importation into the United States must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate or, in the case of certain greenhouse-grown plants from Canada, a certificate of inspection in the form of a label. Paragraph
(c)of § 319.37-4 lists the requirements for importing certain greenhouse-grown plants from Canada without a phytosanitary certificate. Considering the serious threat posed by EAB, we believe it is necessary to require all ash nursery stock-including greenhouse-grown ash nursery stock-from Canada that is eligible for importation ( *i.e.* , ash nursery stock that does not originate in an EAB-regulated county or municipal regional county within a Canadian Province or Territory) to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection, as defined in § 319.37-1. The phytosanitary certificate must include an additional declaration stating that the material was produced or harvested in a county or municipal regional county where EAB does not occur. Ash Logs and Wood and Ash Wood and Bark Chips The regulations in “Subpart-Logs, Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured Wood Articles” (7 CFR 319.40-1 through 319.40-11, referred to below as the regulations) are intended to mitigate the plant pest risk presented by the importation of logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles. Under the regulations in § 319.40-2, logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles must be imported with the following:
(1)A permit and
(2)an importer document that lists the genus and species of the tree from which the regulated article was derived, the country and locality, if known, where the tree from which the regulated article was derived was harvested, the quantity of the regulated article to be imported, the use for which the regulated article is imported, and any treatments or handling of the regulated article required by the regulations that were performed prior to arrival at the port of first arrival. These requirements are intended to protect against the introduction of plant pests, including EAB, into the United States. However, the provisions of § 319.40-2 have not applied to ash logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles imported into the United States from Canada which only require a general permit under § 319.40-3(a). Other than regulated articles of the subfamilies Aurantioideae, Rutoideae, and Toddalioideae of the botanical family Rutaceae, and pine articles from regions regulated for pine shoot beetle ( *Tomicus pinniperda* ) on their way to a facility operating under a compliance agreement for specified treatment or handling, currently regulated articles from Canada covered by the general permit need only be accompanied by an importer document stating that they were derived from trees harvested in Canada and have never been moved outside Canada. Therefore, we are amending § 319.40-3 to exclude regulated articles of the genus *Fraxinus* from Canada from eligibility for importation under general permit, and we are specifying provisions for the importation of these articles in a new paragraph
(n)of § 319.40-5. Section 319.40-5 sets out importation and entry requirements for articles that require more specific conditions for importation. Since there are particular risks associated with the importation of various articles derived from trees of the genus *Fraxinus,* we are adding the measures described below in a new paragraph
(n)to mitigate these risks. Regulated articles of the genus *Fraxinus*
(ash)from Canada may only be imported in accordance with these measures and subject to the certification requirements in § 319.40-2(a) and the inspection and other requirements in § 319.40-9. Studies by the USDA and independent researchers have shown that EAB larvae do not survive the grinding process in wood or bark chips that are less than 1 inch in diameter. Wood and bark chips this size are also too small to support EAB larval growth. Therefore, the risk of pest introduction associated with these wood and bark chips is low. For this reason we are allowing wood and bark chips that measure 1 inch or less in two dimensions to be imported into the United States under the conditions described below. Additionally, we are designating all hardwood species of firewood as regulated articles because as hardwood is dried and cut into firewood, it is difficult to identify the *Fraxinus*
(ash)species from other species of tree from which the firewood was derived. Canada may refer to regions within recognized legal boundaries within a Province or Territory as “counties” or “municipal regional counties;” for the sake of clarity and simplicity, we refer to those regions simply as counties. Under this rule, the following requirements apply to specified articles: • *Firewood of all hardwood (non-coniferous) species, and ash logs and wood, including cants and stumps, that originate in an EAB-regulated county within a Province or Territory regulated for EAB by the CFIA* require a permit and must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the articles in the shipment were
(1)debarked, and vascular cambium was removed to a depth of 1.27 cm ( 1/2 inch) during the debarking process, or
(2)heat treated in accordance with § 319.40-7(c). If articles were heat-treated, the method of treatment must be described in the treatment section of the certificate. • *Firewood of all hardwood (non-coniferous) species, and ash logs and wood, including cants and stumps, that originate in a county not regulated for EAB within a Province or Territory regulated for the EAB by the CFIA* require an import permit and must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the articles in the shipment were produced/harvested in a county where the EAB does not occur, based on official surveys. • *Firewood of all hardwood (non-coniferous) species, and ash logs and wood, including cants and stumps, that originate in a Province or Territory that is not regulated for EAB by the CFIA* must be accompanied by an importer document that certifies that the article did not originate in a Province or Territory known to be affected with EAB. Since articles from unaffected Provinces or Territories present little risk of carrying EAB, we are not requiring a permit or phytosanitary certificate for these items. • *Ash wood chips or bark chips larger than 1 inch (2.54 cm) in diameter in any two dimensions that originate in an EAB-regulated county within a Province or Territory that is regulated for EAB by the CFIA* are prohibited importation into the United States. • *Ash wood chips or bark chips 1 inch (2.54 cm) or less in diameter that originate in an EAB-regulated county within a Province or Territory that is regulated for EAB by the CFIA* require a permit and must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the wood or bark chips in the shipment were ground to 1 inch (2.54 cm) or less in diameter in any two dimensions. • *Ash wood chips or bark chips that originate in a county not regulated for EAB within a Province or Territory regulated for EAB by the CFIA* require a permit and must be accompanied by a certificate with an additional declaration stating that the articles in the shipment were produced/harvested in a county where the EAB does not occur, based on official surveys. • *Ash wood chips or bark chips that originate in a Province or Territory that is not regulated for EAB by the CFIA* must be accompanied by an importer document that certifies that the article did not originate in a Province or Territory known to be affected by EAB. Since articles from unaffected Provinces or Territories present little risk of carrying EAB, we are not requiring a permit or a certificate for these items. Articles being moved through Canada from counties not regulated for EAB may not transit an EAB-regulated area in Canada en route to the United States unless they are moved directly through the regulated area without stopping (except for refueling or for traffic conditions, such as traffic lights or stop signs). If these articles are being moved through the EAB-regulated area in Canada between May 1 and August 31 or when the ambient air temperature is 40 °F or higher, they must be in an enclosed vehicle or completely covered to prevent access by the EAB. Miscellaneous Section 319.40-1 provides definitions for terms that apply to all of the regulations in the subpart. The definition of *certificate* details the information that must be provided on certificates of inspection, which includes a description of the restricted articles intended to be imported into the United States as well as any specific additional declarations that may be required by the specific sections of the regulations. We are amending the definition of certificate to specify that the certificate is addressed to Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs, the national plant protection organization of the United States. We are doing this for purposes of clarity. Emergency Action Immediate action is necessary to prevent the spread of EAB into noninfested regions of the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this action effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the **Federal Register** . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is set out below, regarding the economic effects of this interim rule on small entities. Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude that this rule will result in any significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the economic impacts of this rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential economic impacts. In particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this rule. Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 *et seq.* ), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to regulate the importation of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within the United States. This interim rule amends the regulations to prohibit or restrict the importation of certain articles from Canada that present risk of being infested with EAB. This action is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the spread of the pest from infested areas in Canada to noninfested areas of the United States, and to prevent further introductions of the pest into the United States. The EAB has been found in ash trees in counties in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana in the United States, and in Essex County, Ontario, Canada. The economic impact could be severe if the EAB is allowed to spread from infested areas to the surrounding forests of the northeastern United States, where nursery, landscaping, and timber industries, and forest-based recreation and tourism industries play a vital economic role. APHIS's EAB import requirements are consistent with the EAB import requirements imposed by the CFIA with respect to the importation of EAB host material from the United States into Canada. As a result of this rule, importation into the United States of ash nursery stock, and wood chips and bark chips larger than 1 inch in diameter is prohibited from the EAB-regulated areas in Canada. Additional documentation is required for all products from both EAB-regulated and non-regulated areas in Canada (table 1). Ash logs and wood imported from EAB-regulated counties in Canada will require a permit and phytosanitary certificate, and an appropriate treatment of the wood. Thus, businesses in the regulated counties in Canada that wish to export ash logs and wood to the United States will have to incur additional costs for heat treatment or debarking. The cost of heat treatment has been estimated at $10.40 to $23.75 per cubic meter (35.314 cubic feet) of treated wood and the cost of debarking has been estimated at $2 per cubic meter of wood. However, the regulations still provide for the importation of products from non-regulated counties and Provinces/Territories in accordance with the provisions outlined in this interim rule. Table 1.—Requirements for Ash Products Imported Into the United States From EAB-Regulated and Non-Regulated Areas in Canada Ash product Regulated counties Non-regulated counties Ash nursery stock Prohibited Permit or phytosanitary certificate. Ash logs and wood Permit and phytosanitary certificate, and debarked or heat treated Importer document. Ash wood chips and bark chips larger than 1 inch in diameter Prohibited Importer document. Ash wood chips and bark chips less than 1 inch in diameter Importer document and phytosanitary certificate Importer document. U.S. Wood Imports From Canada In 2005, the value of wood imports into the United States from Canada was $14.2 billion. This represented 60 percent of the value of all wood imports into the United States ($23.8 billion) (U.S. Trade Statistics, 2007). Lumber accounted for 49 percent of wood imports into the United States from Canada, valued at $6.93 billion in 2005. However, 95 percent of this value accrued to coniferous wood, while non-coniferous wood accounted for only 5 percent. The volume of ash wood lumber imports from Canada was 5,937 m 3 , with a value of $1.74 million. This represented only 0.03 percent of value and 0.002 percent of volume of lumber imports from Canada. Thus, this rule will affect less than 1 percent of United States lumber imports from Canada. Imports of non-coniferous wood chips from Canada amounted to $5.94 million in 2005. However, the percentage of non-coniferous wood chips derived from ash is not reported. Ontario accounted for 10 percent of the value of United States lumber imports from Canada in 2005, in Canadian dollars. This estimate includes all woods, and data are not available for ash specifically. Essex, Elgin, and Lambton Counties, Ontario, are regulated for EAB by CFIA. These three counties, which are located at the southern tip of Ontario, are the least forested counties in southern Canada, and relatively little nursery stock has traditionally moved from these counties to either the United States or other parts of Canada. Affected Entities The Small Business Administration
(SBA)has established size criteria based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) for determining which economic entities meet the definition of a small firm. The small entity size standard for nursery and tree production (NAICS code 111421) is $750,000 or less in annual receipts, and $6 million or less in annual receipts for forest nurseries and gathering of forest products (NAICS code 113210). The SBA classifies logging operations (NAICS code 113310), sawmills (NAICS code 321113), and wood product manufacturers (NAICS subsector 321) generally as small entities if they have 500 or fewer employees. APHIS does not have an estimate of the number of these types of entities that would be affected by the rule. Since the EAB only infests certain species of trees, only a subset of the logging, wood manufacturing, and nursery and seedling operations would potentially be affected, and only to the extent that products are imported from the areas in Canada affected by the rule. Because most businesses engaged in tree or lumber production or wood product manufacturing are small entities, we expect that firms affected by this rule will primarily be small in size. APHIS welcomes information that the public is able to provide regarding the number and size of firms that may be impacted. Alternatives There are no significant alternatives to this rule that would meet the objective of reducing the pest risk of importing articles from Canada that are infested with EAB, while minimizing economic impacts for affected entities. Pest risks associated with ash logs and wood, and ash wood chips and bark chips less than 1 inch in diameter, could be addressed by simply prohibiting their importation from Canada, but this could put unwarranted restrictions on international trade since debarking, heat treatment, and grinding into chips have been shown to kill EAB effectively, thus reducing the pest risk associated with such importations. Conversely, allowing importation of ash nursery stock and ash wood chips larger than 1 inch in diameter from regulated Canadian counties, even with treatment, would yield unacceptable risks of EAB introduction. The documentation and treatment requirements of the interim rule best satisfy our phytosanitary objectives while minimizing economic impacts for United States entities, large or small. This interim rule contains certain information collection or recordkeeping requirements (see “Paperwork Reduction Act” below). Executive Order 12988 This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule:
(1)Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule;
(2)has no retroactive effect; and
(3)does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with section 3507(j) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements included in this interim rule have been submitted for emergency approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB has assigned control number 0579-0319 to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements. We plan to request continuation of that approval for 3 years. Please send written comments on the 3-year approval request to the following addresses:
(1)Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503; and
(2)Docket No. APHIS-2006-0125, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0125 and send your comments within 60 days of publication of this rule. This interim rule establishes regulations to prohibit or restrict the importation of certain articles from Canada that present a risk of being infested with EAB. This interim rule is necessary to prevent the artificial spread of plant pests from infested areas in Canada to noninfested areas of the United States and to prevent further introductions of plant pests into the United States. We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses). *Estimate of burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.6 hours per response. *Respondents:* Importers, officials of CFIA, and nursery industry. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 5. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 1. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 5. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 3 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. E-Government Act Compliance The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this interim rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables. Accordingly, 7 CFR part 319 is amended as follows: PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 2. In § 319.37-2, paragraph (a), the table entry for “Fraxinus spp. (ash)” is revised to read as follows: § 319.37-2 Prohibited articles.
(a)* * * Prohibited article (includes seeds only if specifically mentioned) Foreign places from which prohibited Plant pests existing in the places named and capable of being transported with the prohibited article * * * * * * * *Fraxinus* spp.
(ash)Any county or municipal regional county in Canada regulated because of the emerald ash borer *Agrilus planipennis* (emerald ash borer). Europe *Pseudomonas savastanoi* var. *fraxini* (Brown) Dowson (Canker and dwarfing disease of ash). * * * * * * * 3. Section 319.37-3 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph
(a)(17), by removing the word “and” at the end of the paragraph. b. In paragraph (a)(18), by removing the period at the end of the paragraph and adding the word “; and” in its place. c. By adding a new paragraph (a)(19) to read as set forth below. § 319.37-3 Permits.
(a)* * *
(19)Articles (except seeds) of *Fraxinus* spp.
(ash)from counties or municipal regional counties in Canada that are not regulated for emerald ash borer
(EAB)but are within an EAB-regulated Province or Territory and are not prohibited under § 319.37-2(a). § 319.37-4 [Amended] 4. In § 319.37-4, the introductory text of paragraph
(c)is amended by removing the word “A” and adding the words “With the exception of *Fraxinus* spp.
(ash)plants, a” in its place. § 319.40-1 [Amended] 5. In § 319.40-1, the definition of *certificate* is amended by adding the words “which is addressed to the plant protection service of the United States (Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs),” after the word “grown,”. 6. In § 319.40-3, a new paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) is added to read as follows: § 319.40-3 General permits; articles that may be imported without a specific permit; articles that may be imported without either a specific permit or an importer document.
(a)* * *
(1)* * *
(i)* * *
(C)Regulated articles of *Fraxinus* spp. (ash), which are subject to the requirements in § 319.40-5(n). 7. In 319.40-5, a new paragraph
(n)is added and the OMB citation at the end of the section is revised to read as follows: § 319.40-5 Importation and entry requirements for specified articles.
(n)*Regulated articles of the genus Fraxinus from Canada.* Except for articles prohibited under paragraph (n)(4) of this section, regulated articles of the genus *Fraxinus*
(ash)from Canada may be imported in accordance with this paragraph
(n)and subject to the certification requirements in § 319.40-2(a) and the inspection and other requirements in § 319.40-9. Articles being moved from counties or municipal regional counties in Canada not regulated for the emerald ash borer
(EAB)may not transit an EAB-regulated area in Canada en route to the United States unless they are moving directly through the EAB-regulated area without stopping (except for refueling or for traffic conditions, such as traffic lights or stop signs). If these articles are being moved through the regulated area between May 1 and August 31 or when the ambient air temperature is 40 °F or higher, they must be in an enclosed vehicle or completely covered to prevent access by the emerald ash borer.
(l)Firewood of all hardwood (non-coniferous) species, and ash logs and wood, including cants and stumps, that originate in a county or municipal regional county regulated for the emerald ash borer within a Province or Territory regulated by the Canadian Government for the emerald ash borer require a permit issued under § 319.40-2(a) and must be accompanied by a certificate bearing an additional declaration that the articles in the shipment were:
(i)Debarked, and vascular cambium removed to a depth of 1.27 cm ( 1/2 inch) during the debarking process; or
(ii)Heat treated in accordance with § 319.40-7(c). The phytosanitary certificate accompanying such articles must describe the treatment method employed.
(2)Firewood of all hardwood (non-coniferous) species, and ash logs and wood, including cants and stumps, that originate in a county or municipal regional county not regulated for the emerald ash borer within a Province or Territory regulated for the emerald ash borer require a permit issued under § 319.40-2(a) and must be accompanied by a certificate with an additional declaration stating that the articles in the shipment were produced/harvested in a county or municipal regional county where the emerald ash borer does not occur, based on official surveys.
(3)Firewood of all hardwood (non-coniferous) species, and ash logs and wood, including cants and stumps, that originate in a Province or Territory that is not regulated for the emerald ash borer must be accompanied by an importer document that certifies that the article originated in a county or municipal regional county free of the emerald ash borer.
(4)The importation of ash wood chips or bark chips larger than 1 inch diameter in any two dimensions that originate in a county or municipal regional county regulated for the emerald ash borer within a Province or Territory regulated for the emerald ash borer is prohibited.
(5)Ash wood chips or bark 1 inch or less in diameter that originate in an area regulated for the emerald ash borer within a Province or Territory regulated for the emerald ash borer must be accompanied by a permit issued under § 319.40-2(a) and a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the wood or bark chips in the shipment were ground to 1 inch (2.54 cm) or less in diameter in any two dimensions.
(6)Ash wood chips or bark chips that originate in a county or municipal regional county not regulated for the emerald ash borer within a Province or Territory regulated for the emerald ash borer must be accompanied by a permit issued under § 319.40-2(a), and a valid certificate with an additional declaration stating that the articles in the shipment were produced/harvested in a county or municipal regional county where the emerald ash borer does not occur, based on official surveys.
(7)Ash wood chips or bark chips that originate in a Province or Territory that is not regulated for the emerald ash borer must be accompanied by an importer document that certifies that the article originates in a Province or Territory free of the emerald ash borer. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0579-0049, 0579-0257, and 0579-0319). Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of May 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-10562 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 94 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0104] Classical Swine Fever Status of the Mexican State of Nayarit AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations for importing animals and animal products by adding the Mexican State of Nayarit to the list of regions considered free of classical swine fever (CSF). We are also adding Nayarit to the list of CSF-free regions whose exports of live swine, pork, and pork products to the United States must meet certain certification requirements to ensure their freedom from CSF. These actions relieve restrictions on the importation into the United States of pork, pork products, live swine, and swine semen from Nayarit while continuing to protect against the introduction of this disease into the United States. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Chip Wells, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services-Import, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-4356. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 31, 2007, we published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 4463-4467, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0104) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations for importing animals and animal products in 9 CFR part 94 by adding the Mexican State of Nayarit to the list of regions considered free of classical swine fever
(CSF)in § 94.25, and adding Nayarit to the list of CSF-free regions in §§ 94.9 and 94.10 whose exports of live swine, pork, and pork products to the United States must meet certain certification requirements to ensure their freedom from CSF. 1 To view the proposed rule, go to * http://www.regulations.gov,* click on the “Advanced Search” tab, and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2006-0104, then click “Submit.” Clicking on the Docket ID link in the search results page will produce a list of all documents in the docket. On February 22, 2007, we published a document in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 7934, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0104) correcting two instances in the preamble of our proposed rule where we erroneously mentioned adding Nayarit to a list of CSF-affected regions, which we should have referred to as a list of CSF-free regions. We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending April 2, 2007. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change. Effective Date This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . This rule adds Nayarit to the lists of regions considered free of CSF and allows pork, pork products, live swine, 2 and swine semen to be imported into the United States from Nayarit, subject to certain conditions. We have determined that approximately 2 weeks are needed to ensure that Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, personnel at ports of entry receive official notice of this change in the regulations. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this rule should be effective 15 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . 2 APHIS considers all of Mexico to be affected by blue-eye disease of pigs, a disease which is not known to exist in the United States. APHIS has not evaluated Mexico, including the State of Nayarit, for blue-eye disease. As a result, APHIS denies permits for the importation of live swine and swine semen from all of Mexico, including Nayarit (9 CFR 93.504(a)(3)). CSF is the disease hazard evaluated in the risk analysis, which does not address blue-eye disease. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866. This rule amends the regulations for importing animals and animal products by adding the Mexican State of Nayarit to the list of regions considered free of CSF. We are taking this action at the request of the Mexican Government and the State of Nayarit and after conducting a risk evaluation that indicates that Nayarit is free of this disease. We are also adding Nayarit to a list of CSF-free regions whose exports of live swine, pork, and pork products to the United States must meet certain certification requirements to ensure their freedom from CSF. These actions relieve certain CSF-related restrictions on the importation into the United States of pork, pork products, live swine, and swine semen from Nayarit while continuing to protect against the introduction of this disease into the United States. This rule is likely to have a minimal effect on U.S. live swine markets, both in the short term and in the medium term. The hog inventory of Nayarit amounted to about four-tenths of 1 percent of U.S. hog and pig inventory in 2004. 3 In 2004, there were 34 commercial swine farms in Nayarit with a population of 30,634 hogs and pigs. Another 18,650 hogs and pigs were reared in backyards, intended for consumption by the owners (table 1). Nayarit has never exported swine to the United States. This State—as is the case with Mexico as a whole—is a net importer of swine (table 2). 3 APHIS Risk Analysis on Importation of Classical Swine Fever
(CSF)Virus from Nayarit, Mexico; Regional Evaluation Services, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, USDA; and USDA, FAS, GAIN Report # MX6010, Mexico, Livestock and Products, Semiannual Report 2006. In 2004, the State of Nayarit produced around 4,000 metric tons of pork, an amount equal to 0.35 percent of Mexico's production of pork (table 3). Slaughter/processing plants handling swine in Nayarit are not federally inspected
(TIF)establishments. Only TIF plants are allowed to ship pork and pork products abroad or to CSF-free States in Mexico. Table 1.—Live Hogs in Nayarit, 2000-2004, and Mexico as a Whole, 2004 Nayarit Hogs in commercial farms Hogs in backyard operations All hogs 2000 10,809 30,006 40,815 2001 36,799 29,587 66,386 2002 34,279 30,890 65,169 2003 36,665 25,010 61,675 2004 30,634 18,650 49,284 Mexico
(2004)26,208,000 (pig crop + beginning stocks) in both commercial and backyard operations. *Source:* SAGARPA; APHIS Risk Analysis on Importation of Classical Swine Fever
(CSF)Virus from Nayarit, Mexico; Regional Evaluation Services, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, USDA; and Regionalization Evaluation Services ( *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/reg-request.html* ), April 2006. This rulemaking is also unlikely to have a significant effect on U.S. pork and pork products markets because, as with live swine, the United States is unlikely to import large amounts of these commodities from Nayarit. The United States is a net exporter of pork, while Mexico, as indicated below in tables 2 and 3, is a net importer. In 2004, Mexico exported 36,000 metric tons of pork, averaging only around 3.2 percent of total Mexican pork production. Table 2.—U.S. and Mexican Trade With the World of Live Swine and Pork, 2004 Commodity Exports Imports Net trade with the world Live Swine (head): Mexican swine 0 189,867 189,867 (net imports).* U.S. swine 174,010 8,505,518 8,331,508 (net imports). Pork (metric tons): Mexican pork 36,476 86,102 49,626 (net imports). U.S. pork 747,357 469,442 277,916 (net exports). * Net imports = Imports minus exports; Net exports = Exports minus imports. *Source:* USDA, FAS, UN Trade Statistics, 6-digit data. Table 3.—Swine Production
(Head)and Pork Production (Metric Tons) in United States and Mexico, 2004 United States Swine Pork Mexico Swine Pork Nayarit, MX Swine Pork 60,000,000 9,302,759 15,350,000 1,150,000 49,000 4,080 *Source:* USDA, FAS, GAIN Report # MX6010, Mexico, Livestock and Products, Semiannual Report 2006. Economic Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the economic impact of their rules on small entities. The domestic entities most likely to be affected by declaring the Mexican State of Nayarit free of CSF are pork producers. According to the 2002 Agricultural Census, there were about 66,036 hog and pig farms in the United States in that year, of which 93 percent received $750,000 or less in annual revenues. Agricultural operations with $750,000 or less in annual receipts are considered small entities, according to the Small Business Administration size criteria. We do not expect that U.S. hog producers, U.S. exporters of live hogs, or U.S. exporters of pork and pork products, small or otherwise, will be affected significantly by this rule. This is because, for the reasons discussed above, the amount of live swine, pork, and other pork products imported into the United States from the Mexican State of Nayarit is likely to be small. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12988 This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. *This rule:*
(1)Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule;
(2)has no retroactive effect; and
(3)does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. National Environmental Policy Act An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared for this final rule. The environmental assessment provides a basis for the conclusion that adding the Mexican State of Nayarit to the list of regions considered free of CSF, and to the list of CSF-free regions whose exports of live swine, pork, and pork products to the United States must meet certain certification requirements to ensure their freedom from CSF, will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact were prepared in accordance with:
(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),
(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site. 4 Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are also available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead on
(202)690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 4 Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* click on the “Advanced Search” tab and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2006-0104, click “Submit,” then click on the Docket ID link in the search results page. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact will appear in the resulting list of documents. Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 94 as follows: PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 94 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. § 94.9 [Amended] 2. In § 94.9, paragraph
(a)is amended by adding the word “Nayarit,” after the word “Chihuahua,”. § 94.10 [Amended] 3. In § 94.10, paragraph
(a)is amended by adding the word “Nayarit,” after the word “Chihuahua,”. § 94.25 [Amended] 4. In § 94.25, paragraph
(a)is amended by adding the word “Nayarit,” after the word “Chihuahua,”. Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of May 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-10641 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 215 [Regulation O; Docket No. R-1271] Loans to Executive Officers, Directors, and Principal Shareholders of Member Banks AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Board is adopting amendments to the Board's Regulation O to eliminate certain reporting requirements. These amendments implement section 601 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006. DATES: Effective July 2, 2007 the interim rule published December 11, 2006 ( 71 FR 71472, Dec. 11, 2006), is adopted as final without change. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark E. Van Der Weide, Senior Counsel (202-452-2263), or Amanda K. Allexon, Attorney (202-452-3818), Legal Division. Users of Telecommunication Device for the Deaf
(TTD)only, contact
(202)263-4869. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act (“FRA”) restricts the ability of member banks to extend credit to their executive officers, directors, principal shareholders, and to related interests of such persons. 1 Section 22(g) of the FRA imposes some additional limitations on extensions of credit made by member banks to their executive officers. 2 Section 106(b)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970 (“BHC Act Amendments”) adds further restrictions on extensions of credit to an executive officer, director, or principal shareholder of a bank from a correspondent bank. 3 The Board's Regulation O implements sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the FRA, as well as section 106(b)(2) of the BHC Act Amendments. 4 Sections 22(g) and 22(h) and Regulation O apply, by their terms, to all banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System. 5 Other Federal law subjects Federally insured state non-member banks and Federally insured savings associations to sections 22(g) and 22(h) and Regulation O in the same manner and to the same extent as if they were member banks. 6 1 12 U.S.C. 375b. 2 12 U.S.C. 375a. 3 12 U.S.C. 1972(2). 4 12 CFR part 215. 5 Section 106(b)(2) of the BHC Act Amendments applies by its terms to insured banks, mutual savings banks, savings banks, and savings associations. 6 12 U.S.C. 1828(j), 1468(b); 12 CFR 563.43. Section 601 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (“Act”) (Pub. L. No. 109-351) removed several statutory reporting requirements relating to insider lending by member banks. These amendments, which became effective on October 13, 2006, eliminated the statutory provisions that: • Require a member bank to include a separate report with its quarterly Reports of Condition and Income (“Call Report”) on any extensions of credit the bank has made to its executive officers since its last Call Report (12 U.S.C. 375a(9)); • Require an executive officer of a member bank to file a report with the member bank's board of directors whenever the executive officer obtains an extension of credit from another bank in an amount that exceeds the amount the executive officer could obtain from the member bank (12 U.S.C. 375a(6)); • Require an executive officer or principal shareholder of a depository institution to file an annual report with the institution's board of directors during any year in which the officer or shareholder has an outstanding extension of credit from a correspondent bank of the institution (12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(G)(i)); and • Authorize the Federal banking agencies to issue regulations that require the reporting and public disclosure of information related to extensions of credit received by an executive officer or principal shareholder of a depository institution from a correspondent bank of the institution (12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(G)(ii)). In December 2006, the Board adopted, and sought public comment on, an interim rule that implemented the changes made by section 601 of the Act. 7 In particular, the interim rule eliminated: 7 71 FR 71472 (Dec. 11, 2006). • Section 215.9 of Regulation O, which requires an executive officer of a member bank to file a report with the member bank's board of directors whenever the executive officer obtains certain extensions of credit from another bank; • Section 215.10 of Regulation O, which requires a member bank to include a separate report with its quarterly Call Report on any extensions of credit the bank has made to its executive officers since its last Call Report; and • Subpart B of Regulation O, which requires the reporting and public disclosure of extensions of credit to an executive officer or principal shareholder of a member bank by a correspondent bank of the member bank. The interim rule also made minor conforming changes to Regulation O to reflect the removal of these provisions. Analysis of Comments and Description of Final Rule The Board received six comments on the interim rule: three from banks, two from bank trade associations, and one from an individual. The banks and trade associations supported the interim rule and the associated reduction in regulatory reporting burden. The individual commenter criticized the interim rule and stated that public reporting is an important device for preventing financial scandals. After reviewing the public comments on the interim rule, the Board has determined to adopt a final rule that is identical to the interim rule. Although the Board agrees that appropriate public reporting by depository institutions can be an effective mechanism of market discipline, the Board believes that elimination of these regulatory reporting requirements is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Act. In addition, the Board has long supported eliminating these reporting provisions because the Board has found that they did not contribute significantly to the effective monitoring of insider lending or the prevention of insider abuse. One commenter urged the Board to take steps to ensure that depository institutions recognize that section 601 of the Act and this final rule do not alter the underlying substantive insider lending restrictions in Federal law. The Board shares the concern expressed by this commenter. The Board notes that the changes made by section 601 and the final rule do *not* alter the substantive restrictions on loans by depository institutions to their executive officers and principal shareholders found in Regulation O. In addition, section 601 and the final rule do *not* alter the substantive restrictions on loans made to executive officers and principal shareholders of depository institutions by their correspondent banks found at 12 U.S.C. 1972(2). To address the shared concerns of the Board and this commenter, the Board has amended the scope section of Regulation O (12 CFR 215.1(b)(4)) to remind depository institutions of the correspondent bank insider lending restrictions. The Board also notes that elimination of these reporting requirements does not limit the authority of the appropriate Federal banking agency to take enforcement action against a depository institution or its insiders for violation of the Federal insider lending restrictions. Moreover, Regulation O would continue to require that a depository institution and its insiders maintain sufficient information to enable examiners to monitor the institution's compliance with the regulation, 8 and the Federal banking agencies would retain authority under other provisions of law to collect information regarding insider lending by depository institutions. 8 12 CFR 215.8. Two commenters requested that the Board eliminate section 215.5(d)(4) of Regulation O in light of the elimination of section 215.9 of the rule. Section 215.5(d)(4) of Regulation O requires a member bank to make any extension of credit to an executive officer “subject to the condition in writing that the extension of credit will, at the option of the member bank, become due and payable at any time that the officer is indebted to any other bank or banks” on non-mortgage, non-educational loans in excess of a specific dollar threshold (typically $100,000). 9 Section 215.9 of Regulation O previously required a member bank's executive officer to report to the bank's board of directors within 10 days of the date that the officer becomes indebted to other banks on non-mortgage, non-educational loans in excess of the same dollar threshold (typically $100,000). 9 12 CFR 215.5(d)(4). The “due on demand clause” requirement contained in section 215.5(d)(4) of Regulation O derives directly from section 22(g)(1)(D) of the Federal Reserve Act. 10 Accordingly, the Board does not have authority to eliminate this Federal insider lending restriction. The Board notes, however, that the continued existence of section 215.5(d)(4) does not make the elimination of section 215.9 ineffective. A bank must continue to include the section 215.5(d)(4) “due on demand” clause in each of its extensions of credit to executive officers, but Regulation O no longer requires the specific internal reporting regime of former section 215.9 to ensure the utility of the due on demand clause. Going forward, a bank may choose to ensure the effectiveness of the due on demand clause requirement in any reasonably prudent way. For example, a bank may comply with the requirement by mandating a periodic report from its executive officer borrowers. Alternatively, a bank may decide to obtain information about an executive officer borrower's indebtedness to other banks only at the time the bank would be interested in exercising the due on demand clause (for example, when the creditworthiness of the officer has dropped materially). Either of these methods could, based on all the facts and circumstances, be a reasonable way to ensure the utility of the due on demand clause requirement. 10 12 U.S.C. 375a(1)(D). The Board also has received numerous inquiries about how a bank can ensure compliance with the correspondent lending restrictions in 12 U.S.C. 1972(2), given that all related reporting requirements are being eliminated as part of this rulemaking. Briefly, the correspondent lending restrictions in 12 U.S.C. 1972(2) require, among other things, that extensions of credit by a bank to an insider of a correspondent bank be on market terms. In light of the elimination of the statutory and regulatory reporting requirements associated with 12 U.S.C. 1972(2), a bank may select any reasonably prudent method to ensure compliance with the restrictions. For example, a bank may establish policies and procedures to request additional information about a borrower's relationships with correspondent banks when the bank determines that a prospective extension of credit to the borrower will be on preferential terms. Finally, one commenter asked the Board to raise the $100,000 “other purpose” loan cap in section 215.5(c)(4) of Regulation O and to raise the $500,000 prior board approval threshold in section 215.4(b)(2) of the rule. 11 The Board has determined not to raise these dollar amounts as a part of this rulemaking but intends to consider raising these limits, in consultation with the other Federal banking agencies, in connection with an upcoming comprehensive review of Regulation O. 11 *See* 12 CFR 215.5(c)(4) and 215.4(b)(2). Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Board certifies that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Although the final rule would apply to all member banks regardless of their size, the rule would reduce the regulatory burden on member banks, including small member banks, by removing requirements to report certain types of extensions of credit to insiders and to insiders of correspondent banks. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The collections of information that are revised by this rulemaking are found in 12 CFR 215.9 and 215.10, and 12 CFR part 215, subpart B. This information previously was required to evidence compliance with the requirements of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 375a and 375b) and 12 U.S.C. 1972. The respondents/recordkeepers are for-profit financial institutions, including small businesses, and individuals. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number associated with 12 CFR 215.9 and 12 CFR part 215, subpart B was 7100-0034 (FFIEC 004). The OMB control number associated with 12 CFR 215.10 was 7100-0036 (FFIEC 031 and 041). The FFIEC 004 was discontinued as a result of this rule as of December 31, 2006. The total amount of annual burden estimated to be saved as a result of this aspect of the rule is 5,331 hours. The estimated annual cost savings are $239,895. In addition, the last page of the FFIEC 031 and 041 reporting forms (loans to executive officers), which is associated with 12 CFR 215.10, was eliminated as a result of this rule as of December 31, 2006. The total amount of annual burden estimated to be eliminated as a result of this aspect of the rule is 919 hours and there are estimated to be minimal cost savings. For the FFIEC 004, individual respondent financial information was regarded as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4),
(6)and (8)). However, until the passage of the Act and the issuance of the interim rule, upon request from the public the member bank was required to disclose the name of each executive officer and principal shareholder who, together with related interests, has loans from correspondent banks equal to a minimum of 5 percent of the member bank's capital and surplus, or $500,000, whichever was less. The FFIEC 031 and 041 data on loans to executive officers were not considered confidential. Five of the six commenters, representing banks and bank trade associations, supported the reduction in reporting burden associated with the interim rule. One individual's comment criticized the interim rule and noted that public reporting is an important device for preventing financial scandals. However, the Federal Reserve believes that the elimination of these reporting requirements is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Act, and will make the reporting changes, as proposed. The Federal Reserve has a continuing interest in the public's opinions of our collections of information. At any time, comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to: Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (7100-0034 or 7100-0036), Washington, DC 20503. Plain Language Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the Board to use “plain language” in all rules published in the **Federal Register** . The Board has sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 215 Credit, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority and Issuance For the reasons set out in the preamble, the interim rule published December 11, 2006 (71 FR 71472, Dec. 11, 2006) is adopted as final without change. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 25, 2007. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-10402 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Thrift Supervision 12 CFR Part 551 [Docket ID OTS-2007-0010] RIN 1550-AC16 Personal Transactions in Securities AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury. ACTION: Interim rule with request for comment. SUMMARY: Office of Thrift Supervision
(OTS)regulations, at 12 CFR 551.150(a), currently require certain officers and employees of savings associations to file reports of their personal securities transactions with the savings association within ten business days after the end of each calendar quarter. In this interim final rule, OTS is amending 12 CFR 551.150(a) to provide that such reports must be filed no later than 30 calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter. As a result of this amendment, the time period for officers and employees of savings associations to file the report will be consistent with the time period for persons in similar positions at investment companies to file such reports under regulations promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). DATES: This interim final rule is effective June 1, 2007. Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by OTS-2007-0010, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Office of Thrift Supervision” from the agency drop-down menu, then click submit. Select Docket ID “OTS-2007-0010 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials for this notice of proposed rulemaking. The “User Tips” link at the top of the page provides information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for submitting or viewing public comments, viewing other supporting and related materials, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period. • *Mail:* Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, *Attention:* OTS-2007-0010. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Guard's Desk, East Lobby Entrance, 1700 G Street, NW., from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on business days, *Attention:* Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, *Attention:* OTS-2007-0010. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be entered into the docket and posted on Regulations.gov without change, including any personal information provided. Comments, including attachments and other supporting materials received are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. *Viewing Comments Electronically:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Office of Thrift Supervision” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” Select Docket ID “OTS-2007-0010” to view public comments for this notice of proposed rulemaking. *Viewing Comments On-Site:* You may inspect comments at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To make an appointment for access, call
(202)906-5922, send an e-mail to *public.info@ots.treas.gov* , or send a facsimile transmission to
(202)906-6518. (Prior notice identifying the materials you will be requesting will assist us in serving you.) We schedule appointments on business days between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. In most cases, appointments will be available the next business day following the date we receive a request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judi McCormick,
(202)906-5636, Director, Consumer Protection & Specialty Programs, Examinations, Supervision & Consumer Protection; or David A. Permut,
(202)906-7505, Senior Attorney, Business Transactions Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On December 12, 2002, OTS issued a final rule specifying the recordkeeping and confirmation requirements for savings associations that effect securities transactions. 1 Among these regulatory requirements is a requirement that officers and employees of savings associations file a personal securities transaction report with the savings association, within ten business days of the end of each calendar quarter, if the officer or employee: 1 67 FR 76293 (December 12, 2002). • Makes investment recommendations or decisions for the accounts of customers; • Participates in the determination of these recommendations or decisions; or • In connection with his or her duties, obtains information concerning which securities the savings association intends to purchase, sell, or recommend for purchase or sale. 2 2 12 CFR 551.140(d)(1)-(3) (2007). OTS modeled this personal securities filing requirement on SEC Rule 17j-1, 3 which, at the time OTS established its recordkeeping and confirmation requirements, required personal securities trading reports to be filed within ten business days after the end of each calendar quarter. In July 2004, the SEC amended Rule 17j-1 to change the filing deadline from ten business days to 30 calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter. 4 The SEC amendment was in response to comments regarding the delay in obtaining personal financial statements on a timely basis. 3 See 67 FR 39886, 39889 (June 11, 2002). 4 69 FR 41696, 41699—fn. 34 (July 9, 2004). In this interim final rule, OTS is amending 12 CFR 551.150(a) to require officers and employees who are subject to the rule to file personal securities trading reports with OTS no later than 30 calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter. OTS believes it is appropriate to subject officers and employees of savings associations who are covered by the rule to requirements that are consistent with the requirements that the SEC has established for officers and employees of investment companies. Moreover, the amendment to the rule will result in more accurate reporting. The employees and officers impacted by the personal trading reporting requirement typically do not receive their quarterly statements from their brokers within ten business days of the end of any calendar quarter. The revised regulation will enable officers and employees covered by the rule to base their personal securities transactions reports on their most current brokerage statement. II. Solicitation of Comments A. Solicitation of Comments on the Interim Final Rule OTS is requesting comment on the interim final regulation. Specifically OTS seeks comment on:
(1)Does the interim final regulation accomplish its stated purposes?
(2)Does the interim final regulation create any ambiguities that were not present in the current regulation?
(3)Does the interim final regulation impose unnecessary regulatory burdens? B. Solicitation of Comments Regarding the Use of Plain Language Section 722 of GLBA requires federal banking agencies to use “plain language” in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. OTS believes the interim final rule change is presented in a simple and straightforward manner. III. Regulatory Findings A. Advance Notice and Public Comment Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)provides that notice and comment procedures are not required when an agency finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553. The original rule was intended to track the SEC rule. Subsequently the SEC changed the filing requirement from 10 to 30 days. It is appropriate for OTS to change its rule to conform to the SEC rule. No additional substantive burden is being added by this action, and the revision reduces regulatory burden by providing a longer period of time to file the required report. Accordingly, OTS finds that prior notice and public comment are unnecessary because the rule conforms OTS's regulation to the SEC's rules, and does not alter any substantive requirements. Although OTS has concluded that public notice and comment are not required for this interim final rule, it invites comments during the 60-day period following publication. In developing a final rule, OTS will consider all public comments it receives within that period. B. Effective Date Under section 553(d) of the APA, a rule may not be effective until 30 days after its publication. 5 This provision, however, does not apply where the agency finds good cause for making the rule effective immediately. For the reasons set forth above, and because the rule reduces regulatory burden, OTS finds that there is good cause for making this rule effective immediately. 5 12 U.S.C. 553(d). Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (CDRIA) 6 requires that new regulations and amendments to existing regulations take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date of publication of the rule. This delayed effective date provision, however, applies only if the rule imposes additional reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions. This rule imposes no additional reporting, disclosure or other requirements on any insured depository institution. Section 302 is inapplicable. 6 12 U.S.C. 4802. C. Paperwork Reduction Act OTS has determined that this interim final rule does not involve a change to collections of information previously approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). D. Executive Order 12866 The Director of OTS has determined that this interim final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866. E. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601), the Director certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The interim final rule would conform OTS rules to SEC rules and give affected officers and employees additional time to file certain required reports. Accordingly, OTS has determined that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 OTS has determined that the proposed rule will not result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments or by the private sector of $100 million or more and that a budgetary impact statement is not required under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates Act). The interim final rule would conform OTS rules to SEC rules and give affected officers and employees additional time to file certain required reports. The change should not have a significant impact on small institutions. Accordingly, a budgetary impact statement is not required under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 551 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities, Trusts and trustees. Authority and Issuance For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Thrift Supervision amends Chapter V of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: PART 551—RECORDKEEPING AND CONFIRMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS 1. The authority citation for 12 CFR part 551 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464. 2. Amend § 551.150(a) by removing the phrase “within ten business” and adding the phrase “no later than 30 calendar” in its place. Dated: May 25, 2007. By the Office of Thrift Supervision. John M. Reich, Director. [FR Doc. E7-10401 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6720-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27258; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-213-AD; Amendment 39-15074; AD 2007-11-17] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Model 500, 501, 550, 551, S550, 560, 560XL, and 750 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Cessna Model 500, 550, S550, 560, 560XL, and 750 airplanes. That AD currently requires installing identification sleeves on the wires for the positive and negative terminal studs of the engine and/or auxiliary power unit
(APU)fire extinguishing bottles, as applicable, and re-connecting the wires to the correct terminal studs. This new AD retains the requirements of the existing AD; adds airplanes to the applicability; and, for certain airplanes only, requires a review of wiring changes made using the original issue of one service bulletin and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from a determination that additional airplanes are subject to the unsafe condition described in the existing AD. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the fire extinguishing bottles are activated in the event of an engine or APU fire, and that flammable fluids are not supplied during a fire, which could result in an unextinguished fire in the nacelle or APU. DATES: This AD becomes effective July 6, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of July 6, 2007. On March 24, 2006 (71 FR 8443, February 17, 2006), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in the AD. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trenton Shepherd, Mechanical Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone
(316)946-4143; fax
(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive
(AD)docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-04-10, amendment 39-14491 (71 FR 8443, February 17, 2006). The existing AD applies to certain Cessna Model 500, 550, S550, 560, 560XL, and 750 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on February 15, 2007 (72 FR 7357). That NPRM proposed to require installing identification sleeves on the wires for the positive and negative terminal studs of the engine and/or auxiliary power unit fire extinguishing bottles, as applicable, and re-connecting the wires to the correct terminal studs. That NPRM also proposed to retain the requirements of the existing AD; add airplanes to the applicability; and, for certain airplanes only, require a review of wiring changes made using the original issue of one service bulletin and corrective actions if necessary. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been received on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 3,801 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet, including about 3,071 airplanes of U.S. Registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Cessna model Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost 500, 550, S550, and 560 airplanes (action required by AD 2006-04-10) Re-identify and reconnect wires 3 $50 $290 1,827 $529,830 560XL airplanes (action required by AD 2006-04-10) Re-identify and reconnect wires 4 100 420 331 139,020 750 airplanes (action required by AD 2006-04-10) Re-identify and reconnect wires 2 25 185 211 39,035 501 and 551 airplanes (action required by this AD) Re-identify and reconnect wires 3 50 290 702 203,580 500 airplanes (action required by this AD) Verify wiring changes 1 No parts required 80 195 15,600 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 regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14491 (71 FR 8443, February 17, 2006) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-11-17 Cessna Aircraft Company:** Amendment 39-15074. Docket No. FAA-2007-27258; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-213-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective July 6, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-04-10. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Cessna Model 500, 501, 550, 551, S550, 560, 560XL, and 750 airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in the service bulletins specified in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Cessna Service Bulletins Cessna Service Bulletin Revision Date Cessna model SB500-26-02, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data, dated April 1, 2005 1 July 7, 2005 500/501 airplanes. SB500-26-02 Original April 1, 2005 500/501 airplanes. SB550-26-05 Original April 1, 2005 550/551 airplanes. SB560-26-01 Original April 1, 2005 560 airplanes. SB560XL-26-02 1 December 22, 2004 560XL airplanes. SB750-26-05 Original November 24, 2004 750 airplanes. SBS550-26-02 Original April 1, 2005 S550 airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of mis-wired fire extinguishing bottles. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the fire extinguishing bottles are activated in the event of an engine or auxiliary power unit
(APU)fire, and that flammable fluids are not supplied during a fire, which could result in an unextinguished fire in the nacelle or APU. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Requirements of AD 2006-04-10 Installation
(f)For Model 500, 550, S550, 560, 560XL, and 750 airplanes: Within 100 flight hours or 60 days after March 24, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-04-10), whichever occurs first, install identification sleeves on the wires for the positive and negative terminal studs of the applicable fire extinguishing bottles identified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD; re-connect the wires to the correct studs; test the connection; and re-connect the wires again as applicable until the connection tests correctly. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD; except that, for Model 500 airplanes, Cessna Service Bulletin SB500-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 7, 2005, may be used. After the effective date of this AD, only Cessna Service Bulletin SB500-26-02, Revision 1, may be used to accomplish the requirements of this paragraph for Model 500 airplanes.
(1)For Cessna Model 500, 550, S550, and 560 airplanes: The engine fire extinguishing bottles.
(2)For Cessna Model 560XL airplanes: The engine and the APU fire extinguishing bottles.
(3)For Cessna Model 750 airplanes: The APU fire extinguishing bottle. Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Earlier Revision of Service Bulletin
(g)For Model 560XL airplanes: Actions done before March 24, 2006, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Cessna Service Bulletin SB560XL-26-02, dated November 22, 2004, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions in this AD. New Requirements of This AD Actions for Additional Airplane Models
(h)For Model 501 and 551 airplanes: Within 100 flight hours or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do the actions required by paragraph
(f)of this AD for the engine fire extinguishing bottles in accordance with Cessna Service Bulletin SB500-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 7, 2005; or Cessna Service Bulletin SB550-26-05, dated April 1, 2005; as applicable. Verification of Actions Accomplished Using Original Issue of Service Bulletin
(i)For Model 500 airplanes on which the actions specified in Cessna Service Bulletin SB500-26-02, dated April 1, 2005, have been done before the effective date of this AD: Within 100 flight hours or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, verify that wiring changes previously done in accordance with Cessna Service Bulletin SB500-26-02, dated April 1, 2005, conform to the changes described in Cessna Service Bulletin SB500-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 7, 2005; and, if any non-conforming wiring changes are discovered, before further flight, correct the wiring changes as applicable to conform to the changes described in Cessna Service Bulletin SB500-26-02, Revision 1, dated July 7, 2005. No Reporting Requirement
(j)Although the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD describe procedures for submitting a maintenance transaction report to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action. Parts Installation
(k)At the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a fire extinguishing bottle unless identification sleeves on the wires for the positive and negative terminal studs have been installed in accordance with paragraph
(f)or
(h)of this AD, as applicable.
(1)For Model 500, 550, S550, 560, 560XL, and 750 airplanes: After March 24, 2006.
(2)For Model 501 and 551 airplanes: After the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Material Incorporated by Reference
(m)You must use the service information listed in Table 2 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Table 2.—All Material Incorporated by Reference Cessna Service Bulletin Revision level Date SB500-26-02, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data Original April 1, 2005. SB500-26-02, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data, dated April 1, 2005 1 July 7, 2005. SB550-26-05, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data Original April 1, 2005. SB560-26-01, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data Original April 1, 2005. SB560XL-26-02, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data, dated November 22, 2004, and excluding Attachment 1 December 22, 2004. SB750-26-05, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data Original November 24, 2004. SBS550-26-02, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data Original April 1, 2005.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of Cessna Service Bulletin SB500-26-02, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data, Revision 1, dated July 7, 2005, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)On March 24, 2006 (71 FR 8443, February 17, 2006), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in Table 3 of this AD. Table 3.—Material Previously Incorporated by Reference Cessna Service Bulletin Revision level Date SB500-26-02, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data Original April 1, 2005. SB550-26-05, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data Original April 1, 2005. SB560-26-01, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data Original April 1, 2005. SB560XL-26-02, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data, dated November 22, 2004, and excluding Attachment 1 December 22, 2004. SB750-26-05, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data Original November 24, 2004. SBS550-26-02, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data Original April 1, 2005.
(3)Contact Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; 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 Renton, Washington, on May 21, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-10214 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-07-027] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations for the “Carolina Cup Regatta”, a power boat race to be held on the waters of the Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, North Carolina. 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 portions on the Pasquotank River adjacent to Elizabeth City, North Carolina during the power boat race. DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. on June 9, 2007 through 7 p.m. on June 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD05-07-027) 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: CWO Humphrey, Marine Event Coordinator, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina at
(252)247-4525. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On April 12, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, North Carolina in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 18424). 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, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. However advance notifications will be made to affected waterway users via marine information broadcasts, local radio stations and area newspapers. Background and Purpose On June 9 and 10, 2007, the Virginia Boat Racing Association will sponsor the “Carolina Cup Regatta”, on the waters of the Pasquotank River. The event will consist of approximately 60 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 Pasquotank River, near Elizabeth City, North Carolina. 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 would prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Pasquotank River adjacent to Elizabeth City, North Carolina during the event, the effects of this regulation would not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area would be in effect. Extensive advance notifications would be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcast, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Vessel traffic would be able to transit the regulated area between heats, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. 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 temporary rule would 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 or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Pasquotank River 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 will be enforced for only a short period, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 9 and 10, 2007. The regulated area will apply to a segment of the Pasquotank River adjacent to the Elizabeth City waterfront. Marine 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 will be required to proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we would 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 temporary rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 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 temporary rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this temporary 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)(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 proposes to amend 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 temporary § 100.35-T05-027 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-027 Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, NC.
(a)*Regulated area* . The regulated area is established for the waters of the Pasquotank River, adjacent to Elizabeth City, NC, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the west by the Elizabeth City Draw Bridge and bounded on the east by a line originating at a point along the shoreline at latitude 36°17′54″ N., longitude 076°12′00″ W., thence southwesterly to latitude 36°17′35″ N., longitude 076°12′18″ W. at Cottage Point. 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 North Carolina.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(3)*Participant* includes all vessels participating in the “Carolina Cup Regatta” under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.
(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 shall:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.
(ii)All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.
(iii)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 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 9 and 10, 2007. Dated: May 21, 2007. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-10511 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-07-029] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Roanoke River, Plymouth, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing special local regulations during the “Plymouth Drag Boat Race Series”, a series of power boat races to be held on the waters of the Roanoke River, Plymouth, North Carolina. 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 portions of the Roanoke River adjacent to Plymouth, North Carolina during the power boat race. DATES: This rule is effective from 10 a.m. on June 24, 2007 through 8:30 p.m. on October 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD05-07-029) 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: CWO Christopher Humphrey, Prevention Department, Sector North Carolina, at (252)247-4525 or via e-mail to *Christopher.D.Humphrey@uscg.mil.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On April 9, 2007, we published a Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Roanoke River, Plymouth, North Carolina in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 17456). 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, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. However advance notifications will be made to affected waterway users via marine information broadcasts, local radio stations and area newspapers. Background and Purpose The Outboard Drag Boat Association will be sponsoring a series of seven
(7)power boat racing events titled the “Plymouth Drag Boat Race”. The power boat races will be held on the following dates: June 24, July 22, August 11, 12, 19, September 30 and October 21, 2007. The regulated area for the races includes a section of the Roanoke River approximately one mile long and bounded in width by each shoreline, immediately adjacent to Plymouth, North Carolina. The power boat races will consist of approximately
(30)vessels conducting high speed straight line runs along the river and parallel with the shoreline. A fleet of spectator vessels are expected to gather near the event site to view the competition. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during the power boat races. 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 Roanoke River, near Plymouth, North Carolina. 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 portion of the Roanoke River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notification that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcast, local radio stations and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary. Vessel traffic will be able to transit the regulated area between heats, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. 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: Owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Roanoke River from 10 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on June 24, July 22, August 11, 12, 19, September 30 and October 21, 2007. This rule would not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the regulated area will apply to a one mile segment of the Roanoke River, 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. The Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit the area between races. 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. 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 North Carolina, listed at the beginning of this rule. 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 guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” is 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 temporary § 100.35-T05-029 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-029 Roanoke River, Plymouth, North Carolina.
(a)*Regulated area.* The regulated area includes all waters of Roanoke River commencing at the north river bank at latitude 35°52′20″ N, longitude 076°44′47″ W, thence a line 180 degree due south across the river to the shoreline thence west along the shoreline to a position located at latitude 35°51′43″ N, longitude 076°43′45″ W, thence 000 degrees due north across the river to the shoreline thence east 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 North Carolina.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(c)*Special local regulations:*
(1)Except for 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 shall:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol.
(ii)Proceed as directed by any official patrol.
(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 10 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on June 24, July 22, August 11, 12, 19, September 30 and October 21, 2007. Dated: May 21, 2007. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-10516 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD11-07-010] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Burns Cutoff, Stockton, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation regulation for the draw of the Daggett Road drawbridge across Burns Cutoff, mile 3.0, at Stockton, California. The existing bridge has been removed from service and is being kept in the open-to-navigation position until its removal in the fall of 2007. A fixed replacement bridge has been constructed on the same alignment, therefore the regulation controlling the opening and closing of the drawbridge is no longer necessary. DATES: This rule is effective June 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD11-07-010 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpw), Eleventh Coast Guard District, Building 50-2, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501-5100, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District, telephone
(510)437-3516. SUPPLEMENTARY 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. Public comment is not necessary since the drawbridge that the regulation governed is out of service (remains in the open to navigation position) and will be removed in the fall of 2007. The drawbridge no longer affects navigation through the area. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . There is no need to delay the implementation of this rule because the drawbridge it governs no longer affects navigation. Background and Purpose The existing drawbridge across Burns Cutoff, mile 3.0, which had previously serviced the area is being kept in the open-to-navigation position and will be removed in the fall of 2007. It no longer affects navigation. The regulation governing the operation of the drawbridge is found in 33 CFR 117.145. The purpose of this rule is to remove 33 CFR 117.145 from the Code of Federal Regulations since it governs a drawbridge that is no longer in service and will be removed in Fall of 2007. This final rule removes the regulation regarding the Daggett Road drawbridge. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This rule removes the special regulation for a bridge that is already out of service. 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 have no impact on any small entities because the regulation being removed applies to a bridge that has already been taken out of service and will be removed in the fall of 2007. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding the 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 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 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 (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule affects a carriage requirement. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), 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 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. § 117.145 [Removed] 2. Remove § 117.145. Dated: May 23, 2007. J.A. Breckenridge, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-10564 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD11-07-011] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; California Route 12 Drawbridge, Near Isleton, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the California Route 12 Drawbridge across the Mokelumne River, mile 3.0, near Isleton, CA. The deviation is necessary for the bridge owner, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to perform scheduled roadway maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position Monday through Thursday, 7 p.m. to 6 a.m., Saturdays 12:01 a.m. to 6 a.m., and Sundays 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 p.m. on June 4, 2007 through 6 a.m. on September 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpw), Eleventh Coast Guard District, Building 50-2, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501-5100, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(510)437-3516. The Eleventh Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District, telephone
(510)437-3516. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Caltrans requested a temporary change to the operation of the California Route 12 Drawbridge, mile 3.0, Mokelumne River, near Isleton, CA. The California Route 12 Drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 7 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., except that during the following periods the draw need only open for recreational vessels on the hour, 20 minutes past the hour, and 40 minutes past the hour; Saturdays 10 a.m. until 2 p.m.; Sundays 11 a.m. until 6 p.m.; Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day, 11 a.m. until 6 p.m. At all other times, it opens on signal if at least four hours notice is given as required by 33 CFR 117.175. Navigation on the waterway is recreational, search and rescue and commercial traffic hauling materials for levee repair. This deviation is effective from 7 p.m. on June 4, 2007 through 6 a.m. on September 15, 2007. Caltrans requested the drawspan be secured in the closed-to-navigation position Monday through Thursday, 7 p.m. to 6 a.m., Saturdays 12:01 a.m. to 6 a.m., and Sundays 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The drawspan will resume normal operations, for holidays, July 2, 2007 through July 7, 2007 and September 2, 2007 through September 5, 2007. During the temporary deviation period, the bridge roadway surface will be rehabilitated. This work can only be conducted during periods of moderate temperatures and low humidity. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No party has indicated this work would have a significant impact on their operations. Alternate routes are available for vessels while the drawspan is secured in the closed-to-navigation position. Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation position, may continue to do so at any time. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must 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 22, 2007. J.A. Breckenridge, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-10572 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-025] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Thunder on the Niagara, Niagara River, North Tonawanda, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone encompassing the navigable waters of the upper Niagara River by Gratwick Riverside Park in North Tonawanda, NY. This safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a powerboat race. This safety zone restricts vessel traffic from a portion of the Niagara River at Gratwick Riverside Park, North Tonawanda, NY. DATES: This rule is in effect from 11 a.m. on June 2 to 6 p.m. on June 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of the docket CGD09-07-025, and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Blvd, Buffalo, New York 14203 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Tracy Wirth, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, at
(716)843-9573. 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 permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest or ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose Temporary safety zones are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from the hazards associated with powerboat races. Based on recent accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, the Captain of the Port Buffalo, has determined powerboat races pose significant risks to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreational vessels, congested waterways, and alcohol use, could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Discussion of Rule The proposed safety zone consists of all navigable waters of the Upper Niagara River located at 42°03′36″ N, 078°54′45″ W to 43°03′09″ N, 078°55′21″ W to 43°03′00″ N, 078°53′42″ W to 43°02′42″ N, 078°54′09″ W and return. All Geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). The size of this proposed zone was determined using the location of the race course approved by the Captain of the Port Buffalo and local knowledge concerning wind, waves, and currents. 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 this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo 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 this rule under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed 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 in areas where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zone's activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will 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 may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of The Niagara River, North Tonawanda, NY between 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. on June 2 and June 3, 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 seven hours for each 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 Buffalo 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 (Pub. L. 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). 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 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 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 encourage to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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, 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 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. A new temporary § 165.T09-025 is added as follows: § 165.T09-025 Safety Zone Thunder on the Niagara, Niagara River, North Tonawanda, NY.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters and the adjacent shoreline of the Upper Niagara River, North Tonawanda, NY within two miles northeast of the Grand Island Bridge (42° 03′36″ N, 078° 54′45″ W to 43° 03′09″ N, 078° 55′21″ W to 43° 03′00″ N, 078° 53′42″ W to 43° 02′42″ N, 078° 54′09″ W and return). All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
(b)*Effective period.* This regulation is in effect from 11 a.m. on June 2 to 6 p.m. on June 3, 2007. This regulation will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 2 and 3, 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 Buffalo, or the 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 Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or the on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all direction given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative. Dated: May 18, 2007. S.J. Ferguson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo. [FR Doc. E7-10500 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917; FRL-8320-8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Redesignation of the Richmond-Petersburg 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is requesting that the Richmond-Petersburg nonattainment area (herein referred to as the “Richmond Area” or the “Area”) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In conjunction with its redesignation request, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for the Richmond Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11 years, until 2018. Concurrently, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is not taking final action in this rulemaking on the Commonwealth's request that the 8-hour maintenance plan supersede the previous maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard. EPA is also approving the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Richmond 8-hour maintenance plan for purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is also approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Area. EPA is approving the redesignation request, the maintenance plan, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory as revisions to the Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on June 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio,
(215)814-2156, or by e-mail at *caprio.amy@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18434), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Virginia. On May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26581), EPA published a correction to the NPR. The correction to the NPR fixed Table 5 in the original NPR. The NPR proposed approval of Virginia's redesignation request, a SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Richmond Area that sets forth how the Richmond Area will maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11 years, and a 2002 base year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by the VADEQ on September 18, 2006, September 20, 2006, September 25, 2006 and supplements on November 17, 2006 and February 13, 2007. Other specific requirements of Virginia's redesignation request SIP revision for the maintenance plan and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. On May 14, 2007, EPA received a comment, from Dominion Resources Services, Inc., in support of its April 12, 2007 NPR. Also, On May 11, 2007, EPA received adverse comments on the said April 12, 2007 NPR. A summary of the comments submitted and EPA's responses are provided in Section II of this document. II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses *Comment:* The commenter states that Dominion Resources Services, Inc. supports EPA's redesignation proposal for the Richmond-Petersburg Area and urges EPA to move forward with a final redesignation rulemaking. *Response:* EPA acknowledges the comment of support for our final action. *Comment:* We received comments that claimed Virginia had not fulfilled all applicable Part D requirements *under the 8-hour NAAQS* . Specifically, the comments claimed that because the Richmond area was initially designated as a moderate nonattainment area Virginia was required to have provisions in the SIP for the following three control technique guidelines (CTGs):
(1)Reactor Processes and Distillation Processes (notice of release: 58 FR 60197, November 15, 1993);
(2)Wood Furniture manufacturing Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 25223, May 20, 1996); and,
(3)Shipbuilding and Ship repair Surface Coating Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996). *Response:* EPA disagrees with the comment. While the Richmond area was initially classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23858), the area was reclassified as marginal by a September 22, 2004 final rule (69 FR 56697) pursuant to the authority of section 181(a)(4) of the CAA. Under section 181(a)(4), an ozone nonattainment area may be reclassified “if an area classified under paragraph
(1)(Table 1) would have been classified in another category if the design value in the area were 5 percent greater or 5 percent less than the level on which such classification was based.” *See* 69 FR at 56700, September 22, 2004. Under subpart 2 to Part D, the classification of an ozone nonattainment area has three main consequences: First, certain control programs, required SIP submissions and other requirements are mandated by section 182; second, the area receives a statutorily mandated attainment date pursuant to section 181; and, last, in the case of marginal areas, certain requirements under section 172(c), such as an attainment demonstration or contingency measures, are not applicable. In addition, with respect to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), section 182(a)(2)(A), which sets forth the specifics of the applicable Part D requirements for marginal areas, only requires states correct certain deficiencies in their RACT SIP which were required prior to enactment of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA on November 15, 1990. With respect to CTG RACT requirements, section 182(a)(2)(A) required correction of deficiencies in rules to implement CTGs issued before November 15, 1990. In contrast, for moderate areas section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires among other things implementation of RACT for any existing sources covered by any CTG issued by EPA after November 15, 1990 until the date of attainment. The CTGs specified in the comment were all issued after November 15, 1990 and therefore not subject to section 182(a)(2)(A). *Comment:* We received comments that claimed Virginia had not fulfilled all applicable Part D requirements *under the 1-hour NAAQS* . Specifically, the comments claimed that because the Richmond area was designated as a moderate nonattainment area Virginia was required to have provisions in the SIP for the following three control technique guidelines (CTGs):
(1)Reactor Processes and Distillation Processes (notice of release: 58 FR 60197, November 15, 1993);
(2)Wood Furniture manufacturing Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 25223, May 20, 1996); and,
(3)Shipbuilding and Ship repair Surface Coating Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996). *Response:* EPA redesignated the Richmond nonattainment area from nonattainment for attainment for the 1-hour NAAQS on November 17, 1997. In that action, EPA made a final determination that the area had fulfilled all applicable Part D requirements. We have not re-opened that issue in the context of this rulemaking. *Comment:* The commenter states that the April 12, 2007 **Federal Register** states that EPA “. . . notified Virginia that it was required to implement the contingency measures contained in the SIP approved maintenance plan” (referring to the 1-hour ozone plan). The commenter states that there were violations of the 1-hour ozone standard in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The commenter requests clarification whether contingency measures for the 1-hour ozone violations were implemented. *Response:* EPA asserts that implementation of previous contingency measures for the 1-hour ozone standard is irrelevant to the approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request. The Richmond Area is currently in attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard. The redesignation of the Richmond Area for the 1-hour ozone standard (62 FR 61237, November 17, 1997) addressed the 1-hour ozone requirements adequate for redesignation of the 1-hour ozone standard. The status of contingency measures for the 1-hour maintenance plan is not an applicable Part D requirement for implementation of or redesignation for the 8-hour ozone standard and therefore is not relevant to this action. However, in response to the request for clarification, several inaccuracies in the comment are of note. First, the commenter incorrectly references the April 12, 2007 **Federal Register** . The statement quoted is not found in the April 12, 2007 **Federal Register** notice of proposed rulemaking, nor in any of the supporting documents associated with the proposed 8-hour ozone redesignation request for the Richmond Area. The statement is actually found in an unrelated proposed rule dated October 7, 2002, pertaining to revisions to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. This proposed rule was not finalized. Second, the commenter incorrectly reports the violations of the 1-hour standard. There were violations of the 1-hour NAAQS only in the years 1998, 1999 and 2002. Regarding the implementation of contingency measures for these 1-hour ozone violations, in response to the 1998 and 1999 violations, open burning restrictions were implemented by a state regulation as a contingency measure in 2000. Also, the Commonwealth implemented additional control measures, including the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call, after the 2002 1-hour ozone violation. *Comment:* The commenter states that the Henrico County Monitor measured exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard during the 2005 and 2006 ozone season and that EPA should either delay final approval of the redesignation request until the end of the 2007 ozone season to determine if this monitor shows a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, or EPA should conduct an evaluation on whether this monitor is projected to have no more than three exceedances during 2007. *Response:* EPA acknowledges that preliminary 2006 air quality data indicates a fourth high value of 0.086 parts per million
(ppm)at the Henrico County monitor. 1 However, in accordance with Appendix I to 40 CFR part 50, compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met at an ambient air monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm; it is not based on the number of days which exceed the 8-hour ozone standard. 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I. The preliminary four highest 8-hour ozone monitoring values at the Henrico County, Virginia monitor (one of the monitors located in the Richmond Area) for 2006 were 0.097 ppm, 0.096 ppm, 0.086 ppm, and 0.086 ppm. The design value at the Henrico County monitor for monitoring years 2003-2005 shows attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS with a design value of 0.080 ppm. In addition, preliminary 2004-2006 air quality data indicate that the Henrico County monitor continues to show attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS with a design value of 0.081 ppm. Thus exceedances at this monitor did not prevent the area from reaching and continuing to show attainment of the 8-hour standard. Preliminary data from other monitors in the area also showed attainment. See Table 1 below for preliminary 2006 air quality monitoring data. 1 It should be noted that the Hanover County Monitor was the design value monitor during monitoring years 2003-2005 having a design value of 0.082 ppm. Table 1.—Richmond Monitors, Preliminary Fourth Highest ­8-Hour Ozone Concentrations [Parts per million (ppm)] Monitor AQS ID No. 2006 Chesterfield County 510410004 0.077 Henrico County 510870014 0.086 Hanover County 510850003 0.082 Charles City County 510360002 0.081 The Chesterfield County monitor would have an 8-hour design value for 2004-2006 of 0.076 ppm. The Henrico County monitor would have an 8-hour design value for 2004-2006 of 0.081 ppm. The Hanover County monitor would have an 8-hour design value for 2004-2006 of 0.081. The Charles City County monitor would have an 8-hour design value for 2004-2006 of 0.080. These preliminary data and design values show that the site-specific ozone design values (average fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations over the period of 2004-2006) for all monitoring sites in the Richmond Area are below 0.084 ppm. Therefore, the EPA believes that the Richmond Area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. With regard to delaying approval of the Richmond Area redesignation request and conducting an evaluation of the monitor, EPA may redesignate an Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if three years of quality assured data indicate that the Area has attained the standard. The most recent quality-assured air quality data indicates that the Area is attaining the standard and preliminary data for 2006 show that the Area is still attaining the standard at the time of the redesignation. EPA has determined that the Richmond Area has attained the 8-hour standard and has met all of the applicable requirements for redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. 2 The Commonwealth's maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area is projected to maintain the standard. Consistent with the requirements of section 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, the Commonwealth has submitted a maintenance plan for the Richmond Area for the 8-hour ozone standard which shows continued maintenance and continuing reductions in NO <sup>X</sup> and VOC emissions through 2018 further decreasing peak ozone levels and maintaining ozone attainment. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the contingency measure provisions required by section 175A(d), the CAA clearly anticipates and provides for situations where an area might monitor a violation of the NAAQS after having been redesignated to attainment. The Commonwealth has included contingency measure provisions consistent with CAA requirements in its maintenance plan to address any possible future violation of the NAAQS. 2 Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, allows for redesignation, providing that:
(1)EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2)EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k);
(3)EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;
(4)EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
(5)The State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D. EPA believes that the contingency measures, which are a component of the maintenance plan, set forth the steps that the Commonwealth will undertake to preserve attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard if air quality indicators show that the air quality of the Richmond Area has declined to the point when contingency measures to reverse that deterioration of air quality should begin being implemented. Thus, for all the above reasons, EPA sees no reason to delay approval of the Commonwealth's redesignation request. III. Final Action EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's redesignation request, maintenance plan, and 2002 base year emissions inventory because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has evaluated Virginia's redesignation request, submitted on September 20, 2006, and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Richmond Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of the Richmond Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for the Richmond Area, submitted on September 25, 2006, as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is approving the 8-hour maintenance plan for the Richmond Area because it meets the requirements of section 175A. EPA is not taking final action in this rulemaking on the Commonwealth's request that the 8-hour maintenance plan supersede the previous 1-hour maintenance plan. EPA is approving the MVEBs submitted by Virginia in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is also approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory, submitted on September 18, 2006 and supplemented by VADEQ on November 17, 2006 and February 13, 2007, as a revision to the Virginia SIP. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for NO <sup>X</sup> and VOCs in the Richmond Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, the Cities of Petersburg, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, and the Counties of Prince George, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Charles City, Virginia must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity determinations. The adequate and approved MVEBs are provided in the following table: Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) in Tons per Day
(TPD)Budget year NO <sup>X</sup> VOC 2011 43.661 32.343 2018 26.827 23.845 Richmond is subject to the CAA's requirements for marginal ozone nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This final rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This final rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, to approve the redesignation request, maintenance plan, adequacy determination for MVEBs, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Richmond Area, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: May 25, 2007. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(e)is amended by adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, Richmond-Petersburg, VA Area at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2420 Identification of plan.
(e)* * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory Richmond-Petersburg, VA Area 9/18/06; 9/20/06; 9/25/06; 11/17/06; ­2/13/07 6/1/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] PART 81—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 4. In § 81.347 the table entitled “Virginia—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for the Richmond-Petersburg, VA area to read as follows: § 81.347 Virginia Virginia—Ozone [8-hour standard] Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Richmond-Petersburg, VA Area Charles City County 6/18/07 Attainment Chesterfield County 6/18/07 Attainment Colonial Heights City 6/18/07 Attainment Hanover County 6/18/07 Attainment Henrico County 6/18/07 Attainment Hopewell City 6/18/07 Attainment Petersburg City 6/18/07 Attainment Prince George County 6/18/07 Attainment Richmond City 6/18/07 Attainment * * * * * * * a Includes Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise noted. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E7-10582 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0919; FRL-8320-9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Redesignation of the Hampton Roads 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is requesting that the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News (Hampton Roads) nonattainment area (herein referred to as the “Hampton Roads Area” or the “Area”) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In conjunction with its redesignation request, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for the Hampton Roads Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11 years, until 2018. Concurrently, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's request that the 8-hour maintenance plan supersede the previous 1-hour maintenance plan. EPA is also approving the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Hampton Roads 8-hour maintenance plan for purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is also approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Area. EPA is approving the redesignation request, the maintenance plan, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory as revisions to the Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on June 1, 2007 pursuant to the authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0919. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio,
(215)814-2156, or by e-mail at *caprio.amy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On April 13, 2007 (72 FR 18602), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of Virginia's redesignation request, a SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Hampton Roads Area that sets forth how the Hampton Roads Area will maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11 years, and a 2002 base year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by the VADEQ on October 12, 2006, October 16, 2006, October 18, 2006, and supplemented on November 20, 2006 and February 13, 2007. Other specific requirements of Virginia's redesignation request SIP revision for the maintenance plan and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. II. Final Action EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's redesignation request, maintenance plan, and 2002 base year emissions inventory because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has evaluated Virginia's redesignation request, submitted on October 16, 2006, and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Hampton Roads Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of the Hampton Roads Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for the Hampton Roads Area, submitted on October 18, 2006, as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Hampton Roads Area because it meets the requirements of section 175A. EPA is approving the Commonwealth's request that the 8-hour maintenance plan supersede the previous 1-hour maintenance plan. EPA is approving the MVEBs submitted by Virginia in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is also approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory, submitted on October 12, 2006 supplemented by VADEQ on November 20, 2006 and February 13, 2007, as a revision to the Virginia SIP. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for NO <sup>X</sup> and VOCs in the Hampton Roads Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, the Cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg, and the Counties of Isle of Wight, James City, and York, Virginia must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity determinations. The adequate and approved MVEBs are provided in the following table: Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) in Tons per Day
(TPD)Budget year NO <sup>X</sup> VOC 2011 50.387 37.846 2018 31.890 27.574 Hampton Roads is subject to the CAA's requirements for marginal ozone nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This final rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This final rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, to approve the redesignation request, maintenance plan, adequacy determination for MVEBs, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Hampton Roads Area, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: May 17, 2007. W.T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(e)is amended by adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News (Hampton Roads), VA Area at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2420 Identification of plan. (e)* * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News (Hampton Roads), VA Area 10/12/06; 10/16/06; 10/18/06; 11/20/06; 2/13/07 6/1/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] PART 81—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 4. In § 81.347 the table entitled “Virginia—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News (Hampton Roads), VA area to read as follows: § 81.347 Virginia. Virginia—Ozone [8-hour standard] Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/Classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News (Hampton Roads), VA Area Chesapeake City 6/1/07 Attainment Gloucester County 6/1/07 Attainment Hampton City 6/1/07 Attainment Isle of Wight County 6/1/07 Attainment James City County 6/1/07 Attainment Newport News City 6/1/07 Attainment Norfolk City 6/1/07 Attainment Poquoson City 6/1/07 Attainment Portsmouth City 6/1/07 Attainment Suffolk City 6/1/07 Attainment Virginia Beach City 6/1/07 Attainment Williamsburg City 6/1/07 Attainment * * * * * * * a Includes Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise noted. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E7-10581 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 070518109-7109-01; I.D. 030107B] RIN 0648-AU60 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2007 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement recreational management measures for the 2007 summer flounder fishery and to notify the public that the recreational management measures for the scup and black sea bass fisheries remain the same as in 2006. The actions of this final rule are necessary to comply with regulations implementing the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)as well as to ensure compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The intent of these measures is to prevent overfishing of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass resources. DATES: Effective July 2, 2007, except for the amendment to § 648.107(a) introductory text, which is effective June 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committees and of the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov* . The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA)consists of the IRFA, public comments and responses contained in this final rule, and the summary of impacts and alternatives contained in this final rule. Copies of the small entity compliance guide are available from Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Ruccio, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978)281-9104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)and its implementing regulations, which are found at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A (general provisions), G (summer flounder), H (scup), and I (black sea bass), describe the process for specifying annual recreational management measures that apply in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The states manage these fisheries within 3 nautical miles of their coasts, under the Commission's plan for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Federal regulations govern vessels fishing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as well as vessels possessing a Federal fisheries permit, regardless of where they fish. The 2007 coastwide recreational harvest limits, after deduction of research set-aside (RSA), are 6,689,004 lb (3,034 mt) for summer flounder, 2,744,200 lb (1,245 mt) for scup, and 2,473,500 lb (1,122 mt) for black sea bass. The 2007 quota specifications, inclusive of the recreational harvest limits, were determined to be consistent with the 2007 target fishing mortality rate
(F)for summer flounder and the target exploitation rates for scup and black sea bass. The proposed rule to implement annual Federal recreational measures for the 2007 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries was published on March 15, 2007 (72 FR 12158), and contained management measures (minimum fish sizes, possession limits, and fishing seasons) intended to keep annual recreational landings from exceeding the specified harvest limits. Changes From the Proposed Rule Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, NMFS concluded that the summer flounder precautionary default measures, as proposed by the Council and published in the March 15, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 12158)(a 1-fish possession limit, 18.5-inch (46.99-cm) minimum fish size, with no closed season) are inconsistent with the requirements for the precautionary default measures as outlined in Framework Adjustment 2 (Framework 2) to the FMP and do not achieve the necessary level of reduction in landings set out in the proposed rule. Framework 2 indicates that the precautionary default measures are the set of measures that would achieve the greatest reduction in landings required for any state. Further analysis conducted by NMFS subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule has shown that the combination of minimum fish size, possession limit, and season proposed as the precautionary default measures in the proposed rule will not achieve the required reduction in landings to constrain harvest within the 2007 recreational harvest for New York. Based on its 2007 recreational harvest limit, New York is required to reduce landings by 48.6-percent from 2006 to 2007, as was indicated in the proposed rule. The proposed precautionary default measures would only have reduced landings by 41.8 percent. However, increasing the minimum fish size to 19.0 inches (48.26cm) with a 1-fish possession limit and no closed season will ensure that all states, including New York, would achieve the required reductions in landings necessary for 2007. These measures with the slightly larger minimum fish size would reduce landings in New York by 55.3-percent from 2006 levels, thereby achieving the necessary reduction in landings for 2007. Therefore, NMFS is increasing the minimum fish size of the 2007 summer flounder precautionary default measures from 18.5 inches (46.99cm) to 19 inches (48.26 cm) to ensure the necessary reduction levels indicated in the proposed rule and to ensure consistency with the intent of Framework 2 that the precautionary default measures achieve the necessary level of reduction required for each individual state. States that do not submit conservation equivalency proposals or for which proposals were disapproved by the Commission or NMFS, are required to adopt the precautionary default measures. Though no states are required to adopt the precautionary default measures for 2007, NMFS is modifying the precautionary default measures in this final rule from what was proposed, as outlined above, to ensure the reduction levels as outlined in Framework 2 are attained. The appropriate regulatory text modification to implement this change can be found following the classification section of this rule. In addition, the coastwide measures for summer flounder contained in the proposed rule were analyzed by the Council for their effectiveness in constraining recreational landings to the coastwide recreational harvest limit as published in the **Federal Register** on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75134). Following the Council's analysis, development of measures, and vote to implement conservation equivalency in 2007, the summer flounder recreational harvest limit for 2007 was increased by emergency rule (72 FR 2458, January 19, 2007). Additional analysis conducted by NMFS following the publication of the proposed rule has shown that the proposed coastwide measures would allow only 55-percent of the increased recreational harvest limit to be landed, if implemented for 2007. Instead, as discussed below, this rule implements state-by-state conservation equivalency measures for the 2007 summer flounder fishery. As such, the summer flounder coastwide measures are superceded by the conservation equivalency measures for the 2007 fishing year. However, these coastwide measures become the default regulatory provisions effective January 1, 2008, when conservation equivalent measures expire. As such, the coastwide measures remain in place in 2008 until such time that new measures, either conservation equivalency or coastwide measures, are developed by the Council and the Commission and implemented by NMFS for the 2008 fishery. NMFS has decided to conduct separate notice and comment rulemaking for summer flounder coastwide measures that would be less restrictive than the measures of the proposed rule while still constraining landings within the increased recreational harvest limit, as published in the emergency rule (72 FR 2458, January 19, 2007). A proposed rule containing these revised coastwide measures will be published in the **Federal Register** as soon as possible. 2007 Recreational Management Measures Additional discussion on the development of the recreational management measures appeared in the preamble of the proposed rule and is not repeated here. All minimum fish sizes discussed below are total length measurements of the fish, i.e., the straight-line distance from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail while the fish is lying on its side. For black sea bass, total length measurement does not include the caudal fin tendril. All possession limits discussed below are per person. Based on the recommendation of the Commission, the Regional Administrator finds that the recreational summer flounder fishing measures proposed to be implemented by the states of Massachusetts through North Carolina for 2007 are the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103, and 648.105(a), respectively. According to the regulation at § 648.107(a)(1), vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part and landing summer flounder in a state with an approved conservation equivalency program shall not be subject to the more restrictive Federal measures, and shall instead be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land. Section 648.107(a) has been amended accordingly. The management measures will vary according to the state of landing, as specified in the following table. Table 1 - 2006 State Recreational Management Measures for Summer Flounder State Minimum Fish Size Possession Limit Fishing Season MA 17.5 inches (44.45 cm) 5 fish June 10 through August 15 RI 19.0 inches (48.26 cm) 7 fish May 18 through September 16 CT 18.0 inches (45.72 cm) 5 fish April 30 through September 5 NY 19.5 inches (49.53 cm) 4 fish January 1 through December 31 NJ 17.0 inches (43.18 cm) 8 fish May 26 through September 10 DE 18.0 inches (45.72 cm) 4 fish January 1 through December 31 MD 1 15.5 inches (39.37 cm) 4 fish January 1 through December 31 VA 18.5 inches (46.99 cm) 5 fish April 1through July 22 and July 29 through December 31 NC 2 14.5 inches (36.83 cm) 8 fish January 1 through December 31 1 Measures for the ocean waters off MD in the Atlantic Ocean and coastal bays; for the Chesapeake Bay, a 15.0-inch (38.1-cm) minimum fish size, a 2-fish possession limit, and a fishing season of January 1 through December 31 applies. 2 Measures for the ocean waters off NC in the Atlantic Ocean; for internal waters, a 14.0-inch (35.56-cm) minimum fish size, a 8-fish possession limit, and a fishing season of January 1 through December 31 applies. Table 2 contains the coastwide Federal measures for scup and black sea bass in effect for 2007 and codified. These measures are unchanged from those at 50 CFR Part 648 subparts H and I. Table 2 - 2007 Scup and Black Sea Bass Recreational Management Measures Fishery Minimum Fish Size inches cm Possession Limit Fishing Season Scup 10 25.4 50 fish January 1 through February 28, and September 18 through November 30 Black Sea Bass 12 30.5 25 fish January 1 through December 31 As has occurred in the past 5 years, the scup fishery in state waters will be managed under a regional conservation equivalency system developed through the Commission. Because the Federal FMP does not contain provisions for conservation equivalency, and states may adopt their own unique measures, the Federal and state recreational scup management measures will differ for 2007. Comments and Responses Eight comments were received regarding the proposed recreational management measures (72 FR 12158, March 15, 2007). One individual submitted a single question as a comment, whose relevance to the recreational management measures could not be ascertained and therefore, is not responded to in this section. *Comment 1:* The commenter expressed concern about the impact of commercial fishing on the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass total stocks and supports reduction of the total allowable landings for these species by 50 percent in 2007, and by an additional 10 percent each subsequent year. This commenter also stated that the recreational harvest limit reductions for 2007 were not sufficient. *Response:* This final rule implements management measures (minimum fish sizes, possession limits, and fishing seasons) intended to keep annual recreational landings from exceeding the specified harvest limits. These limits have been set for 2007 at levels that will effectively constrain harvest within the specified F for each species under the FMP. As described in the proposed rule, the FMP established Monitoring Committees (Committees) for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries, consisting of representatives from the Commission, the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and South Atlantic Councils, and NMFS. The FMP and its implementing regulations require the Committees to review scientific and other relevant information annually and to recommend management measures (i.e., minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season) necessary to achieve the recreational harvest limits established for each of the three fisheries for the upcoming fishing year. While NMFS acknowledges that consideration of total allowable landings and quota allocation are important, this final rule is not the proper mechanism to address these general issues. *Comment 2:* The commenter stated that the models used to create catch limits are not accurate and are not an accurate reflection of future targets. *Response:* It is assumed that this comment is in reference to the models used in the derivation of the summer flounder TAL and for the rebuilding target for the summer flounder stock, as the comment is similar to many that were received on the proposed rule for the 2007 initial specifications (71 FR 62972, October 27, 2006). The information used to set the summer flounder TAL is the best scientific information available, consistent with National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The information used in TAL setting, including the model and methods applied to it, have undergone substantial peer review in recent years. While recommendations have been made to develop additional modeling approaches, peer reviews have confirmed the current model and modeling approaches to be statistically valid for the annual stock assessment updates that provide the foundation for establishing the TAL. None of the peer-reviewed science utilized in setting summer flounder catch limits indicates that the rebuilding target cannot be attained within the rebuilding period or that the biomass target is incorrect. *Comment 3:* This commenter wrote in opposition to the non-preferred coastwide alternative, stating that implementation of the coastwide measures would have significant economic impacts on her small bait and tackle shop in New Jersey. *Response:* NMFS is implementing, though this final rule, conservation equivalency measures as developed by the individual states. Under this approach, each state, including New Jersey, developed and will implement unique management measures appropriate to that state that provide equivalent conservation as the Federal coastwide measures developed to achieve the overall recreational harvest limit. For 2007, New Jersey will implement a 17.0-inch (43.18-cm) minimum fish size, an 8-fish possession limit, and a May 26 through September 10 fishing season, as compared to the proposed coastwide measures of a 1-fish possession limit, 19.0-inch (48.26-cm) minimum fish size, and no closed season. It is expected that the measures developed by and implemented in New Jersey will assist in mitigating the economic impacts that would occur under the coastwide alternative, as outlined in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)contained in the proposed rule (71 FR 12158, March 15, 2007). *Comments 4 through 7:* Several commenters urged NMFS to reject state-by-state conservation equivalency in favor of coastwide measures; advocated for the implementation of coastwide measures as developed by the Commission's Technical Committee following the emergency rule to increase the 2007 TAL (72 FR 2458, January 19, 2007), not those adopted by the Council and the Board that were based on the initial 2007 TAL published on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75134); and questioned if the best available science was used in development of the 2007 recreational management measures. Specifically, one such commenterquestioned the use of applying data from the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) and For-Hire Survey
(FHS)on a state-by-state rather than a coastwide (regional) basis. Another commenter indicated that the coastwide measures adopted by the Council and the Board were not based on the January 19, 2007, emergency rule (72 FR 2458) and therefore, were not the best available science. *Response:* NMFS is implementing, though this final rule, the Council and Board's preferred alternative of conservation equivalency, for the reasons previously outlined in the preamble to this final rule. Further, NMFS will be conducting a separate rulemaking, as previously discussed, to address potential changes to the coastwide measures in light of the increased TAL. That rulemaking will not replace conservation equivalency with coastwide measures. NMFS acknowledges that the timing of the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization that was passed by the 109 th Congress on December 9, 2006, and the joint December 11, 2006, meeting at which the Council and Board voted for conservation equivalency, did not permit for detailed analysis of coastwide measures to constrain recreational harvest to what would eventually be the increased TAL as published on January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2458). However, a discussion was held at the joint Council and Board meeting wherein the assembled group discussed what impacts increasing the TAL might have on coastwide measures. Consequently both the Council and Board did consider this in their decision making. The Council and Board voted to adopt conservation equivalency for 2007, in light of these discussions, and forwarded that recommendation to NMFS. Further, NMFS acknowledges that the Council's analysis of the coastwide measures was crafted on the TAL as published on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75134), and as such, would be highly conservative (i.e., would constrain landings to 55 percent of the recreational harvest limit as increased by the January 19, 2007, emergency rule (72 FR 2458)). NMFS is aware that subsequent analyses have been conducted by the Board's Technical Committee to craft more liberal coastwide measures that would still constrain recreational landings within the recreational harvest limit as increased by the January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2458), emergency rule. These alternative coastwide measures have not been forwarded, through a majority vote from their memberships, from the Council and Board as a recommendation to replace conservation equivalency for 2007. Consequently, NMFS does not have a reasonable basis upon which to disapprove the Council and Board's preferred alternative in favor of the coastwide measures analyzed by the Board's Technical Committee in this final rule. The Council and the Board have elected to utilize conservation equivalency as the means to manage the recreational summer flounder fishery each year since the implementation of Framework 2. MRFSS and FHS-supplied data have been utilized each year since the 2001 implementation of Framework 2 to craft state-by-state conservation equivalent measures. NMFS acknowledges that a recent review of MRFSS by the National Academies of Science has made substantial recommendations for the overhaul and redesign of the survey so that the data provided will better inform the agency's management and policy decisions. However, in the interim period while these changes are being undertaken by NMFS, the MRFSS and FHS supplied data constitute the only available information to formulate recreational fisheries management advice and, as such, its use is consistent with National Standard 2. These data may be improved by using larger regional or coastwide aggregations, but their use on a state-by-state basis, as has been done for the past 6 years, is not inappropriate for creating the 2007 conservation equivalent measures. Classification NMFS has determined that the final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the summer founder, scup, and black sea bass fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date for the summer flounder recreational management measures contained in this rule (§ 648.107(a)). The linchpin of NMFS's decision whether to proceed with the coastwide measures or to give effect to the conservation equivalent measures is advice from the Commission as to the results of its review of the plans of the individual states. This advice has only recently been received via a letter dated May 1, 2007. The recreational summer flounder fishery has commenced in all states and participation and landings are expected to increase through late spring and early summer. The party and charter vessels from the various states are by far the largest component of the recreational fishery that fish in the EEZ. The Federal coastwide regulatory measures for the three species that were codified last year remain in effect. The Federal coastwide measures for the summer flounder fishery do not achieve the necessary reduction in recreational landings to constrain the fishery to the 2007 recreational harvest limit. It is, therefore, imperative that NMFS implement measures, as quickly as possible, for the 2007 recreational summer flounder fishery to ensure that the mortality objectives of the 2007 recreational harvest limit are not compromised. The conservation equivalent measures approved by the Commission and implemented by this rule are such measures. The state-by-state conservation equivalent measures will, upon their implementation, restrict the recreational summer flounder coastwide landings within the 2007 recreational harvest limit. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Included in this final rule is the FRFA prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a). The FRFA incorporates the economic impacts described in the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of the EA/RIR/IRFA is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES ). Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement of Objective and Need A description of the reasons why this action is being taken, and the objectives of and legal basis for this final rule are explained in the preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule and are not repeated here. Summary of Significant Issues Raised in Public Comments Two commenters raised the issue, supported by two additional commenters, that the non-preferred coastwide measures alternative, as analyzed and proposed by the Council and subsequently published in the proposed rule by NMFS, had been designed to constrain harvest to the recreational harvest level contained in the December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75134), specification final rule, not to the recreational harvest level of the January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2458), emergency rule that increased the 2007 specifications. NMFS finds these comments compelling and is, as previously indicated, planning on conducting notice and comment rule making to re-propose coastwide measures designed to constrain landings within the increased recreational harvest limit, as published in the January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2458), emergency rule. However, as these coastwide measures serve as the backstop in 2008 once conservation equivalent measures expire on December 31, 2007, addressing these comments in a later rulemaking does not affect actions taken herein. Additional information on this change is outlined in the preamble under the “Changes from the Proposed Rule” section. No additional changes to the proposed rule were required to be made as a result of the public comments. A summary of the comments received, and the responses thereto, are contained in the “Comments and Responses” section of this preamble. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which This Rule Will Apply The Council estimated that the proposed measures could affect any of the 920 vessels possessing a Federal charter/party permit for summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass in 2005, the most recent year for which complete permit data are available. However, only 331 of these vessels reported active participation in the recreational summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass fisheries in 2005. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements No additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are included in this final rule. Description of the Steps Taken to Minimize Economic Impact on Small Entities Under the conservation equivalency approach, each state may implement unique management measures appropriate to that state to achieve state-specific harvest limits, as long as the combined effect of all of the states' management measures achieves the same level of conservation as would Federal coastwide measures developed to achieve the annual recreational harvest limit. The conservation equivalency approach allows states flexibility in the specification of management measures, unlike the application of one set of uniform coastwide measures. It is not possible to further mitigate economic impacts on small entities because the specification of the recreational management measures (minimum fish size, possession limits, and fishing seasons) contained in this final rule is constrained by the conservation objectives of the FMP. The economic analysis conducted in support of this action assessed the impacts of the various management alternatives. In the EA, the no action alternative for each species is defined as the continuation of the management measures as codified for the 2006 fishing season. For summer flounder, state-specific implications of the no-action (coastwide) alternative of a 17-inch (43.18-cm) minimum fish size, a 4-fish possession limit, and no closed season would not achieve the mortality objectives required, and, therefore, cannot be continued for the 2007 fishing season. The implications of the no-action alternative are not substantial for scup and black sea bass. Landings of these species in 2006 were less than their respective target for black sea bass and within the percent standard error for scup, and the status quo measures are expected to constrain landings to the 2007 targets. The no-action measures were analyzed in Summer Flounder Alternative 2, Scup Alternative 1, and Black Sea Bass Alternative 1. At this time, it is not possible to determine the economic impact of summer flounder conservation equivalency on each state. The specific measures adopted for each state were only made available to NMFS on May 1, 2007, and were unavailable for analysis during this rulemaking. However, economic impact is likely to be proportional to the level of landings reductions required for each individual state. If the conservation equivalency alternative is effective at achieving the recreational harvest limit, then it is likely to be the only alternative that minimizes economic impacts, to the extent practicable, yet achieves the biological objectives of the FMP. Further, NMFS has no authority to dictate, prescribe, or otherwise modify the measures adopted by each state under conservation equivalency. NMFS discretion in this regard is limited to a decision on whether to allow conservation equivalency as a replacement for uniform coastwide measures, and the basis for this decision is limited to a determination of whether the measures adopted under conservation equivalency achieve the biological objectives of the FMP. Under § 648.107, vessels landing summer flounder in any state that does not implement conservation equivalent measures are subject to the precautionary default measures, consisting of an 19-inch (48.26-cm) minimum fish size, a possession limit of one fish, and no closed season. The suites of conservation equivalent measures proposed by each state are less restrictive than the precautionary default measures. Therefore, because states have a choice as to the specific measures to apply to landings in each state, it is more rational for the states to adopt the conservation equivalent measures that they have proposed and that result in fewer adverse economic impacts than to adopt the more restrictive measures that contained in the precautionary default alternative. For the proposed rule, average party/charter losses for each of the 18 potential combinations of alternatives were estimated for federally permitted vessels. Predicted average losses for New York were presented as an example, and ranged from $4,834 per vessel under the combined effects of Summer Flounder Alternative 1, Scup Alternative 1, and Black Sea Bass Alternative 2, to $6,122 per vessel under the combined effects of the Summer Flounder Alternative 2, Scup Alternative 2, and Black Sea Bass Alternative 3 (assuming a 25-percent reduction in effort for affected trips). Small Entity Compliance Guide Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as the small entity compliance guide was prepared and will be sent to all holders of Federal party/charter permits issued for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. In addition, copies of this final rule and the small entity compliance guide are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and at the following website: *http://www.nero.noaa.gov* . List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 25, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 648 to read as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.107, paragraph introductory text
(a)and paragraph
(b)are revised to read as follows: § 648.107 Conservation equivalent measures for the summer flounder fishery.
(a)The Regional Administrator has determined that the recreational fishing measures proposed to be implemented by Massachusetts through North Carolina for 2007 are the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum fish size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103, and 648.105(a), respectively. This determination is based on a recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
(b)Federally permitted vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part, and other recreational fishing vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part and registered in states whose fishery management measures are not determined by the Regional Administrator to be the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103(b) and 648.105(a), respectively, due to the lack of, or the reversal of, a conservation equivalent recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, shall be subject to the following precautionary default measures: Season - January 1 through December 31; minimum size - 19.0 inches (48.26 cm); and possession limit - one fish. [FR Doc. E7-10614 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 105 Friday, June 1, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27911; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-8] Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Hailey, ID AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class E airspace at Hailey, ID. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation
(RNAV)Required Navigational Performance
(RNP)Instrument Approach Procedure
(IAP)at Friedman Memorial Airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR)aircraft operations at Friedman Memorial Airport, Hailey, ID. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(202)366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-27911; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-8, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Haeseker, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Area Office, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone
(425)917-6714. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-27911 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-8) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-27911 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-8”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRM's An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the **Federal Register** 's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by revising Class E airspace at Hailey, ID. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new RNAV
(RNP)IAP at Friedman Municipal Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of IFR aircraft operations at Friedman Memorial Airport, Hailey, ID. 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 will be published subsequently in this Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed 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 proposed rule, when promulgated, would 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). The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 FAA 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 the surface of the earth. ANM ID, E5 Hailey, ID [Revised] Friedman Memorial Airport, ID (Lat. 43°30′14″ N., long. 114°17′45″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 5.5-mile radius of Friedman Memorial Airport, and within 2 miles west and 5.5 miles east of the 328° bearing from the airport extending from the 5.5-mile radius to 10 miles northwest of the airport, and within 2 miles west and 4 miles east of the 159° bearing from the airport extending from the 5.5-mile radius to 15.5 miles southeast of the airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 44°00′00″ N., long. 114°55′00″ W., thence to lat. 44°00′00″ N., long. 113°53′00″ W., thence to lat. 43°00′00″ N., long. 113°49′00″ W., thence to lat. 43°00′00″ N., long. 114°55′00″ W., thence to point of beginning. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 11, 2007. Clark Desing, Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Area. [FR Doc. E7-10569 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25788; Airspace Docket No. 06-ANM-9] Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Hoquiam, WA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class E airspace at Hoquiam, WA. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the Area Navigation
(RNAV)Global Positioning System
(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP)at Bowerman Airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR)aircraft operations at Bowerman Airport, Hoquiam, WA. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(202)366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-25788; Airspace Docket No. 06-ANM-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Haeseker, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Area Office, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone
(425)917-6714. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2006-25788 and Airspace Docket No. 06-ANM-9) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-25788 and Airspace Docket No. 06-ANM-9”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRM's An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the **Federal Register** 's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by revising Class E airspace at Hoquiam, WA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new RNAV
(GPS)SIAP at Bowerman Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of IFR aircraft operations at Bowerman Airport, Hoquiam, WA. 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 will be published subsequently in this Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed 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 proposed rule, when promulgated, would 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). The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 FAA 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 the surface of the earth. ANM WA, E5 Hoquiam, WA [Revise] Bowerman Airport, WA (Lat. 46°58′16″ N., long. 123°56′12″ W.) Hoquiam VORTAC (Lat. 46°56′49″ N., long. 124°08′57″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.0-mile radius of Bowerman Airport and within a 13-mile radius arc of the airport bounded on the north by a line 1.8 miles north of and parallel to the Hoquiam VORTAC 068° radial and on the south by a line 3 miles south of and parallel to the Hoquiam VORTAC 088° radial; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface beginning lat. 47°20′00″ N., long. 124° 40′00″ W.; thence to lat. 47°20′00″ N., long. 123°30′00″ W.; thence to lat. 46°30′00″ N., long. 123°30′00″ W.; thence to lat. 46°30′00″ N., long. 124°30′00″ W.; thence to lat. 47°00′00″ N., long. 124°39′00″ W.; thence to point of beginning. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 11, 2007. Clark Desing, Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Area. [FR Doc. E7-10567 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27374; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-2] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Everett, WA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E surface airspace at Everett, WA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft executing Special Visual Flight Rules
(SVFR)operations at Everett, Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field), Everett, WA. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; *telephone:*
(202)366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-27374; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Haeseker, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Area Office, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone
(425)917-6714. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2007-27374 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-2) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-27374 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-2”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRM's An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the **Federal Register's** Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Everett, WA. Class E surface airspace is required to accommodate aircraft executing SVFR operations at Everett, Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field), Everett, WA. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 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 will be published subsequently in this Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed 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 proposed rule, when promulgated, would 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). The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 FAA Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006 is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area. ANM WA, E2 Everett, WA [New] Everett, Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field), WA (Lat. 47°54′27″ N., long. 122°16′53″ W.) That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,100 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of the Snohomish County Airport. This Class E airspace is effective when the tower is not in operation. The effective date and time will be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 7, 2007. Clark Desing, Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Area. [FR Doc. E7-10565 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 54 [REG-143797-06] RIN 1545-BF97 Employer Comparable Contributions to Health Savings Accounts Under Section 4980G AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations providing guidance on employer comparable contributions to Health Savings Accounts
(HSAs)under section 4980G in instances where an employee has not established an HSA by December 31st and in instances where an employer accelerates contributions for the calendar year for employees who have incurred qualified medical expenses. In general, these proposed regulations affect employers that contribute to employees' HSAs. This document also provides notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations. DATES: Written or electronic comments must be received by August 30, 2007. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for September 28, 2007, at 10 a.m., must be received by August 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: *Send submissions to:* CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-143797-06), Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-143797-06), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-143797-06). The public hearing will be held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, Mireille Khoury at
(202)622-6080; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Kelly Banks at
(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act The collections of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collections of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, *Attn:* Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, *Attn:* IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:S Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by July 31, 2007. *Comments are specifically requested concerning:* Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the IRS, including whether the information will have practical utility; The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information; How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced; How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. The collection of information in these proposed regulations is in Q & A-14. This information is needed for purposes of making HSA contributions to employees who establish an HSA after the end of the calendar year but before the last day of February. The likely respondents are employers that contribute to employees' HSAs. *Estimated total annual reporting burden:* 1,250,000 hours. *The estimated annual burden per respondent is:* .25 hour. *Estimated number of respondents:* 5,000,000. *The estimated annual frequency of responses:* 1. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Background This document contains proposed Pension Excise Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 54) under section 4980G of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Under section 4980G, an excise tax is imposed on an employer that fails to make comparable contributions to the HSAs of its employees. Section 1201 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Act), Public Law 108-173, (117 Stat. 2066, 2003) added section 223 to the Code to permit eligible individuals to establish HSAs for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2003. Section 4980G was also added to the Code by the Act. Section 4980G(a) imposes an excise tax on the failure of an employer to make comparable contributions to the HSAs of its employees for a calendar year. Section 4980G(b) provides that rules and requirements similar to section 4980E (the comparability rules for Archer Medical Savings Accounts (Archer MSAs)) apply for purposes of section 4980G. Section 4980E(b) imposes an excise tax equal to 35% of the aggregate amount contributed by the employer to the Archer MSAs of employees during the calendar year if an employer fails to make comparable contributions to the Archer MSAs of its employees in a calendar year. Accordingly, if an employer fails to make comparable contributions to the HSAs of its employees during a calendar year, an excise tax equal to 35% of the aggregate amount contributed by the employer to the HSAs of its employees during that calendar year is imposed on the employer. See sections 4980G(a) and
(b)and 4980E(b). See also Notice 2004-2 (2004-2 CB 269), Q & A-32. See § 601.601(d)(2). On August 26, 2005, proposed regulations (REG-138647-04) on the comparability rules of section 4980G were published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 50233). On July 31, 2006, final regulations (REG-138647-04) on the comparability rules were published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 43056). The final regulations clarified and expanded upon the guidance regarding the comparability rules published in Notice 2004-2 and in Notice 2004-50 (2004-33 IRB 196), Q & A-46 through Q & A-54. See § 601.601(d)(2). Q & A-6(b) of the final regulations reserved the issue dealing with an employee who has not established an HSA by the end of the calendar year. These proposed regulations address that reserved issue and one additional issue concerning the acceleration of employer contributions. Section 4980G was amended by section 306 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Public Law 109-432 (120 Stat. 2922), effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006. The Treasury Department and IRS expect to publish guidance on the amendment to section 4980G. Explanation of Provisions Employee Has Not Established HSA by December 31 The proposed regulations provide a means for employers to comply with the comparability requirements with respect to employees who have not established an HSA by December 31, as well as with respect to employees who may have established an HSA but not notified the employer of that fact. The proposed regulations provide that, in order to comply with the comparability rules for a calendar year with respect to such employees, the employer must comply with a notice requirement and a contribution requirement. In order to comply with the notice requirement, the employer must provide all such employees, by January 15 of the following calendar year, written notice that each eligible employee who, by the last day of February, both establishes an HSA and notifies the employer that he or she has established the HSA will receive a comparable contribution to the HSA. For each such eligible employee who establishes an HSA and so notifies the employer by the end of February, the employer must contribute to the HSA by April 15 comparable amounts (taking into account each month that the employee was a comparable participating employee) plus reasonable interest. The notice may be delivered electronically. The proposed regulations provide sample language that employers may use as a basis in preparing their own notices. Acceleration of Employer Contributions The proposed regulations also address a second issue relating to acceleration of contributions. They provide that, for any calendar year, an employer may accelerate part or all of its contributions for the entire year to the HSAs of employees who have incurred during the calendar year qualified medical expenses exceeding the employer's cumulative HSA contributions at that time. If an employer accelerates contributions for this reason, these contributions must be available on an equal and uniform basis to all eligible employees throughout the calendar year and employers must establish reasonable uniform methods and requirements for acceleration of contributions and the determination of medical expenses. An employer is not required to contribute reasonable interest on either accelerated or non-accelerated HSA contributions. But see Q & A-6 and Q & A-12 in § 54.4980G-4 for when reasonable interest must be paid. Other Issues These proposed regulations concern only section 4980G. Other statutes may impose additional requirements (for example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (sections 9801-9803)). Proposed Effective Date It is proposed that these regulations apply to employer contributions made on or after the date the final regulations are published in the **Federal Register** . However, taxpayers may rely on these regulations for guidance pending the issuance of final regulations. Alternatively, until the publication of final regulations, an employer may continue to rely on the last sentence of Q&A 6(a) of § 54.4980G-4 of the proposed regulations published in the **Federal Register** on August 26, 2005, which provides that, an employer is not required to make comparable contributions for a calendar year to an employee's HSA if the employee has not established an HSA by December 31st of the calendar year. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. It is hereby certified that the collection of information in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact the estimated burden associated with the information collection averages 15 minutes per respondent. Moreover, a model notice has been provided for employers who are subject to this collection of information any burden imposed on employees due to the collection of information in these regulations will be outweighed by the benefit of receiving HSA contributions. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this regulation will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed regulations and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing has been scheduled for September 27, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written or electronic comments by August 30, 2007 and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) August 28, 2007. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing. Drafting Information The principal author of these proposed regulations is Mireille Khoury, Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities), Internal Revenue Service. However, personnel from other offices of the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 54 Excise taxes, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendment to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 54 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 54—PENSION EXCISE TAXES **Paragraph 1** . The authority citation for part 54 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2** . Section 54.4980g-0 is amended by adding entries under § 54.4980g-4 for Q-14, Q-15 and Q-16 to read as follows: § 54.4980g-0 Table of contents. § 54.4980g-4 Calculating comparable contributions. Q-14: How does an employer comply with the comparability rules if an employee has not established an HSA by December 31st? Q-15: For any calendar year, may an employer accelerate part or all of its contributions for the entire year to the HSAs of employees who have incurred, during the calendar year, qualified medical expenses (as defined in section 223(d)(2)) exceeding the employer's cumulative HSA contributions at that time? Q-16: What is the effective date for the rules in Q & A-14 and 15 of this section? **Par. 3** . Section 54.4980g-4 is amended by: 1. Removing paragraph
(b)and redesignating paragraph
(c)as paragraph
(b)in Q & A-6. 2. Adding Q & A-14, Q & A-15 and Q & A-16. The additions read as follows: § 54.4980G-4 Calculating comparable contributions. Q-14: Does an employer fail to satisfy the comparability rules for a calendar year if the employer fails to make contributions with respect to eligible employees because the employee has not established an HSA or because the employer does not know that the employee has established an HSA? A-14:
(a)*In general.* An employer will not fail to satisfy the comparability rules for a calendar year merely because the employer fails to make contributions with respect to an eligible employee because the employee has not established an HSA or because the employer does not know that the employee has established an HSA, if—
(1)The employer provides timely written notice to all such eligible employees that it will make comparable contributions for eligible employees who, by the last day of February of the following calendar year, both establish an HSA and notify the employer (in accordance with a procedure specified in the notice) that they have established an HSA; and
(2)For each such eligible employee who establishes an HSA and so notifies the employer on or before the last day of February of such following calendar year, the employer contributes to the HSA comparable amounts (taking into account each month that the employee was a comparable participating employee) plus reasonable interest by April 15th of such following calendar year.
(b)*Notice.* The notice described in paragraph
(a)of this Q & A-14 must be provided to each eligible employee who has not established an HSA by December 31 or if the employer does not know if the employee established an HSA. The employer may provide the notice to other employees as well. However, if the employee has earlier notified the employer that he or she has established an HSA, or if the employer has previously made contributions to that employee's HSA, the employer may not condition making comparable contributions on receipt of any additional notice from that employee. For each calendar year, a notice is deemed to be timely if the employer provides the notice no earlier than 90 days before the first HSA employer contribution for that calendar year and no later than January 15 of the following calendar year.
(c)*Model notice.* Employers may use the following sample language as a basis in preparing their own notices. Notice to Employees Regarding Employer Contributions to HSAs: This notice explains how you may be eligible to receive contributions from [employer] if you are covered by a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). [Employer] provides contributions to the Health Savings Account
(HSA)of each employee who is [insert employer's eligibility requirements for HSA contributions] (“eligible employee”). If you are an eligible employee, you must do the following in order to receive an employer contribution:
(1)Establish an HSA on or before the last day in February of [insert year after the year for which the contribution is being made] and;
(2)Notify [insert name and contact information for appropriate person to be contacted] of your HSA account information on or before the last day in February of [insert year after year for which the contribution is being made]. [Specify the HSA account information that the employee must provide (e.g., account number, name and address of trustee or custodian, etc.) and the method by which the employee must provide this account information (e.g., in writing, on a certain form, etc.)]. If you establish your HSA on or before the last day of February in [insert year after year for which the contribution is being made] and notify [employer] of your HSA account information, you will receive your HSA contributions, plus reasonable interest, for [insert year for which contribution is being made] by April 15 of [insert year after year for which contribution is being made]. If, however, you do not establish your HSA or you do not notify us of your HSA account information by the deadline, then we are not required to make any contributions to your HSA for [insert applicable year]. You may notify us that you have established an HSA by sending an [e-mail or] a written notice to [insert name, title and, if applicable, e-mail address]. If you have any questions about this notice, you can contact [insert name and title] at [insert telephone number or other contact information].
(e)*Electronic delivery.* An employer may furnish the notice required under this section electronically. See § 1.401(a)-21 of this chapter.
(f)*Examples.* The following examples illustrate the rules in this Q & A-14: Example 1. In a calendar year, Employer Q contributes to the HSAs of current employees who are eligible individuals covered under any HDHP. For the 2009 calendar year, Employer Q contributes $50 per month on the first day of each month, beginning January 1st, to the HSA of each employee who is an eligible employee on that date. For the 2009 calendar year, Employer Q provides written notice satisfying the content requirements on October 16, 2008 to all employees regarding the availability of HSA contributions for eligible employees. For eligible employees who are hired after October 16, 2008, Employer Q provides such a notice no later than January 15, 2010. Employer Q's notice satisfies the notice requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this Q & A-14. Example 2. Employer R's written cafeteria plan permits employees to elect to make pre-tax salary reduction contributions to their HSAs. Employees making this election have the right to receive cash or other taxable benefits in lieu of their HSA pre-tax contribution. Employer R automatically contributes a non-elective matching contribution to the HSA of each employee who makes a pre-tax HSA contribution. Because Employer R's HSA contributions are made through the cafeteria plan, the comparability requirements do not apply to the HSA contributions made by Employer R. Consequently, Employer R is not required to provide written notice to its employees regarding the availability of this matching HSA contribution. See Q & A-1 in § 54.4980G-5 for treatment of HSA contributions made through a cafeteria plan. Example 3. In a calendar year, Employer S maintains an HDHP and only contributes to the HSAs of eligible employees who elect coverage under its HDHP. For the 2009 calendar year, Employer S employs ten eligible employees. For the 2009 calendar year, all ten employees have elected coverage under Employer S's HDHP and have established HSAs. For the 2009 calendar year, Employer S makes comparable contributions to the HSAs of all ten employees. Employer S satisfies the comparability rules. Thus, Employer S is not required to provide written notice to its employees regarding the availability of HSA contributions for eligible employees. Example 4. In a calendar year, Employer T contributes to the HSAs of current full-time employees with family coverage under any HDHP. For the 2009 calendar year, Employer T provides timely written notice satisfying the content requirements to all employees regardless of HDHP coverage. Employer T makes identical monthly contributions to all eligible employees (meaning full time employees with family HDHP coverage) that establish HSAs. Employer T contributes comparable amounts (taking into account each month that the employee was a comparable participating employee) plus reasonable interest to the HSAs of the eligible employees that establish HSAs and provide the necessary information after the end of the year but on or before the last day of February, 2010. Employer T makes no contribution to the HSAs of employees that do not establish an HSA and provide the necessary information on or before the last day of February, 2008. Employer T satisfies the comparability requirements. Example 5. For 2007, Employer V contributes to the HSAs of current full time employees with family coverage under any HDHP. Employer V has 500 current full time employees. As of the date for Employer V's first HSA contribution for the 2007 calendar year, 450 employees have established HSAs. Employer V provides timely written notice satisfying the content requirements only to those 50 current full time employees who have not established HSAs. Employer V makes identical quarterly contributions to the 450 employees who established HSAs. Employer V contributes comparable amounts to the eligible employees who establish HSAs and provide the necessary information after the end of the year but on or before the last day of February, 2008. Employer V makes no contribution to the HSAs of employees that do not establish an HSA and provide the necessary information on or before the last day of February, 2008. Employer V satisfies the comparability rules. Q-15: For any calendar year, may an employer accelerate part or all of its contributions for the entire year to the HSAs of employees who have incurred, during the calendar year, qualified medical expenses (as defined in section 223(d)(2)) exceeding the employer's cumulative HSA contributions at that time? A-15:
(a)*In general.* Yes. For any calendar year, an employer may accelerate part or all of its contributions for the entire year to the HSAs of employees who have incurred, during the calendar year, qualified medical expenses exceeding the employer's cumulative HSA contributions at that time. If an employer accelerates contributions to employees' HSAs, all accelerated contributions must be available throughout the calendar year on an equal and uniform basis to all eligible employees. Employers must establish reasonable uniform methods and requirements for accelerated contributions and the determination of medical expenses.
(b)*Satisfying comparability.* An employer that accelerates contributions to the HSAs of its employees will not fail to satisfy the comparability rules because employees who incur qualifying medical expenses exceeding the employer's cumulative HSA contributions at that time have received more contributions in a given period than comparable employees who do not incur such expenses, provided that all comparable employees receive the same amount or the same percentage for the calendar year. Also, an employer that accelerates contributions to the HSAs of its employees will not fail to satisfy the comparability rules because an employee who terminates employment prior to the end of the calendar year has received more contributions on a monthly basis than employees who work the entire calendar year. An employer is not required to contribute reasonable interest on either accelerated or non-accelerated HSA contributions. But see Q & A-6 and Q & A-12 of this section for when reasonable interest must be paid. Q-16: What is the effective date for the rules in Q & A-14 and 15 of this section? A-16: It is proposed that these regulations apply to employer contributions made on or after the date the final regulations are published in the **Federal Register** . However, taxpayers may rely on these regulations for guidance pending the issuance of final regulations. Alternatively, until the publication of final regulations, an employer may continue to rely on the last sentence of Q&A 6(a) of section 54.4980G-4 of the proposed regulations published in the **Federal Register** on August 26, 2005, which provides that, an employer is not required to make comparable contributions for a calendar year to an employee's HSA if the employee has not established an HSA by December 31st of the calendar year. Kevin M. Brown, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-10529 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 36 RIN 2900-AL65 Loan Guaranty: Loan Servicing and Claims Procedures Modifications AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Second supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: This document provides a second supplemental notice regarding a proposal to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)Loan Guaranty regulations related to several aspects of the servicing and liquidating of guaranteed housing loans in default, and submission of guaranty claims by loan holders. This notice provides specific information regarding VA's proposal to phase-in implementation of the new electronic reporting requirement and other provisions in the proposed rule published February 18, 2005 (70 FR 8472). In addition, VA is taking this opportunity to address certain comments raised by some members of industry in response to VA's publication of the first supplemental notice to this rulemaking (November 27, 2006 (71 FR 68948)), and to provide further explanation of the ongoing development of VA's computer-based tracking system. VA is reopening the comment period for the limited purpose of accepting public comments concerning the supplemental information provided in this notice. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2007. All comments previously received following publication of the proposed rule and the supplemental notice referenced above are being considered and do not need to be resubmitted. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted through *www.regulations.gov;* by mail or hand-delivery to the Director, Regulations Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to
(202)273-9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to ”RIN 2900-AL65.” Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1063B, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call
(202)273-9515 for an appointment. In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS). Comments previously received regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking for RIN 2900-AL65, published February 18, 2005 (70 FR 8472), and the supplemental notice published November 27, 2006 (71 FR 68948), will still be considered in the rulemaking process and do not need to be resubmitted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Frueh, Assistant Director for Loan Management (261), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, at 202-273-7325. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the **Federal Register** on February 18, 2005 (70 FR 8472), to amend regulations concerning the servicing and claims submission requirements on VA-guaranteed home loans. The extensive changes in the proposed rule package were the result of an in-depth business process reengineering project that consulted mortgage-industry and government experts to help develop a plan to ensure that the VA home loan program continued to provide the best possible service to veterans of our armed forces in recognition of their service to our country. Included in the proposed rule were requirements for reporting information to VA under a new 38 CFR 36.4315a. Under the Revised Reporting Requirements preamble heading, 70 FR 8474-8475, VA stated that proposed § 36.4315a would require all loan holders to electronically report information to the Department by use of a computer system, and that VA would be providing more specific information on this system prior to implementation. As VA progressed in developing its tracking system necessary to receive reports from loan servicers, it more clearly defined the system events and data elements that would be reported under § 36.4315a. VA published more detailed information on those data elements and events in a supplemental notice dated November 27, 2006 (71 FR 68948). Public comments in response to that notice and the original proposed rules expressed concern that providing the amount of data requested by VA (and the corresponding need to adapt industry servicing systems to provide this data) would be extensive and time-consuming. The comments also expressed a desire for careful testing of all aspects of the new electronic reporting requirements. In response to these comments, VA proposes a phased implementation by industry segment and submits the following for public comment. The purpose of this notice is to solicit views, suggestions and comments from program participants, as well as the general public, as to what extent VA's proposed phased implementation should be adopted or modified, or other action taken, and to ensure that participants, beneficiaries, and the general public have the information they need to provide informed comments. To facilitate consideration of the issues covered by this supplemental notice, VA has set forth below a few matters with respect to which views, suggestions, comments and information are requested. Interested persons, however, are encouraged to address any other matters they believe to be germane to VA's consideration of implementation methods. Proposed Phased System Implementation VA proposes to implement its new, computer-based tracking system over an approximately 11-month timeframe, with program participants grouped into nine segments that will “go live” on VA's new system during designated phases of implementation. Each phase of implementation will incorporate time for data clean-up, system modifications, defect corrections, testing of interfaces and data transmission, and review of lessons learned before initiating the next phase. With respect to this proposal to designate phases of implementation, VA asks program participants and the general public to respond to or otherwise comment on the following questions: 1. Does this phased implementation approach, in which program participants would be grouped into nine industry segments, appear reasonable in light of VA's need to balance industry participation with the potential for risks to the Government and program beneficiaries? 2. Are there other ways that VA can segment the industry to effectively limit the risks to the Government and beneficiaries? 3. Is the industry segmentation information provided in this supplemental notice clear enough for program participants to understand their role in the implementation process? 4. What additional information would program participants need to prepare for implementation of their industry segment? 5. Do program participants have any concerns about being unprepared for their scheduled, phased implementation? If so, what alternatives for implementation are available to VA? Industry Segmentation Decisions VA proposes to phase-in the implementation based on criteria unique to each industry segment defined below. By implementing the new tracking system in this way, VA's goal is to bring on board the largest number of loans as early as its system can handle them, while also taking into account the number of servicers, the extent of servicers' interfaces, the types of loan portfolios, and other unique testing factors that VA can anticipate at this stage. The nine industry segments identified in this supplemental notice account for all current program participants. Each segment would have a corresponding effective date for the phased-in implementation. *Industry Segment One:* With the first industry segment, VA will need to bring into the new tracking system a large number of loans that are in different stages of delinquency. This is important because VA must have a representative cross-sampling by which it can test its new system's capabilities at various milestones. However, VA cannot manage the risk associated with simultaneously bringing multiple servicers into the system and adding such a large number of loans. As such, VA will select the first industry segment based on the largest number of delinquent loans with a representative portfolio and a loan servicing system that is already common to the industry. *Industry Segment Two:* The second segment would bring on-line a proprietary servicing system. Proprietary servicing systems are less common and, as a result, have characteristics that may present unique challenges to implementation. It is necessary for VA to determine early that its tracking system will be able to communicate seamlessly with such a servicing system, so that when VA is ready to begin taking on multiple servicers with proprietary systems, VA will be certain that its tracking system can handle the demands. Consequently, in Segment Two, VA will bring on-line a large program participant that is capable of participating at such an early stage and that uses a proprietary system to manage a high volume of delinquent loans. *Industry Segment Three:* For Segment Three, VA would begin introducing to its system multiple program participants with medium-sized delinquent loan portfolios. Since this would be the first time that VA's system would have to handle an influx of multiple participants, however, VA would also limit Industry Segment Three to those who use the same servicing system as Industry Segment One, a common loan servicing platform with which VA's system would already be familiar. *Industry Segment Four:* With the fourth industry segment, VA would introduce another servicing system common to the industry. VA would identify the program participant with the largest, most representative portfolio of delinquent loans. As with Industry Segments One and Two, this would allow VA to bring on-line a large number of loans without the risk of shutting down multiple program participants in the case of testing defects. *Industry Segment Five:* Segment Five would focus on program participants with smaller portfolios where the program participants would use a variety of servicing systems. In the aggregate, this group would have a moderate number of delinquent loans. The increased complexity of interacting with multiple servicing systems would be offset by the ease of working with smaller portfolios. This segment would allow VA to verify its ability to implement with multiple servicers and multiple servicing systems for the first time. *Industry Segment Six:* At this stage, VA would be ready to bring large numbers of program participants into the system. VA would list the remaining servicers in descending order by size of delinquent loan portfolio. From this list, VA would create three groups of approximately equal size. From these three groups, VA would randomly select a group for Industry Segment Six. By selecting Industry Segment Six in this way, VA would focus for the first time on large numbers of servicers while keeping implementation risks low by selecting servicers with relatively small delinquent loan portfolios. *Industry Segment Seven:* For Industry Segment Seven, VA would randomly select the second group of servicers with relatively small delinquent loan portfolios for implementation. *Industry Segment Eight:* Industry Segment Eight would include the remaining group of servicers with relatively small delinquent loan portfolios. *Industry Segment Nine:* VA would reserve Industry Segment Nine for any servicers that have not been brought into the new tracking system in a previous industry segment. Proposed Effective Dates of New Rules For most of the regulatory changes proposed on February 18, 2005 (70 FR 8472), the effective date of the new rules for each industry segment would correspond to the date that segment “goes live” on the new system. Final implementation of the new rules would occur approximately 11 months after publication of the final rule. The table below provides the approximate effective date that we anticipate for each industry segment. These approximate effective dates are based on an anticipated publication of the final rules in September of 2007. The schedule would maintain the general timeframes described below, but could change due to unforeseen circumstances. There may be other factors at time of implementation that would influence the ordering of the industry segments (for example, industry consolidation and/or unacceptable testing results discovered during preparations for an industry segment implementation). Because we cannot predict with certainty the precise date on which we will be ready to begin phase one, or the precise dates on which we will be ready to move from segment to segment, we intend to publish as notices in the **Federal Register** the actual effective dates for the industry segments. Segment No. Effective date of phased-in rules (by calendar year quarter) 1 4th Quarter, 2007. 2 4th Quarter, 2007. 3 1st Quarter, 2008. 4 1st Quarter, 2008. 5 1st Quarter, 2008. 6 1st Quarter, 2008. 7 2nd Quarter, 2008. 8 2nd Quarter, 2008. 9 3rd Quarter, 2008. Proposed Exceptions to the Effective Dates of the New Rules There would be three exceptions to the phased implementation for the new rules, meaning that all program participants would be subject to these proposed exceptions upon the date of the final rules' publication. These exceptions can be implemented immediately because they are not dependent on the new tracking system. The first exception is the proposed revision to § 36.4313(b)(5) on allowable legal fees, which would be effective upon publication of the final rule. The second exception is the provision in new § 36.4321(d) that allows 1 year after termination for filing a claim under the guaranty, which would be effective upon publication of the final rule. The third exception is the new authority proposed in § 36.4344a for the Servicer Appraisal Processing Program, which would be effective upon publication of the final rule. Proposed New 38 CFR 36.4800, et seq. All program participants not yet brought online would be governed by the existing regulations in 38 CFR 36.4300 through 36.4393, as amended through this rulemaking. Program participants would also be immediately subject to the three exceptions described earlier. As industry segments are brought on-line, however, they would then be subject to the phased-in rules, which would be found at a new 4800 series in 38 CFR part 36. To make implementation less confusing, the 4800 series would reprint the existing rules not affected by this rulemaking. To illustrate: If a servicer were brought on-line and wanted to know the definition of a key term, it would look to 38 CFR 36.4801 to determine the meaning. The servicer would find the new § 36.4801 different from the existing § 36.4301 in the way that VA has proposed. On the other hand, if the same servicer wanted information about how guaranties are computed, it would look to § 36.4802 in the new environment, and would find it identical to the existing rule in 38 CFR 36.4302 because VA has not proposed a change to that section as a part of this rulemaking. When all industry segments have been brought on-line, VA will remove current §§ 36.4300 through 36.4393, and redesignate the new 4800 series to replace current §§ 36.4300 through 36.4393. At that time, all program participants would be subject to the new rules. Anticipated Effect of the Phase-in on Veterans and the Lending Industry The impact on veterans by this phasing of effective dates of the new rules would be minimal. Under the existing rules, veterans experiencing payment problems receive financial counseling and other assistance from VA to help them avoid foreclosure whenever possible. Under the new rules, loan servicers would be responsible for providing similar assistance to veterans and VA would be assuming an oversight role, monitoring the servicers' direct intervention, while retaining the ability to intervene on the veteran's behalf when necessary. VA would do everything possible to mitigate potential disparities and to minimize the time to move to full implementation of the new rules. VA would, to the maximum extent permitted by law, help veterans who may be affected by any differences. Nevertheless, VA believes the phase-in approach offers the least risk with the most opportunity for success, as other alternatives contemplated might severely impact VA's ability to serve any veteran. VA recognizes that mortgage servicers would incur some expenses for conversion to the new reporting requirements through the use of VA's new tracking system. However, as servicers shift over to VA's new system, they would become eligible for certain incentives authorized under the new rules. VA believes that the overall impact on servicers would be minimized by phasing in implementation of the new rules in accordance with the schedule for bringing servicers on-line with VA's new system, and this approach also offers the least risk to VA in the event the new system requires modifications. With respect to the effect of the proposed phased implementation, VA asks program participants and the general public to respond to or otherwise comment on the following questions: 1. Does VA's proposal balance the competing interests of the Government, beneficiaries, and program participants? 2. Are there program participants who would want to be brought in to the system at an earlier or later date than proposed in this supplemental notice? 3. How could VA modify the proposal for implementing the new system to accommodate program participants who seek an alternative phase-in date? 4. Are there other issues, such as the impact of incentives authorized under the new rules or the cost of preparing to be brought in to the system, which VA should consider in deciding whether there is any other feasible alternative to the phased implementation? Proposed Clarification on Servicer or Holder The holder is the entity ultimately responsible for compliance with VA regulations and under § 36.4301 “holder” means “the authorized servicing agent of the lender or assignee or transferee.” However, for purposes of tier ranking (§ 36.4316) and loss mitigation options and incentives (§ 36.4317), VA's intent is to measure performance of the actual loan servicer and reward it accordingly. In order to make this distinction clearer, VA proposes to add a new definition in § 36.4301 to describe the duties, responsibilities and rights of servicers. Proposed Clarifications on Loan Modifications VA proposed extensive changes to the existing rule in § 36.4314 to clarify the conditions under which a loan holder could modify an existing loan without the prior approval of VA. In reviewing the proposed rule VA realized that two aspects of it remained confusing and in need of clarification. First, proposed paragraph (a)(1) includes the phrase “or default is imminent.” Because VA is proposing a hierarchy of loss mitigation options for consideration within the new regulatory package, it would not be appropriate for a holder to consider modification of a loan until after first considering a repayment plan or a period of forbearance in order to allow loan reinstatement. Therefore, it would not normally be feasible for a holder to consider modification of a loan where default is only imminent, because that would not allow for prior consideration of a repayment plan or a period of forbearance. Accordingly, in addition to the amendments noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking published on February 18, 2005 (70 FR 8472), VA proposes to eliminate the words “or default is imminent” from the proposed rule. Second, proposed paragraph (a)(4) includes the phrase, “At least 12 months must have elapsed since the closing of the loan.” As we reviewed this proposal, we realized that the intent of the redesign group had been misconstrued with this language. VA actually intended for a holder to be empowered to consider a loan modification without VA's prior approval if the borrower had made at least 12 payments on the loan. The actual language in the proposed rule did not accurately convey this condition, and could allow loan modification even if a borrower had made no payments on the loan, but 12 months had elapsed since origination. VA would definitely want to review such a unique case prior to loan modification. However, if a borrower has made 12 payments after origination, then a holder should be allowed to modify the loan without prior VA approval, provided the other conditions are satisfied. Therefore, in addition to the amendments noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking published on February 18, 2005 (70 FR 8472), VA proposes to replace “months must have elapsed” with “payments must have been paid” in proposed § 36.4314(a)(4). Paperwork Reduction Act While the proposed rule sets forth collections of information pertaining to proposed § 36.4315a, this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking contains no new or proposed revised collections of information outside those referenced in the proposed rule. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)unless OMB waives such review, as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking have been examined, and it has been determined to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before developing any rule that may result in expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any given year. This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking would have no such effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary hereby certifies that this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The vast majority of VA loans are serviced by very large financial companies. Only a handful of small entities service VA loans and they service only a very small number of loans. This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, which only impacts veterans, other individual obligors with guaranteed loans, and companies that service VA loans, will have a very minor impact on a very small number of small entities servicing such loans. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number is 64.114, Veterans Housing Guaranteed and Insured Loans. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 36 Condominiums, Handicapped, Housing, Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—Indians, Loan programs—veterans, Manufactured homes, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Veterans. Approved: April 24, 2007. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 36 as follows: PART 36—LOAN GUARANTY 1. The authority citation for part 38 continues to read as follows: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 3701-3704, 3707, 3710-3714, 3719, 3720, 3729, 3762, unless otherwise noted. 2. Amend § 36.4301 as proposed to be amended on February 18, 2005 (70 FR 8483) by revising the following terms in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 36.4301 Definitions. *Compromise sale.* A sale to a third party for an amount less than is sufficient to repay the unpaid balance on the loan where the holder has agreed in advance to release the lien in exchange for the proceeds of such sale. *Holder.* The lender or any subsequent assignee or transferee of the guaranteed obligation or the authorized servicing agent (also referred to as “the servicer”) of the lender or of the assignee or transferee. *Liquidation sale.* * * * This term also includes a compromise sale. *Servicer.* The authorized servicer may be the servicing agent of a holder or the holder itself if the holder is performing all servicing functions on a loan. The servicer is typically the entity reporting all loan activity to VA and filing claims under the guaranty on behalf of the holder. VA will generally issue guaranty claims and other payments to the servicer, which will be responsible for forwarding funds to the holder in accordance with its servicing agreement. Incentives under § 36.4317 will generally be paid directly to the servicer based on its performance under that section and in accordance with its tier ranking under § 36.4316. *Total indebtedness.* For purposes of 38 U.S.C. 3732(c), the veteran's “total indebtedness” shall be the sum of: The unpaid principal on the loan as of the date of the liquidation sale, accrued unpaid interest permitted by § 36.4321(a), and fees and charges permitted to be included in the guaranty claim by § 36.4313. 3. Revise § 36.4314 to read as follows: § 36.4314 Loan modifications.
(a)Subject to the provisions of this section, the terms of any guaranteed loan may be modified by written agreement between the holder and the borrower, without prior approval of the Secretary, if all of the following conditions are met:
(1)The loan is in default;
(2)The event or circumstances that caused the default have been or will be resolved and it is not expected to re-occur.
(3)The obligor is considered to be a reasonable credit risk, based on a review by the holder of the obligor's creditworthiness under the criteria specified in § 36.4337, including a current credit report. The fact of the recent default will not preclude the holder from determining the obligor is now a satisfactory credit risk provided the holder determines that the obligor is able to resume regular mortgage installments when the modification becomes effective based upon a review of the obligor's current and anticipated income, expenses, and other obligations as provided in § 36.4337.
(4)At least 12 monthly payments have been paid since the closing date of the loan;
(5)The current owner occupies the property securing the loan and is obligated to repay the loan.
(6)All current owners of the property are parties to, and have agreed to the terms of, the loan modification.
(7)The loan will be reinstated to performing status by virtue of the loan modification.
(b)A loan can be modified no more than once in a 3-year period and no more than three times during the life of the loan.
(c)All modified loans must bear a fixed-rate of interest, which may not exceed the lesser of—
(1)A rate which is 100 basis points above the interest rate in effect on this loan just prior to the execution of the modification agreement, or
(2)The Government National Mortgage Association
(GNMA)current month coupon rate that is closest to par
(100)in effect at the close of business on the business day immediately preceding the date the modification agreement is executed by the obligor plus 50 basis points.
(d)The unpaid balance of the modified loan may be re-amortized over the remaining life of the loan. The loan term may extend the maturity date to the shorter of—
(1)360 months from the due date of the first installment required under the modification, or
(2)120 months after the original maturity date of the loan.
(e)Only unpaid principal, accrued interest, and deficits in the taxes and insurance impound accounts may be included in the modified indebtedness. Late fees and other charges may not be capitalized.
(f)Holders will ensure the first lien status of the modified loan. No current owner of the property will be released from liability as a result of executing the modification agreement without prior approval from VA. Releasing a current owner obligor from liability without prior approval will release the Secretary from liability under the guaranty.
(g)The dollar amount of the guaranty may not exceed the greater of the original guaranty amount of the loan being modified or 25 percent of the loan being modified subject to the statutory maximum specified at 38 U.S.C. 3703(a)(1)(B).
(h)The obligor may not receive any cash back from the modification. [FR Doc. E7-10630 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0324; FRL-8321-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Johnstown (Cambria County) 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Johnstown (Cambria County) ozone nonattainment area (Cambria Area) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation request for the Cambria Area. In conjunction with its redesignation request, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for the Cambria Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Cambria Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for 2003-2005. EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on its determination that the Cambria Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the Commonwealth has also submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the Cambria Area which EPA is proposing to approve as a SIP revision. EPA is also providing information on the status of its adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the maintenance plan for the Cambria Area for purposes of transportation conformity, which EPA is also proposing to approve. EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation request and of the maintenance plan and 2002 base year inventory SIP revisions in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0324 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail: miller.linda@epa.gov.* C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0324, Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0324. 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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. 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 during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,
(215)814-2182, or by e-mail at *quinto.rose@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Table of Contents I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing to Take? II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions? III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment? IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions? VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request? VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Cambria Area Adequate and Approvable? VIII. Proposed Actions IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing to Take? On March 27, 2007, PADEP formally submitted a request to redesignate the Cambria Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, Pennsylvania submitted a maintenance plan for the Cambria Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment in the area over the next 11 years. Pennsylvania also submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the Cambria Area as a SIP revision. The Cambria Area is currently designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine that the Cambria Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that it has met the requirements for redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve the redesignation request to change the designation of the Cambria Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the Cambria Area maintenance plan as a SIP revision (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment in the Cambria Area for the next 11 years. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory for the Cambria Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified in the Cambria maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs identified for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)and nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) for the Cambria Area for transportation conformity purposes. II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions? A. General Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of NO <sup>X</sup> and VOC react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NO <sup>X</sup> and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour standard. EPA designated, as nonattainment, any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the air quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most recent three years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The Cambria Area was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in a **Federal Register** notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour health-based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003. On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Cambria Area (as well as most other areas of the country) effective June 15, 2005. *See* , 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23966 (April 30, 2004); and see 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005). However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard, (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004), *See, South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA* , 472 F. 3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (hereafter “ *South Coast* .”). The Court held that certain provisions of EPA's Phase 1 Rule were inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also held that EPA improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations:
(1)Nonattainment area New Source Review
(NSR)requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;
(2)Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas;
(3)measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or failure to attain that NAAQS; and
(4)the certain conformity requirements for certain types of Federal actions. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions. Elsewhere in this document, mainly section VI.B. “The Cambria Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA,” EPA discusses its rationale why the decision in *South Coast* is not impediment to redesignating the Cambria Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as “basic” nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant—including ozone—governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as “classified” nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. In 2004, the Cambria Area was classified a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003 and therefore, is subject to the requirements of subpart 1 of Part D. Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). *See* 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone monitoring data indicates that the Cambria Area has a design value of 0.077 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005, using complete, quality-assured data. Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the Cambria Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard. B. The Cambria Area The Cambria Area consists of Johnstown (Cambria County), Pennsylvania. Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Cambria Area was a marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, and therefore, was subject to requirements for marginal nonattainment areas pursuant to section 182(a) of the CAA. *See* 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). EPA determined that the Cambria Area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the November 15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995). On March 27, 2007, PADEP requested that the Cambria Area be redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been achieved in the Cambria Area. The data satisfies the CAA requirements that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly referred to as the area's design value), must be less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a nonattainment area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-assured data is available to determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E). III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment? The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, allows for redesignation, providing that:
(1)EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2)EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k);
(3)EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;
(4)EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
(5)The State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D. EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents: • “Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,” Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June, 18, 1990; • “Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992; • “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO)Redesignations,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992; • “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; • “State Implementation Plan
(SIP)Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act
(Act)Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; • “Technical Support Documents
(TSDs)for Redesignation Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO)Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; • “State Implementation Plan
(SIP)Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO)National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993; • Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” dated November 30, 1993; • “Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; and • “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995. IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? On March 27, 2007, PADEP requested redesignation of the Cambria Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On March 27, 2007, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Cambria Area as a SIP revision, to ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the next 11 years, until 2018. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory concurrently with its maintenance plan as a SIP revision. V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions? Approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of the Cambria Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Pennsylvania SIP a 2002 base year inventory and a maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Cambria Area for the next 11 years, until 2018. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the NO <sup>X</sup> and VOC MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for the years 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs are displayed in the following table: Table 1.—Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Summer Day
(tpsd)Year VOC NO <sup>X</sup> 2009 3.8 5.6 2018 2.3 2.7 VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request? EPA is proposing to determine that the Cambria Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that all other redesignation criteria have been met. The following is a description of how the PADEP's March 27, 2007 submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. A. The Cambria Area Has Attained the Ozone NAAQS EPA is proposing to determine that the Cambria Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the design value, which is the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations, measured at each monitor within the area over each year, must not exceed the ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. In the Cambria Area, there is one ozone monitor, located in Cambria County that measures air quality with respect to ozone. As part of its redesignation request, Pennsylvania referenced ozone monitoring data for the years 2003-2005 for the Cambria Area. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in the AQS. PADEP uses the AQS as the permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures the data transfers and content for accuracy. The fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-year average are summarized in Table 2. Table 2.—Cambria Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Average Values Cambria County Monitor/AQS ID 42-021-0011 Year Annual 4th highest reading
(ppm)2003 0.083 2004 0.071 2005 0.077 2006 0.073 The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.077 ppm. The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.074 ppm. The air quality data for 2003-2005 show that the Cambria Area has attained the standard with a design value of 0.077 ppm. The data collected at the Cambria Area monitor satisfies the CAA requirement that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. EPA believes this conclusion remains valid after review of the certified 2006 data because the design value for 2004-2006 would be 0.074 ppm. PADEP's request for redesignation for the Cambria Area indicates that the data is complete and was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and data taken from AQS indicate that the Cambria Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. B. The Cambria Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA EPA has determined that the Cambria Area has met all SIP requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Cambria Area and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements. The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements. Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. *See also* , Michael Shapiro memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA. *Sierra Club* v. *EPA* , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). *See also* , 68 FR at 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). This action also sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the Court's ruling in *South Coast* on this redesignation action. For the reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either circumstance redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. 1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to the following: • Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after reasonable public notice and hearing; • Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; • Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)); • Provisions for the implementation of part D requirements for New Source Review
(NSR)permit programs; • Provisions for air pollution modeling; and • Provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address transport of air pollutants in accordance with the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the State. Thus, we do believe that these requirements are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The Cambria Area will still be subject to these requirements after it is redesignated. The section 110 and Part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. *See* , Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). *See also* , the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001). Similarly, with respect to the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call rules are not “an” ‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of section 110(1) because the NO <sup>X</sup> rules apply regardless of an area's attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.” 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004). EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. As we explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due for the Cambria Area prior to the submission of the redesignation request. Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies all of the applicable general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 100(a)(2), EPA concludes that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion of section 107(d)(3)(e) regarding section 110 of the CAA. 2. Part D Nonattainment Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), the Cambria Area was designated a basic nonattainment area under subpart 1 for the 8-hour ozone standard. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of Part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification. With respect to the 8-hour standard, the court's ruling rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is possible that this area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified under subpart 2. Although any future decision by EPA to classify this area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation of the area cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon
(1)EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating redesignation requests in accordance with the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and
(2)consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements that might in the future be applied. At the time the redesignation request was submitted, the Cambria Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. *See* , September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division). *See also* , Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor); *Sierra Club* v. *EPA* , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this interpretation; 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was submitted. The D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity in such retroactive rulemaking. *See, Sierra Club* v. *Whitman* , 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the DC Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that was past the statutory due date. Such determination would have resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on that area. The Court stated: “Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on notice at the time.” *Id.* at 68. Similarly, here it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for purposes of redesignation, additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request. With respect to 8-hour subpart 2 requirements, if the Cambria Area initially had been classified under subpart 2, the first two Part D subpart 2 requirements applicable to the Cambria Area under section 182(a) of the CAA would be a base year inventory requirement pursuant to section 182(a)(1) of the CAA, and the emissions statement requirement pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B). As stated previously, these requirements are not due for purposes of redesignation of the Cambria Area, but nevertheless, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP, an emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard that covers all portions of the designated 8-hour nonattainment area, and that satisfies the emissions statement requirement for the 8-hour standard. *See* , 25 Pa. Code 135.21(a)(1) codified at 40 CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881, January 12, 1995. With respect to the base year inventory requirement, in this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory for the Cambria Area, which was submitted on March 27, 2007, concurrently with its maintenance plan, into the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory as fulfilling the requirements, if necessary, of both sections 182(a)(1) and 172(c)(3) of the CAA. A detailed evaluation of Pennsylvania's 2002 base year inventory for the Cambria Area can be found in a Technical Support Document
(TSD)prepared by EPA for this rulemaking. EPA has determined that the emission inventory and the emissions statement for the Cambria Area have been satisfied. In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the redesignation request, EPA believes that the general conformity and NSR requirements do not require approval prior to redesignation. With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act (“transportation conformity”) as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (“general conformity”). State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) since State conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been approved. *See, Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. *See also* , 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). In the case of the Cambria Area, EPA has also determined that before being redesignated, the Cambria Area need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation. EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without Part D NSR in effect. The rationale for this position is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D NSR Requirements of Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Normally, State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)program will become effective in the area immediately upon redesignation to attainment. *See* the more detailed explanations in the following redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61 FR 31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996). In the case of the Cambria Area, the Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP (codified at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly apply the requirements for NSR in section 184 of the CAA to ozone attainment areas within the ozone transport region (OTR). The OTR NSR requirements are more stringent than that required for a marginal or basic ozone nonattainment area. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision consisting of Pennsylvania's Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations that cover the Cambria Area. EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation. The rationale for this is based on two considerations. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as well as reasonably available control technology (RACT), and Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs even after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the Cambria Area by virtue of the area's designation and classification. *See* , 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997). 3. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard In its December 22, 2006 decision in *South Coast* , the Court also addressed EPA's revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard. The current status of the revocation and associated anti-backsliding rules is dependent on whether the Court's decision stands as originally issued or is modified in response to any petition for rehearing or request for clarification that has been filed. As described more fully below, EPA determined that the Cambria Area has attained the 1-hour standard by its attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995), continuous to attain that attain that standard, and has fulfilled any requirements of the 1-hour standard that would apply even if the 1-hour standard is reinstated and those requirements are viewed as applying under the statute itself. Thus, the Court's decision, as it currently stands, imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of the Cambria Area to attainment. The conformity portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the redesignation request for the Cambria Area because there are no conformity requirements that are relevant to redesignation request for any standard, including the requirement to submit a transportation conformity SIP. 1 As we have previously noted, under longstanding EPA policy, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. 40 CFR 51.390. *See, Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. *See also* , 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL redesignation). 1 Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently requires States to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain Federal criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emissions budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans. With respect to the requirement for submission of contingency measures for the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does not require contingency measures for marginal areas, and, therefore, that portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the redesignation request for the Cambria Area. Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Cambria Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-hour standard. With respect to the 1-hour standard, the applicable requirements of subpart 1 and subpart 2 of Part D (section 182) for the Cambria Area are discussed in the following paragraphs. Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to correct or amend RACT for sources in marginal areas, such as the Cambria Area, that were subject to control technique guidelines
(CTGs)issued before November 15, 1990 pursuant to CAA section 108. On December 22, 1994, EPA fully approved into the Pennsylvania SIP all corrections required under section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994). EPA believes that this requirement applies only to marginal and higher classified areas under the 1-hour NAAQS pursuant to the 1990 amendments to the CAA; therefore, this is a one-time requirement. After an area has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS, there is no requirement under the 8-hour NAAQS. Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the CAA relates to the savings clause for vehicle I/M. It requires marginal areas to adopt vehicle I/M programs. This provision was not applicable to the Cambria Area because this area did not have nor was required to have an I/M program before November 15, 1990. Section 182(a)(3)(A) is a provision of the CAA that requires a triennial periodic emissions inventory for the nonattainment area. The most recent inventory for the Cambria Area compiled for 2002 and submitted to EPA as a SIP revision with the maintenance for the Cambria Area. With respect to NSR, EPA has determined that areas being redesignated need not have an approved New Source Review program for the same reasons discussed previously with respect to the applicable Part D requirements for the 8-hour standard. Section 182(a)(3)(B) is a provision of the CAA that requires sources of VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> in the nonattainment area to submit annual Emissions Statements regarding the quantity of emissions from the previous year. As discussed previously, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP, a previously approved emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard which applies to the Cambria Area. Section 182(a)(1) is a provision of the CAA that provides for the submission of a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources, as described in section 172(c)(3), in accordance with guidance provided by the Administrator. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to approve a 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Cambria Area as meeting the requirement of section 182(a)(1). While EPA generally required that the base year inventory for the 1-hour standard be for calendar year 1990, EPA believes that Pennsylvania's 2002 inventory fulfills this requirement because it meets EPA's guidance and because it is more current than 1990. EPA also proposes to determine that, if the 1-hour standard is deemed to be reinstated, the 2002 base year inventory for the 8-hour standard will provide an acceptable substitute for the base year inventory for the 1-hour standard. EPA has previously determined that the Cambria Area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the November 15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995) and we believe that the Cambria Area is still in attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based upon the ozone monitoring data for the years 2003-2005. To demonstrate attainment, *i.e.* , compliance with this standard, the annual average of the number of exceedances of the 1-hour standard over a three-year period must be less than or equal to 1. Table 3 provides a summary of the number of expected exceedances for each of the years 2003 through 2006 and three-year annual average. Table 3.—Cambria Area Number of Expected Exceedances of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard; Cambria County Monitor/AQS ID 42-021-0011 Year Number of expected exceedances 2003 0.0 2004 0.0 2005 0.0 2006 0.0 The average number of exceedances for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.0. The average number of exceedances for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.0. In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and taken from AQS indicates that the Cambria Area is maintaining air quality that conforms to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes this conclusion remains valid after review of the available 2006 data because no exceedances were recorded in the Cambria Area in 2006. 4. Transport Region Requirements All areas in the OTR, both attainment and nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment. The section 184 requirements include RACT, NSR, enhanced vehicle I/M, and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure. In the case of the Cambria Area, which is located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR will be applicable after redesignation. As discussed previously, EPA fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision which applies the requirements for NSR of section 184 of the CAA to attainment areas within the OTR. As discussed previously in this notice, EPA has interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation. *See* , 61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996, and 62 FR 24826 at 24830-24832, May 7, 1997 (Reading, Pennsylvania Redesignation). 5. Cambria Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of this redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request. Calcagni Memo, p. 3; *Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance* v. *Browner* , 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); *Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. *See also* , 68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Cambria Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Cambria Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures. Emissions reductions attributable to these rules are shown in Table 4. Table 4.—Total VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in Tons per Summer Day
(tpsd)Year Point Area Nonroad Mobile Total Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)2002 0.4 6.4 3.0 6.3 16.1 2004 0.5 6.1 2.9 5.3 14.8 Diff. (02-04) 0.1 −0.3 −0.1 −1.0 −1.3 Nitrogen Oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) 2002 5.8 0.7 5.6 9.5 21.6 2004 6.0 0.7 5.3 8.2 20.2 Diff. (02-04) 0.2 0.0 −0.3 −1.3 −1.4 Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 1.3 tpsd, and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions decreased by 1.4 tpsd. These reductions, and anticipated future reductions, are due to the following permanent and enforceable measures. 1. Stationary Point Sources Federal NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001). 2. Stationary Area Sources Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003). Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004). 3. Highway Vehicle Sources Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP). —Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991). —Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000). Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21, 1997, and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000). National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV)Program
(PA)(64 FR 72564, December 28, 1999). Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program (70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005). 4. Non-Road Sources Non-road Diesel (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004). EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the cause of the Cambria Area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. D. The Cambria Area Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Cambria Area to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Cambria Area for at least 11 years after redesignation. The Commonwealth is requesting that EPA approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of CAA 175A. Once approved, the maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Cambria Area meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone standard. What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan? Section 175 of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the Commonwealth must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The Calcagni memo provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address the following provisions:
(a)an attainment emissions inventory;
(b)a maintenance demonstration;
(c)a monitoring network;
(d)verification of continued attainment; and
(e)a contingency plan. Analysis of the Cambria Area Maintenance Plan
(a)Attainment inventory—An attainment inventory includes the emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. PADEP determined that the appropriate attainment inventory year is 2004. That year establishes a reasonable year within the three-year block of 2003-2005 as a baseline and accounts for reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to date. The 2004 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> during 2004 and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions. The 2002 and 2004 point source data was compiled from actual sources. Pennsylvania requires owners and operators of larger facilities to submit annual production figures and emission calculations each year. Throughput data are multiplied by emission factors from Factor Information Retrieval
(FIRE)Data Systems and EPA's publication series AP-42, and are based on Source Classification Codes (SCC). The 2002 area source data was compiled using county-level activity data, from census numbers, from county numbers, etc. The 2004 area source data was projected from the 2002 inventory using temporal allocations provided by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA). The on-road mobile source inventories for 2002 and 2004 were compiled using MOBILE6.2 and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT) estimates for VMT. The PADEP has provided detailed data summaries to document the calculations of mobile on-road VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions for 2002, as well as for the projection years of 2004, 2009, and 2018 (shown in Tables 5 and 6 below). The 2002 and 2004 emissions for the majority of non-road emission source categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model. The NONROAD model calculates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled non-road equipment types and includes growth factors. The NONROAD model does not estimate emissions from locomotives or aircraft. For 2002 and 2004 locomotive emissions, the PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption information and EPA emission and conversion factors. There are no significant air carrier operations (aircraft that can seat over 60 passengers) in Cambria County. The Johnstown Airport supports some air taxi operations that account for a very small amount of emissions. For 2002 and 2004 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small airport operations statistics from *http://www.airnav.com* , and emission factors and operational characteristics in the EPA-approved model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). More detailed information on the compilation of the 2002, 2004, 2009, and 2018 inventories can found in the Technical Appendices, which are part of this submittal.
(b)Maintenance Demonstration—On March 27, 2007, the PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA. The Cambria Area maintenance plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future emissions of VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> remain at or below the attainment year 2004 emissions levels throughout the Cambria Area through the year 2018. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. *See* , *Wall* v. *EPA* , *supra* ; *Sierra Club* v. *EPA, supra. See also,* 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at 25430-32. Tables 5 and 6 specify the VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions for the Cambria Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. The PADEP chose 2009 as an interim year in the maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions are not projected to increase above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the maintenance period. Table 5.—Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018
(tpsd)Source category 2004 VOC emissions 2009 VOC emissions 2018 VOC emissions Point * 0.5 0.3 0.4 Area 6.1 5.5 5.4 Mobile ** 5.3 3.8 2.3 Nonroad 2.9 2.4 2.1 Total 14.8 12.0 10.2 * The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A-4 submitted with the maintenance plan. ** Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity. Table 6.—Total NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions for 2004-2018
(tpsd)Source category 2004 NO <sup>X</sup> emissions 2009 NO <sup>X</sup> emissions 2018 NO <sup>X</sup> emissions Point * 6.0 6.5 6.9 Area 0.7 0.7 0.8 Mobile ** 8.2 5.6 2.7 Non-road 5.3 4.5 3.4 Total 20.2 17.3 13.7 * The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A-4. ** Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity. Additionally, the following programs are either effective or due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS: • The Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)(71 FR 25328, April 28, 2006). • The Federal NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001). • Area VOC regulations concerning portable fuel containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004), consumer products (69 FR 70895, December 8, 2004), and architectural and industrial maintenance coatings
(AIM)(69 FR 68080, November 23, 2004). • Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (light-duty ) (Tier 1, Tier 2; 56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991; 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000). • Vehicle emission/inspection/maintenance program (70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005). • Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low sulfur on-road (2006); 66 FR 5002, (January 18, 2001). • Non-road emission standards
(2008)and off-road diesel fuel 2007/2010); 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004). • NLEV/PA Clean Vehicle Program (54 FR 72564, December 28, 1999)—Pennsylvania will implement this program in car model year 2008. • Pennsylvania Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control Program. (May 10, 2002). Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA concludes that PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard should be maintained in the Cambria Area.
(c)Monitoring Network—There is currently one monitor measuring ozone in the Cambria Area. PADEP will continue to operate its current air quality monitor (located in Cambria County), in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
(d)Verification of Continued Attainment—In addition to maintaining the key elements of its regulatory program, the Commonwealth will track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the Cambria Area by reviewing air quality and emissions data during the maintenance period. The Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation of Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT)data and emissions reported from stationary sources, and compare them to the assumptions about these factors used in the maintenance plan. The Commonwealth will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR part 51, subpart A) to see if they exceed the attainment year inventory
(2004)by more than 10 percent. PADEP will also continue to operate the existing ozone monitoring station in the Area pursuant to 40 CFR part 58 throughout the maintenance period and submit quality-assured ozone data to EPA through the AQS system. Section 175A(b) of the CAA states that eight years following the redesignation of the Cambria Area, PADEP will be required to submit a second maintenance plan that will ensure attainment through 2028. PADEP has made that commitment to meet the requirement of section 175A(b).
(e)The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures—The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to ensure that the State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s). The ability of the Cambria Area to stay in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions in the area remaining at or below 2004 levels. The Commonwealth's maintenance plan projects VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions to decrease and stay below 2004 levels through the year 2018. The Commonwealth's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce emissions should a violation occur. Contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentrations at the Cambria County monitor are above 84 ppb. If this trigger point occurs, the Commonwealth will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will also analyze the conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate which measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of Federal, state, and local measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of implementing any selected measures. Contingency measures will also be considered in the event that a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at the Cambria County, Pennsylvania monitor. In the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, PADEP will adopt additional emissions reduction measures as expeditiously as practicable in accordance with the implementation schedule listed later in this notice and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act in order to return the area to attainment with the standard. Contingency measures to be considered for the Cambria Area will include, but not be limited to the following: *Regulatory measures:* —Additional controls on consumer products. —Additional controls on portable fuel containers. *Non-Regulatory measures:* —Voluntary diesel engine “chip reflash” (installation software to correct the defeat device option on certain heavy-duty diesel engines). —Diesel retrofit, including replacement, repowering or alternative fuel use, for public or private local on-road or off-road fleets. —Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives. —Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses and other freight-handling facilities. —Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment. —Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home heating and agricultural use. The plan lays out a process to have any regulatory contingency measures in effect within 19 months of the trigger. The plan also lays out a process to implement the non-regulatory contingency measures within 12-24 months of the trigger. VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified in the Cambria Area Maintenance Plan Adequate and Approvable? A. What are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets? Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These control strategy SIPs (i.e., RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans identify and establish MVEBs for certain criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from on-road mobile sources. In the maintenance plan, the MVEBs are termed “on-road mobile source emission budgets.” Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 and 51.112, MVEBs must be established in an ozone maintenance plan. An MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. An MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish and revise the MVEBs in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans. Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. “Conformity” to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of or reasonable progress towards the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not “conform,” most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and ensuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB contained therein “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity. After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by state and federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects “conform” to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining “adequacy” of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) EPA's process for determining “adequacy” consists of three basic steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999 guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” This guidance was finalized in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments—Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA consults this guidance and follows this rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations. The MVEBS for the Cambria Area are listed in Table 1 of this document for 2009 and 2018, and are the projected emissions for the on-road mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the MVEBs (safety margin allocation for 2009 and 2018 only). These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be used for transportation conformity determinations. B. What is a Safety Margin? A safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The safety margin is the extra emissions that can be allocated as long as the total attainment level of emissions is maintained. The credit, or a portion thereof, can be allocated to any of the source categories. The following example is for the 2018 safety margin: the Cambria Area first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002 to 2004 time period. The Commonwealth used 2004 as a year to determine attainment levels of emissions for the Cambria Area. The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources in 2004 equaled 14.8 tpd of VOC and 20.2 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> . PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and projected a total of 10.2 tpd of VOC and 13.7 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> from all sources in the Cambria Area. The safety margin for the Cambria Area for 2018 is the difference between these amounts, or 4.6 tpd of VOC and 6.5 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> . The emissions up to the level of the attainment year including the safety margins are projected to maintain the area's air quality consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Table 7 shows the safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years. Table 7.—2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for the Cambria Area Inventory year VOC emissions
(tpd)NO <sup>X</sup> emissions
(tpd)2004 Attainment 14.8 20.2 2009 Interim 12.0 17.3 2009 Safety Margin 2.8 2.9 2004 Attainment 14.8 20.2 2018 Final 10.2 13.7 2018 Safety Margin 4.6 6.5 PADEP allocated 0.2 tpd VOC and 0.2 tpd NO <sup>X</sup> to the 2009 interim VOC projected on-road mobile source emissions projection and the 2009 interim NO <sup>X</sup> projected on-road mobile source emissions projection to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs, PADEP allocated 0.3 tpd VOC and 0.3 tpd NO <sup>X</sup> from the 2018 safety margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. Once allocated to the mobile source budgets, these portions of the safety margins are no longer available, and may not be allocated to any other source category. Table 8 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Cambria Area. Table 8.—2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Cambria Area Inventory year VOC emissions
(tpd)NO <sup>X</sup> emissions
(tpd)2009 Projected On-road Mobile Source Projected Emissions 3.6 5.4 2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs 0.2 0.2 2009 MVEBs 3.8 5.6 2018 Projected On-road Mobile Source Projected Emissions 2.0 2.4 2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs 0.3 0.3 2018 MVEBs 2.3 2.7 C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable? The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Cambria Area are approvable because the MVEBs for NO <sup>X</sup> and VOCs continue to maintain the total emissions at or below the attainment year inventory levels as required by the transportation conformity regulations. D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the Cambria Area Maintenance Plan? The MVEBs for the Cambria Area maintenance plan are being posted to EPA's conformity Web site concurrently with this proposal. The public comment period will end at the same time as the public comment period for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA is concurrently processing the action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the MVEBs contained therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan. The MVEBs cannot be used for transportation conformity until the maintenance plan and associated MVEBs are approved in a final **Federal Register** notice, or EPA otherwise finds the budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment period. If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the proposed approval of the Cambria Area MVEBs, or any other aspect of our proposed approval of this updated maintenance plan, we will respond to the comments on the MVEBs in our final action or proceed with the adequacy process as a separate action. Our action on the Cambria Area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm* (once there, click on “Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions). VIII. Proposed Actions EPA is proposing to determine that the Cambria Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the redesignation of the Cambria Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Cambria Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request would change the designation of the Cambria Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Cambria Area, submitted on March 27, 2007, as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Cambria Area because it meets the requirements of section 175A as described previously in this notice. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the Cambria Area, and the MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the Cambria Area in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule, proposing to approve the redesignation of the Cambria Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness Areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: May 25, 2007. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E7-10584 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0323; FRL-8321-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle ozone nonattainment area (“Harrisburg Area” or “Area”) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Area is comprised of the counties of Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and Perry. EPA is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation request for the Harrisburg Area. In conjunction with its redesignation request, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for 2003-2005. EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on its determination that the Harrisburg Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Harrisburg Area, and EPA is proposing to approve that inventory for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP revision. EPA is also providing information on the status of its adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area for purposes of transportation conformity, and is also proposing to approve those MVEBs. EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation request and of the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory SIP revisions in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0323 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail: miller.linda@epa.gov.* C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0323, Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0323. 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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. 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 during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth,
(215)814-2034, or by e-mail at *wentworth.ellen@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Table of Contents I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing to Take? II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions? III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment? IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions? VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request? VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Harrisburg Area Adequate and Approvable? VIII. Proposed Actions IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing to Take? On March 27, 2007, the PADEP formally submitted a request to redesignate the Harrisburg Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, Pennsylvania submitted a maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment in the Area over the next 11 years. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP revision. The Harrisburg Area is comprised of the counties of Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and Perry, and is currently designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine that the Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that it has met the requirements for redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve the redesignation request to change the designation of the Harrisburg Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the Harrisburg Area maintenance plan as a SIP revision for the Area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment in the Harrisburg Area for the next 11 years. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified in the Harrisburg Area maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs identified for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)and nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) for the Harrisburg Area for transportation conformity purposes. II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions? Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of NO <sup>X</sup> and VOC react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NO <sup>X</sup> and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour standard. EPA designated, as nonattainment, any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the air quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most recent three years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The Harrisburg Area was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, in a **Federal Register** notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour health-based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003. On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Harrisburg Area (as well as in most other areas of the country) effective June 15, 2005. *See,* 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005). However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). *See, South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.v.EPA* , 472 F. 3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (hereafter “ *South Coast.* ”). The Court held that certain provisions of EPA's Phase 1 Rule were inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also held that EPA improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations:
(1)Nonattainment area New Source Review
(NSR)(requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification);
(2)Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas;
(3)measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and
(4)the certain conformity requirements for certain types of federal actions. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions. Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI.B, “The Harrisburg Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA,” EPA discusses its rationale why the decision in *South Coast* is not an impediment to redesignating the Harrisburg Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CAA, title I, part D, contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as “basic” nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant—including ozone—governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as “classified” nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. In 2004, the Harrisburg Area was classified a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based upon air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003. Therefore, the Harrisburg Area is subject to the requirements of subpart 1 of part D. Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm ( *i.e.* , 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). *See* 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone monitoring data indicates that the Harrisburg Area has a design value of 0.078 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005, using complete, quality-assured data. Additionally, certified 2006 ozone monitoring data indicates that the Harrisburg Area continues to attain the ozone NAAQS. Therefore the ambient ozone data for the Harrisburg Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard. The Harrisburg Area The Harrisburg Area consists of the counties of Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and Perry, Pennsylvania. Prior to its designation as an 8-hour basic ozone nonattainment area (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004), the Harrisburg Area was a marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment Area, and therefore, was subject to requirements for marginal nonattainment areas pursuant to section 182(a) of the CAA. *See* 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). EPA determined that the Harrisburg Area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the November 15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995). On March 27, 2007, the PADEP requested that the Harrisburg Area be redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The redesignation requested included three years of complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been achieved in the Harrisburg Area. The data satisfies the CAA requirements that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly referred to as the area's design value), must be less than or equal to 0.08 ppm ( *i.e.* , 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a nonattainment area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-assured data is available to determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements set forth in section 107(d)(e)(E). III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment? The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, allows for redesignation, providing that:
(1)EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2)EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k);
(3)EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;
(4)EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
(5)The State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D. EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents: • “Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,” Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990; • “Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992; • “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO)Redesignations,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992; • “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; • “State Implementation Plan
(SIP)Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act
(Act)Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; • “Technical Support Documents
(TSDs)for Redesignation Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO)Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; • “State Implementation Plan
(SIP)Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO)National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993; • Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” dated November 30, 1993; • “Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; and • “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995. IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? On March 27, 2007, the PADEP requested redesignation of the Harrisburg Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On March 27, 2007, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP revision, to ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the next 11 years until 2018. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory concurrently with its maintenance plan as a SIP revision. EPA has determined that the Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E). V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions? Approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of the Harrisburg Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Pennsylvania SIP, a 2002 base-year inventory and a maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Harrisburg Area for the next 11 years, until 2018. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the NO <sup>X</sup> and VOC MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for the years 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs (including safety margins) are displayed in Table 1 below. Note that separate conformity budgets are being established for each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 93.124(d)) allow a SIP to establish MVEBs for each MPO if a nonattainment area includes more than one MPO, which is the case in the Harrisburg Area. The responsible agency for the counties of Cumberland, Dauphin, and Perry is the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS), and the responsible agency for the county of Lebanon is LEBCO (Lebanon County MPO), both designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs)under Federal transportation planning requirements. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT) has requested separate budgets to allow the planning organizations to move their transportation conformity determinations through the approval process separately. Table 1.—Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Kilograms Per Day (Tons per Day—Rounded) Year VOC NO <sup>X</sup> Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS)—Cumberland, Dauphin, and Perry Counties 2009 23,014 (25.4) 41,917 (46.2) 2018 16,136 (17.8) 18,409 (20.3) Lebanon County MPO (LEBCO) 2009 4,301 (4.7) 8,928 (9.8) 2018 2,512 (2.8) 3,684 (4.1) * Note: Tons per day are informational only. Differences occur due to rounding. VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request? EPA is proposing to determine that the Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that all other redesignation criteria have been met. The following is a description of how the PADEP's March 27, 2007 submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. A. The Harrisburg Area Has Attained the 8-Hour NAAQS EPA is proposing to determine that the Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the design value, which is the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor, within the area, over each year must not exceed the ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value at every monitor is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. In the Harrisburg Area, there are three monitors that measure air quality with respect to ozone. There are two monitors in Dauphin County, (the Harrisburg monitor, and the Hershey monitor), and one monitor in Perry County, (the Little Buffalo State Park monitor). As part of its redesignation request, Pennsylvania referenced ozone monitoring data for the years 2003-2005 (the most recent three years of data available as of the time of the redesignation request) for the Harrisburg Area. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in the AQS. PADEP uses the AQS as the permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures the data transfers and content for accuracy. The fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum concentrations for the three monitors in the Harrisburg Area, along with the three-year average are summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2.—Harrisburg Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone Values Year Annual 4th highest reading
(ppm)Harrisburg Monitor, Dauphin County, AQS ID 42-043-0401 2003 0.074 2004 0.076 2005 0.084 2006 0.077 The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.078 The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.079 Hershey Monitor, Dauphin County, AQS ID 42-043-1100 2003 0.079 2004 0.072 2005 0.085 2006 0.081 The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.078 The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.079 Little Buffalo State Park Monitor, Perry County, AQS ID 42-099-0301 2003 0.084 2004 0.069 2005 0.082 2006 0.077 The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.078 The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.076 The air quality data show that the Harrisburg Area has attained the standard with a design value of 0.078 ppm. The data collected at the Area monitors satisfies the CAA requirement that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. EPA believes this conclusion remains valid after a review of the quality assured 2006 data because the Area is still attaining the standard with a design value at each monitor of 0.084 ppm or less for 2004 through 2006. The PADEP's request for redesignation for the Harrisburg Area indicates that the data is complete and was quality assured in accordance with part 58. In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and data taken from AQS indicate that the Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. B. The Harrisburg Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA EPA has determined that the Harrisburg Area has met all SIP requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all applicable SIP requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Harrisburg Area and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements. The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements. Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. *See also,* Michael Shapiro memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A( c) of the CAA. *Sierra Club* v. *EPA,* 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). *See also,* 68 FR at 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). This section also sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the Court's ruling in *South Coast* on this redesignation action. For the reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with the redesignation of this Area to attainment, because in either circumstance, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. 1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements Section 110(a)(2) of Title 1 of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which includes enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to the following: • Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after reasonable public notice and hearing; • Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; • Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)); • Provisions for the implementation of part D requirements for New Source Review
(NSR)permit programs; • Provisions for air pollution modeling; and • Provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address transport of air pollutants in accordance with the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the State. Thus, we do not believe that these requirements are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The Harrisburg Area will still be subject to these requirements after it is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. *See* Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). *See also,* the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001). Similarly, with respect to the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call rules are not “an” ‘applicable requirement' for purposes of section 110(1) because the NO <sup>X</sup> rules apply regardless of an area's attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.” 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004). EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. As we explain later in this notice, no part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due for the Harrisburg Area prior to submission of the redesignation request. Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies all of the applicable general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2), EPA concludes that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion of section 107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the Act. 2. Part D Nonattainment Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard Pursuant to an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23951), the Harrisburg Area was designated a basic nonattainment area under subpart 1 for the 8-hour ozone standard. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification. With respect to the 8-hour standard, the court's ruling rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is possible that this Area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified under subpart 2. Although any future decision by EPA to classify this Area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for the Area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation of the Area cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon
(1)EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating redesignation requests in accordance with the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and
(2)consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements that might in the future be applied. First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the Harrisburg Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. *See* September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division). See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor); *Sierra Club* v. *EPA* , 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this interpretation. *See* 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was submitted. The D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity in such retroactive rulemaking. *See Sierra Club* v. *Whitman* , 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The Court stated: “Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on notice at the time.” *Id.* at 68. Similarly here it would be unfair to penalize the Area by applying to it for purposes of redesignation, additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request. With respect to 8-hour subpart 2 requirements, if the Harrisburg Area initially had been classified under subpart 2, the first two part D subpart 2 requirements applicable to the Harrisburg Area under section 182(a) of the CAA would be a base-year inventory requirement pursuant to section 182(a)(1) of the CAA, and, the emissions statement requirement pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B). As stated previously, these requirements are not yet due for purposes of redesignation of the Harrisburg Area, but nevertheless, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP, an emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard that covers all portions of the designated 8-hour nonattainment area and, that satisfies the emissions statement requirement for the 8-hour standard. *See,* 25 Pa. Code 135.21(a)(1), codified at 40 CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881, January 12, 1995. With respect to the base year inventory requirement, in this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the Harrisburg Area, which was submitted on March 27, 2007, concurrently with its maintenance plan, into the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory as fulfilling the requirements, if necessary, of both section 182(a)(1) and section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. A detailed evaluation of Pennsylvania's 2002 base-year inventory for the Harrisburg Area can be found in a Technical Support Document
(TSD)prepared by EPA for this rulemaking. EPA has determined that the emission inventory and emissions statement requirements for the Harrisburg Area have been satisfied. In addition to the fact that part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the redesignation request, EPA believes that the general conformity and NSR requirements do not require approval prior to redesignation. With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act (“transportation conformity”) as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (“general conformity”). State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) since State conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been approved. See, *Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. *See also,* 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). In the case of the Harrisburg Area, EPA has also determined that before being redesignated, the Harrisburg Area need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation. EPA has determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D NSR in effect. The rationale for this position is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D NSR Requirements or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Normally, State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)program will become effective in the area immediately upon redesignation to attainment. *See* the more detailed explanations in the following redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468), (March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61 FR 31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996). In the case of the Harrisburg Area, the Chapter 127 part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP (codified at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly apply the requirements for NSR in section 184 of the CAA to ozone attainment areas within the OTR. The OTR NSR requirements are more stringent than that required for a marginal or basic ozone nonattainment area. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision consisting of Pennsylvania's Chapter 127 part D NSR regulations that cover the Harrisburg Area. EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation. The rationale for this is based on two considerations. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT, and Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance programs even after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the Harrisburg Area by virtue of the Area's designation and classification. *See* 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-24832 (May 7, 1997). 3. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard In its December 22, 2006 decision in *South Coast* , the Court also addressed EPA's revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard. The current status of the revocation and associated anti-backsliding rules is dependent on whether the Court's decision stands as originally issued or is modified in response to any petition for rehearing or request for clarification that has been filed. As described more fully below, EPA determined that the Harrisburg Area attained the 1-hour standard by its attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995), continues to attain that standard, and has fulfilled any requirements of the 1-hour standard that would apply even if the 1-hour standard is reinstated and those requirements are viewed as applying under the statute itself. Thus, the Court's decision, as it currently stands, imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of the Area to attainment. The conformity portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the redesignation request for the Harrisburg Area because there are no conformity requirements that are relevant to a redesignation request for any standard, including the requirement to submit a transportation conformity SIP. 1 As we have previously noted, under longstanding EPA policy, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. 40 CFR 51.390. *See, Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. *See also,* 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL redesignation). 1 Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently requires States to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emissions budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans. With respect to the requirement for submission of contingency measures for the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does not require contingency measures for marginal areas, and, therefore, that portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the redesignation request for the Harrisburg Area. Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Harrisburg Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-hour standard. With respect to the 1-hour standard, the applicable requirements of subpart 1 and of subpart 2 of part D (section 182) for the Harrisburg Area are discussed in the following paragraphs: Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to correct or amend RACT for sources in marginal areas, such as the Harrisburg Area, that were subject to control technique guidelines
(CTGs)issued before November 15, 1990 pursuant to CAA section 108. On December 22, 1994, EPA fully approved into the Pennsylvania SIP all corrections required under section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994). EPA believes that this requirement applies only to marginal and higher classified areas under the 1-hour NAAQS pursuant to the 1990 amendments to the CAA; therefore, this is a one-time requirement. After an area has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS, there is no requirement under the 8-hour NAAQS. Section 182(a)(2)(B) relates to the savings clause for vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M). It requires marginal areas to adopt vehicle I/M programs. This provision was not applicable to the Harrisburg Area because this Area did not have and was not required to have an I/M program before November 15, 1990. Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires a triennial Periodic Emissions Inventory for the nonattainment area. The most recent inventory for the Harrisburg Area was compiled for 2002 and submitted to EPA as a SIP revision with the maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area. With respect to NSR, EPA has determined that areas being redesignated need not have an approved New Source Review program for the same reasons discussed previously with respect to the applicable part D requirements for the 8-hour standard. Section 182(a)(3)(B) requires sources of VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> in the nonattainment area to submit annual Emissions Statements regarding the quantity of emissions from the previous year. As discussed previously, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP, a previously approved emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard which applies to the Harrisburg Area. Section 182(a)(1) provides for the submission of a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources, as described in section 172(c)(3), in accordance with guidance provided by the Administrator. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to approve a 2002 base-year emissions inventory for the Harrisburg Area as meeting the requirement of section 182(a)(1). While EPA generally required that the base-year inventory for the 1-hour standard be for calendar year 1990, EPA believes that Pennsylvania's 2002 inventory fulfills this requirement because it meets EPA's guidance and because it is more current than 1990. EPA also proposes to determine that, if the 1-hour standard is deemed to be reinstated, the 2002 base-year inventory for the 8-hour standard will provide an acceptable substitute for the base-year inventory for the 1-hour standard. EPA has previously determined that the Harrisburg Area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the November 15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995), and we believe that the Harrisburg Area is still in attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based upon the ozone monitoring data for the years 2003-2005. To demonstrate attainment, *i.e.* , compliance with this standard, the annual average of the number of expected exceedances of the 1-hour standard over a 3-year period must be less than or equal to 1. Table 3 provides a summary of the number of expected exceedances for each of the years 2003 through 2005 and 3-year annual average at each of the Harrisburg Area monitors. Table 3.—Harrisburg Area Number of Expected Exceedances of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard Year Number of expected exceedances Harrisburg Monitor/AIRS ID 41-043-0401 2003 0.0 2004 0.0 2005 0.0 2006 0.0 The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.0 The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.0 Hershey Monitor/AIRS ID 42-043-1100 2003 0.0 2004 0.0 2005 0.0 2006 0.0 The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.0 The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.0 Perry County Monitor/AIRS ID 42-099-0301 2003 0.0 2004 0.0 2005 0.0 2006 0.0 The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.0 The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.0 In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and taken from AQS indicate that the Harrisburg Area is maintaining air quality that conforms to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes this conclusion remains valid after review of the quality assured 2006 data because no exceedances were recorded in the Harrisburg Area in 2006. 4. Transport Region Requirements All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), both attainment and nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment. The section 184 requirements include RACT, NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance, and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure. In the case of the Harrisburg Area, which is located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR will be applicable after redesignation. As discussed previously, EPA has fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision which applies the requirements for NSR of section 184 of the CAA to attainment areas within the OTR. As discussed previously in this notice, EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation. *See* 61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996, and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997 (Reading, Pennsylvania Redesignation). 5. Harrisburg Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of this redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request. Calgagni Memo, p. 3; *Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance* v. *Browner* , 144 F. 3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), *Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. *See* 68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Harrisburg Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions From Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Harrisburg Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures. Emission reductions attributable to these rules are shown in Table 4. Table 4.—Total VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in Tons per Day
(tpd)Year Point Area Mobile Nonroad Total Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)2002 3.0 29.5 43.4 19.6 95.4 2004 2.4 28.9 36.9 19.0 87.2 Diff (02-04) 0.6 0.6 6.5 0.6 8.2 Nitrogen Oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) 2002 16.7 3.0 86.8 21.4 127.9 2004 12.9 3.1 76.2 20.2 112.5 Diff (02-04) 3.8 −0.1 10.6 1.2 15.4 Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 8.6 percent from 95.4 tpd to 87.2 tpd; NO <sup>X</sup> emissions decreased by 12.1 percent from 127.9 tpd to 112.5 tpd. A comparison of the 2002 and 2004 emissions by county and source type can be found in the Technical Support Document prepared for this rulemaking. The reductions between 2002 and 2004, and anticipated future reductions, are due to the following permanent and enforceable measures. 1. Stationary Point Sources Federal NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001). 2. Stationary Area Sources Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003). Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004). 3. Highway Vehicle Sources Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP). —Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991). —Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000). Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21, 1997, and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000). National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV)Program
(PA)(64 FR 72564, December 28, 1999). Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program (70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005). 4. Non-Road Sources Non-road Diesel (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004). EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the cause of the Area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. D. The Harrisburg Area Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Harrisburg Area to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area for at least 11 years after redesignation. The Commonwealth is requesting that EPA approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of section 175A of the CAA. Once approved, the maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Harrisburg Area meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone standard. What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan? Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the Commonwealth must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address the following provisions:
(a)an attainment emissions inventory;
(b)a maintenance demonstration;
(c)a monitoring network;
(d)verification of continued attainment; and
(e)a contingency plan. Analysis of the Harrisburg Area Maintenance Plan
(a)Attainment inventory—An attainment inventory includes the emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. PADEP determined that the appropriate attainment inventory year is 2004. That year establishes a reasonable year within the 3-year block of 2003-2005 as a baseline and accounts for reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to date. The 2004 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> during 2004 and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions. The 2002 and 2004 point source data was compiled from actual sources. Pennsylvania requires owners and operators of larger facilities to submit annual production figures and emission calculations each year. Throughput data are multiplied by emission factors from Factor Information Retrieval
(FIRE)Data Systems and EPA's publication series AP-42, and are based on Source Classification Codes (SCC). The 2002 area source data was compiled using county-level activity data, from census numbers, from county numbers, etc. The 2004 area source data was projected from the 2002 inventory using temporal allocations provided by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA). The on-road mobile source inventories for 2002 and 2004 were compiled using MOBILE6.2 and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT) estimates for VMT. The PADEP has provided detailed data summaries to document the calculations of mobile on-road VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions for 2002, as well as for the projection years of 2004, 2009, and 2018 (shown in Tables 5 and 6 below). The 2002 and 2004 emissions for the majority of non-road emission source categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model. The NONROAD model calculates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled non-road equipment types and includes growth factors. The NONROAD model does not estimate emissions from locomotives or aircraft. For 2002 and 2004 locomotive emissions, the PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption information and EPA emission and conversion factors. Emissions from commercial aircraft for 2002 are estimated using the EPA-approved Emissions & Dispersion Modeling System
(EDMS)4.20, the latest version available at the time the inventory was developed. Commercial aircraft operations were significant in the Harrisburg Area and were modeled by the EDMS model directly. Harrisburg International Airport
(HIA)accounts for all commercial operations in the area. Small aircraft emissions were calculated by using small airport operation statistics, which can be found at *http://www.airnav.com* and the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA)Area Forecast Detailed Report. More detailed information on the compilation of the 2002, 2004, 2009, and 2018 inventories can be found in the Technical Appendices which are part of this submittal.
(b)Maintenance Demonstration—On March 27, 2007, the PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA. The Harrisburg maintenance plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future emissions of VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> remain at or below the attainment year 2004 emissions levels throughout the Harrisburg Area through the year 2018. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. *See, Wall* v. *EPA, supra; Sierra Club* v. *EPA, supra. See also* , 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at 25430-25432. Tables 5 and 6 specify the VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions for the Harrisburg Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. The PADEP chose 2009 as an interim year in the ten-year maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions are not projected to increase above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the maintenance period. A breakdown of the 2004, 2009, and 2018 VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions by County and Source Type can be found in the TSD prepared for this rulemaking. Table 5.—Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018
(tpd)Source category 2004 VOC emissions 2009 VOC emissions 2018 VOC emissions Point 2.4 3.0 3.8 Area 28.9 27.4 29.4 Mobile* 36.9 30.1 20.6 Nonroad 19.0 16.0 13.4 Total 87.2 76.5 67.2 * Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity. Totals may vary due to rounding. Table 6.—Total NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions for 2004-2018
(tpd)Source category 2004 NO <sup>X</sup> emissions 2009 NO <sup>X</sup> emissions 2018 NO <sup>X</sup> emissions Point 12.9 19.8 23.8 Area 3.1 3.2 3.4 Mobile* 76.2 56.0 24.4 Nonroad 20.2 17.1 12.3 Total 112.5 96.2 63.9 * Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity. Totals may vary due to rounding. Additionally, the following programs are either effective or due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS: • The Clean Air Interstate Rule (71 FR 25328, April 28, 2006) • The Federal NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001) • Area VOC regulations concerning portable fuel containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004) • Pennsylvania's Consumer Products (December 8, 2004, 69 FR 70895) • Pennsylvania's Architectural and Industrial Maintenance
(AIM)Coatings (November 23, 2004, 69 FR 68080). Additionally, the following mobile programs are either effective or due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS: • FMVCP for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and cleaner gasoline (2009 and 2018 fleet)—Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991) and Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000). • Federal NLEV (64 FR 72564, December 28, 1999). • PA Clean Vehicle Program (December 9, 2006)—Pennsylvania will implement this program in car model year 2008. • Heavy-duty diesel on road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-road
(2006)(66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001). • Non-road emissions standards
(2008)and off-road diesel fuel (2007/2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004). • Vehicle emission/inspection/maintenance program (70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005). • Pennsylvania Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control Program (May 11, 2002) • Truck Stop Electrification Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA concludes that PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard should be maintained in the Harrisburg Area.
(c)Monitoring Network—There are currently three monitors in the Harrisburg Area measuring ozone in the Harrisburg Area. The PADEP will continue to operate its current air quality monitors (located in Dauphin and Perry Counties), in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
(d)Verification of Continued Attainment—In addition to maintaining the key elements of its regulatory program, the Commonwealth will track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the Area by reviewing air quality and emissions data during the maintenance period. The Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation of Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT)data and emissions reported from stationary sources and compare them to the assumptions about these factors used in the maintenance plan. The Commonwealth will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR 51, subpart A) to see if they exceed the attainment year inventory
(2004)by more than 10 percent. The PADEP will also continue to operate the existing ozone monitoring stations in the Area pursuant to 40 CFR part 58 throughout the maintenance period and submit quality-assured ozone data to EPA through the AQS system. Section 175A(b) of the CAA states that eight years following redesignation of the Harrisburg Area, PADEP will be required to submit a second maintenance plan that will ensure attainment through 2028. PADEP has made that commitment to meet the requirement of section 175A(b).
(e)The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures—The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to ensure that the Commonwealth will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s). The ability of the Harrisburg Area to stay in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions in the Area remaining at or below 2004 levels. The Commonwealth's maintenance plan projects VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions to decrease and stay below 2004 levels through the year 2018. The Commonwealth's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce emissions should a violation occur. Contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentrations at the design value monitor (the highest of the three area monitors) are above 84 ppb. If this trigger point occurs, the Commonwealth will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will also analyze the conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate which measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of Federal, state, and local measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of implementing any selected measures. Contingency measures will also be considered in the event that a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at any one of the three monitors in the Harrisburg Area. In the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, PADEP will adopt additional emissions reduction measures as expeditiously as practicable in accordance with the implementation schedule listed later in this notice and in the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act in order to return the Area to attainment with the standard. Contingency measures to be considered for Harrisburg will include, but not be limited to the following: *Regulatory measures:* —Additional controls on consumer products. —Additional controls on portable fuel containers. *Non-regulatory measures:* —Voluntary diesel engine “chip reflash”—installation software to correct the defeat device option on certain heavy-duty diesel engines. —Diesel retrofit, including replacement, repowering or alternative fuel use, for public or private local on-road or off-road fleets. —Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives. —Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses and other freight-handling facilities. —Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment. —Additional promotion of alternative fuel ( *e.g.* , biodiesel) for home heating and agricultural use. The plan lays out a process to have any regulatory contingency measures in effect within 19 months of the trigger. The plan also lays out a process to implement the non-regulatory contingency measures within 12-24 months of the trigger. VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified in the Harrisburg Maintenance Plan Adequate and Approvable? A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets? Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These control strategy SIPs ( *i.e.* , RFP, SIPs and attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans identify and establish MVEBs for certain criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from on-road mobile sources. In the maintenance plan, the MVEBs are termed “on road-mobile source emission budgets.” Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 and 51.112, MVEBs must be established in an ozone maintenance plan. An MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. An MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993 transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish and revise the MVEBs in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans. Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. “Conformity” to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of or reasonable progress towards the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not “conform,” most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and ensuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB contained therein “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity. After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by state and federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects “conform” to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining “adequacy” of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA's process for determining “adequacy” consists of three basic steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999 guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” This guidance was finalized in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments—Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA consults this guidance and follows this rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations. MVEBs for the Harrisburg Area are listed in Table 1 of this document for 2009 and 2018, and are the projected emissions for the on-road mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the MVEBs (safety margin allocation for 2009 and 2018 only). These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be used for transportation conformity determinations. B. What Is a Safety Margin? A “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The following example is for the 2018 safety margin. The Harrisburg Area first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002 to 2004 time period. The Commonwealth used 2004 as the year to determine attainment levels of emissions for the Harrisburg Area. The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources in 2004 equaled 87.2 tpd of VOC and 112.5 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> . PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and projected a total of 67.2 tpd of VOC and 63.9 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> from all sources in the Harrisburg Area. The safety margin for the Harrisburg Area for 2018 would be the difference between these amounts. This difference is 20 tpd of VOC and 48.6 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> . The emissions up to the level of the attainment year including the safety margins are projected to maintain the Area's air quality consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The safety margin is the extra emissions reduction below the attainment levels that can be allocated for emissions by various sources as long as the total emission levels are maintained at or below the attainment levels. Table 7 shows the safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years for the Harrisburg Area. Table 7.—2009 and 2018 Safety Margin for the Harrisburg Area Inventory year VOC emissions
(tpd)NO <sup>X</sup> emissions
(tpd)2004 Attainment 87.2 112.5 2009 Interim 76.5 96.2 2009 Safety Margin 10.7 16.3 2004 Attainment 87.2 112.5 2018 Final 67.2 63.9 2018 Safety Margin 20.0 48.6 PADEP allocated 1,803 kilograms per day (2.0 tpd) VOC and 1,988 kilograms per day (2.2 tpd) NO <sup>X</sup> to the 2009 interim VOC projected on-road mobile source emissions projection and the 2009 interim NO <sup>X</sup> projected on-road mobile source emissions projection to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs for the portion of the planning area covered by the HATS. Likewise for the HATS portion, for the 2018 MVEBs, the PADEP allocated 2,497 kilograms per day (2.8 tpd) VOC and 2,035 kilograms (2.2 tpd) of NO <sup>X</sup> from the 2018 safety margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. The PADEP allocated 505 kilograms per day (0.6 tpd) VOC and 489 kilograms per day (0.5 tpd) NO <sup>X</sup> to the 2009 interim VOC projected on-road mobile source emissions projections and the 2009 interim NO <sup>X</sup> projected on-road mobile source emissions projections to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs for the portion of the planning area covered by the LEBCO MPO. Likewise for the LEBCO MPO portion, for the 2018 MVEBs, the PADEP allocated 565 kilograms per day (0.6 tpd) VOC and 475 kilograms (0.5 tpd) NO <sup>X</sup> from the 2018 safety margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. Once allocated to the mobile source budgets, these portions of the safety margins are no longer available, and may no longer be allocated to any other source category. Table 8 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for Cumberland, Dauphin, and Perry Counties, and table 9 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for Lebanon County. Table 8.—2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Cumberland, Dauphin and Perry Counties
(HATS)Inventory year VOC emissions NO <sup>X</sup> emissions 2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions 21,212 (23.4) 39,929 (44.0) 2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs 1,803 (2.0) 1,988 (2.2) 2009 MVEBs 23,014 (25.4) 41,917 (46.2) 2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions 13,639 (15.0) 16,374 (18.0) 2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs 2,497 (2.8) 2,035 (2.2) 2018 MVEBs 16,136 (17.8) 18,409 (20.3) Table 9.—2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Lebanon County (LEBCO) Inventory year VOC emissions NO <sup>X</sup> emissions 2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions 3,796 (4.2) 8,439 (9.3) 2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs 505 (0.6) 489 (0.5) 2009 MVEBs 4,301 (4.7) 8,928 (9.8) 2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions 1,947 (2.1) 3,209 (3.5) 2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs 565 (0.6) 475 (0.5) 2018 MVEBs 2,512 (2.8) 3,684 (4.1) C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable? The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Harrisburg Area are approvable because the MVEBs for NO <sup>X</sup> and VOC continue to maintain the total emissions at or below the attainment year inventory levels as required by the transportation conformity regulations. D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the Harrisburg Area Maintenance Plan? The MVEBs for the Harrisburg Area maintenance plan are being posted to EPA's conformity Website concurrently with this proposal. The public comment period will end at the same time as the public comment period for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA is concurrently processing the action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the MVEBs contained therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan. The MVEBs cannot be used for transportation conformity until the maintenance plan update and associated MVEBs are approved in a final **Federal Register** notice, or EPA otherwise finds the budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment period. If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the proposed approval of the Harrisburg Area MVEBs, or any other aspect of our proposed approval of this updated maintenance plan, we will respond to the comments on the MVEBs in our final action or proceed with the adequacy process as a separate action. Our action on the Harrisburg Area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq* , (once there, click on “Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity”). VIII. Proposed Actions EPA is proposing to determine that the Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the redesignation of the Harrisburg Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request would change the designation of the Harrisburg Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to approve the associated maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area, submitted on March 27, 2007, as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area because it meets the requirements of section 175A as described previously in this notice. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the Harrisburg Area, and the MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the Harrisburg Area in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General’s Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule proposing to approve the redesignation of the Harrisburg Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: May 25, 2007. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E7-10585 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 224 [I.D. 021607C] Endangered and Threatened Species: Extension of Public Comment Period and Notice of Public Hearings on Proposed Endangered Species Act Listing of Cook Inlet Beluga Whales AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Extension of public comment period; notice of public hearings. SUMMARY: On April 20, 2007, NMFS proposed the listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. As part of that proposal, NMFS announced a public comment period to end on June 19, 2007. NMFS has received requests for an extension to the comment period and for public hearings on this issue. In response to these requests, NMFS is extending the public comment period for the proposed listing action to August 3, 2007. Additionally, NMFS is announcing that hearings will be held at two locations in Alaska to provide additional opportunities and formats to receive public input. DATES: The deadline for comments on the April 20, 2007 (72 FR 19854) proposed rule is extended from June 19, 2007, to August 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: We will hold two public hearings on this issue: one in Homer and one in Anchorage. The dates for these hearings will be announced in a forthcoming notice in the Federal Register. Send comments to Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by: • E-mail: *CIB-ESA-Endangered@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following document identifier: Cook Inlet Beluga Whale PR. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes. • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments. • Mail: P. O Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802 • Hand delivery to the Federal Building : 709 W. 9 th Street, Juneau, AK. • Fax:
(907)586-7557. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Smith, NMFS, 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99517, telephone
(907)271-5006; Kaja Brix, NMFS,
(907)586-7235; or Marta Nammack,
(301)713-1401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 20, 2007, NMFS published a proposed rule (72 FR 19854) to list the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species. This action followed completion of a status review of the Cook Inlet beluga whale which found this population to be at risk of extinction within the next 100 years. The April 20, 2007, proposed rule also describes NMFS' determination that this population constitutes a “species”, or distinct population segment, under the ESA. Extension of Public Comment Period Several requests have been received to extend the comment period for the proposed listing. The comment period for the proposed listing was to end on June 19, 2007. NMFS is extending the comment period until August 3, 2007, to allow for adequate opportunity for public comment and participation in public hearings (see DATES and ADDRESSES ). Public Hearings Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person requests one within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to list a species or to designate critical habitat (see 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). In past ESA rule-making NMFS has conducted traditional public hearings, consisting of recorded oral testimony from interested individuals. This format, although providing a means of public input, does not provide opportunities for dialogue and information exchange. NMFS believes that the traditional public hearing format can be improved upon by also including a brief presentation on the results of the Status Review and what may be considered topics of interest. The preferred means of providing public comment for the official record is via written testimony prepared in advance of the meeting which may also be presented orally. Blank “comment sheets” will be provided at the meetings for those without prepared written comments, and opportunity will also be provided for additional oral testimony. There is no need to register for these hearings. In scheduling these public hearings, NMFS has anticipated that many affected stakeholders and members of the public may prefer to discuss the proposed listing directly with staff during the public comment period. These public meetings are not the only opportunity for the public to provide input on this proposal. The public and stakeholders are encouraged to continue to comment and provide input to NMFS on the proposal (via correspondence, e-mail, and the Internet; see ADDRESSES , above) up until the scheduled close of the comment period on August 3, 2007. References The proposed rule, status review report, maps, a list of the references cited in this document, and other materials relating to the proposed listing can be found on the NMFS Alaska Region website *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/* . Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: May 25, 2007. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-10587 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 105 Friday, June 1, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0074; FV07-901-1NC] Notice of Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's
(AMS)intention to request an extension for and revision to a currently approved generic information collection for vegetables and specialty crop marketing order programs. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 31, 2007. *Additional Information or Comments:* Contact Valerie L. Emmer-Scott, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Tel:
(202)205-2829, Fax:
(202)720-8938, or e-mail: *moab.docketclerk@usda.gov* , or Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Small businesses may request information on this notice by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone
(202)720-2491, Fax:
(202)720-8938, or e-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders. *OMB Number:* 0581-0178. *Expiration Date of Approval:* October 31, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* Marketing order programs provide an opportunity for producers of fresh fruit, vegetables, and specialty crops, in specified production areas, to work together to solve marketing problems that cannot be solved individually. This notice covers the following marketing order program citations: 7 CFR parts 932, 945, 946, 947, 948, 953, 955, 956, 958, 959, 966, 981, 982, 984, 985, 987, 989, 993, and 999. Order regulations help ensure adequate supplies of high quality products for consumers and adequate returns to producers. Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (Act), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), industries enter into marketing order programs. The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) is authorized to oversee the order operations and issue regulations recommended by a committee or board of representatives from each commodity industry. The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Act, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the marketing order programs. Under the Act, orders may authorize the following: Production and marketing research including paid advertising, volume regulations, reserves, including pools and producer allotments, container regulations, and quality control. Assessments are levied on handlers regulated under the marketing orders. Also pursuant to Section 8e of the Act, importers of raisins, dates, and dried prunes are required to submit certain information. Several forms are required to be filed by USDA to enable its administration of each program. These include forms covering the selection process for industry members to serve on a marketing orders committee or board and ballots used in referenda to amend or continue marketing order programs. Under Federal marketing orders, producers and handlers are nominated by their peers to serve as representatives on a committee or board which administers each program. Nominees must provide information on their qualifications to serve on the committee or board. Nominees are selected by the Secretary. Formal rulemaking amendments must be approved in referenda conducted by USDA and the Secretary. For the purposes of this action, ballots are considered information collections and are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. If an order is amended, handlers are asked to sign an agreement indicating their willingness to abide by the provisions of the amended order. Some forms are required to be filed with the committee or board. The orders and their rules and regulations authorize the respective commodities committees and boards, the agencies responsible for local administration of the orders, to require handlers and producers to submit certain information. Much of the information is compiled in aggregate and provided to the respective industries to assist in marketing decisions. The committees and boards have developed forms as a means for persons to file required information relating to supplies, shipments, and dispositions of their respective commodities, and other information needed to effectively carry out the purpose of the Act and their respective orders, and these forms are utilized accordingly. The forms covered under this information collection require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the orders, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act as expressed in the orders, and the rules and regulations issued under the orders. The information collected is used only by authorized employees of the committees and boards and authorized representatives of the USDA, including AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs regional and headquarters' staff. Authorized committee/board employees are the primary users of the information and AMS is the secondary user. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.10 hours per response. *Respondents:* Producers, handlers, processors, dehydrators, cooperatives, manufacturers, importers, and public members. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 20,626. *Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses:* 174,142. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 8.47. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 17,498.50 hours. *Comments are invited on:*
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should reference this docket number and the appropriate marketing order, and be mailed to the Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax:
(202)720-8938; or e-mail: *moab.docketclerk@usda.gov* or *www.regulations.gov* . Comments should also reference the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . All comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular USDA business hours at 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC, room 1406-S, or can be viewed at: *http://www.regulations.gov* . All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: May 25, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-10522 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-FV-07-0079; FV-07-326] Notice of Request for an Extension and Revision to a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension and revision to a currently approved information collection for Regulations Governing Inspection and Certification of Processed Fruits and Vegetables and Related Products. DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before July 31, 2007. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this notice to Terry B. Bane, Processed Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0247, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0247; fax
(202)690-1527; or e-mail *terry.bane@usda.gov.* Comments should be submitted in triplicate. Comments may also be submitted electronically through *www.regulations.gov.* All comments should reference the docket number and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . All comments received will be made available for public inspection at the Office of the Branch Chief, Processed Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0247, Washington, DC 20250-0247, telephone
(202)720-4693, during regular business hours. A copy of this notice may also be found at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/ppbdocklist.htm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The “Domestic Origin Verification System”
(DOVS)audit program is a user-fee service, available to suppliers, processors, and any financially interested party. It is designed to provide validation of the applicant's domestic origin verification system prior to bidding on contracts to supply food products to the Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Domestic Feeding programs, and/or may be conducted after a contract is award. DOVS was established to evaluate prospective applicants' systems for assurance that only domestic products are delivered to under USDA contracts, and to establish procedures for applicant system evaluations as well as acceptance and rejection criteria. *Title:* “Regulations Governing Inspection and Certification of Processed Fruits and Vegetables and Related Products—7 CFR 52.” *OMB Number:* 0581-0234. *Expiration Date of Approval:* October 31, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection. *Abstract:* The Agricultural Marketing Act
(AMA)of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-et seq.) The AMA directs and authorizes the Department to develop standards of quality, grades, grading programs, and other services to facilitate trading of agricultural products and assure consumers of quality products, which are graded and identified under USDA programs. Section 203(h) of the AMA specifically directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect, certify, and identify the grade, class, quality, quantity, and condition of agricultural products under such rules and regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, including assessment and collection of fees for the cost of the service. The regulations for such services for processed fruits and vegetables and related products may be found at 7 CFR part 52. AMS also provides other types of voluntary services under the same regulations, e.g., contract and specification acceptance services, facility assessment services, and certifications of quantity and quality. Grading services are available on a resident basis or a lot-fee basis. Respondents may request resident service on a continuous basis or on an as-needed basis. The user (user-fee) pays for the service. The AMA and these regulations do not mandate the use of these services; they are provided only to those entities that request or apply for a specific service. In order for the Agency to satisfy those requests for service, the Agency must request certain information from those who apply for service. The information collected is used only by Agency personnel and is used to administer services requested by the respondents. The affected public may include any partnership, association, business trust, corporation, organized group, and State, County, or Municipal government, and any authorized agent that has a financial interest in the commodity involved and requests service. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.0 hour per response. *Respondents:* Applicants who are applying for grading and inspection services. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 100. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 100. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 1.0. Comments are invited on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: May 25, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-10526 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-LS-07-0064; LS-07-10] Notice of Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection. AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's
(AMS)intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for an extension and revision to the currently approved information collection “Referendum for the Lamb Promotion, Research and Information Order (Order).” Once approved, AMS will request that OMB merge this information collection with the information collection for National Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Programs. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 31, 2007 to be assured of consideration. *Additional Information or Comments:* Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this notice of request. Comments must be sent to Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs Branch, Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2628-S, STOP 0251, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0251; *Fax:*
(202)720-1125; or online at *www.regulations.gov.* All comments should reference the docket number, the date, and the page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . Comments will be available for public inspection via the internet at *www.regulations.gov* or during regular business hours at the same address. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Lamb Promotion, Research, and Information Program. *OMB Number:* 0581-0227. *Expiration Date of Approval:* December 31, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The information collection request is essential to carry out the intent of the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996
(Act)and the Order. According to the Order, the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) shall conduct a referendum among persons subject to assessments who, during a representative period, have engaged in the production, feeding, handling, or slaughter of lamb or the exportation of lamb or lamb products. The purpose of the referendum is to determine whether the persons subject to assessments favor the continuation, suspension, or termination of the Order. In accordance with the Act, a referendum must be held no later than 7 years after assessments begin, but may also be held at the request of the American Lamb Board, at the request of at least 10 percent or more of lamb producers, feeders, first handlers, and exporters eligible to vote, or by the Secretary. The form requires the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of a referendum, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act. Such information can be supplied without data processing equipment or outside technical expertise. In addition, there are no additional training requirements for individuals filling out the forms. The forms are simple, easy to understand, and place as small a burden as possible on the person required to file the information. The timing and frequency of collecting information are intended to meet the needs of the industry while minimizing the amount of work necessary to fill out the required reports. In addition, the information included on this form is not available from other industry sources because such information relates specifically to individuals or organizations subject to the provisions of the Act and the Order. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.03 hours per response. *Respondents:* Producers, seedstock producers, market agencies, first handlers, feeders, and exporters. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 69,761. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 2,093 hours. *Comments are invited on:*
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs Branch, Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2628-S, STOP 0251, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0251; Fax:
(202)720-1125; or online at *www.regulations.gov.* All comments should reference the docket number, the date, and the page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . Comments will be available for public inspection via the internet at *www.regulations.gov* or during regular business hours. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: May 25, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-10527 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Shasta-Trinity National Forest; California; Gemmill Thin Project AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: This notice for the Gemmill Thin project revises the first notice for the project which was published in the **Federal Register** on December 12, 2005 (page 73430). Comments received during the first comment period (December 12, 2006 to January 13, 2007) as well comments received during the comment period for this notice will be considered by the Responsible Official in the development of the draft environmental impact statement. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest proposes to improve, maintain and protect wildlife habitat for late-successional and old-growth associated species in the Chanchelulla Late-Successional Reserve on the South Fork Management Unit. The proposal includes thinning trees in overcrowded natural stands, thinning plantations and reducing the amount of existing fuels on a total of approximately 1,610 acres of National Forest System land. The project area is located on South Fork Management Unit in T.29 and 30 N., R.10 and 11 W., Mt. Diablo Meridian, northeast of the community of Wildwood, California and south of Chanchelulla Wilderness. Wildwood has bee listed as a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), identifying it as a community at risk from the threat of wildfire and giving it higher priority for fuels reduction treatments. The Forest Land and Resource Management Plan allocates this area to Late-Successional Reserve, Riparian Reserve (wetlands and areas adjacent to streams), and Matrix (commercial timber harvest emphasis). The project area is within designated critical habitat for the Northern spotted owl (CA-36). DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received no later than 30 days after the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . The draft environmental impact statement is expected in July 2007 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in October 2007. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Gemmill Thin Comments, South Fork Management Unit, P.O. Box 159, Hayfork, CA 96041. Electronic comments can be sent via e-mail to: *comments-pacificsouthwest-shasta-trinity-yollabolla-hayfork@fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Paulo, Gemmill Thin IDT Lead, South Fork Management Unit, 2555 State Highway 36, Platina, CA 96076, Phone
(530)352-4211 or via E-mail at *jpaulo@fs.fed.us,* or visit the Shast-Trinity National Forest Web site at *www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/projects.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action Over the past 100 years the practice of excluding fire and the lack of thinning treatments in the Chancuelulla Late-Successional Reserve
(LSR)have resulted in a forest ecosytem that is densely stocked and slow-growing. Overcrowded conditions in mature stands (80 to 100 years old) are causing a delay in the establishment of healthy functioning old-growth habitat. Overcrowded conditions in old-growth stands (100 to 150 years old) do not promote long-term health and maintenance because the largest and oldest treesand their replacements are at risk of mortality due to the proximity and number of competing trees. In both cases, tree vigor is reduced because smaller trees are competing with larger trees for limited amounts of water, nutrients and sunlight. This leaves the ecosystem more prone to disease and less resilient to fire. Without treatment, overstocked stands are not likely to remain healthy or meet the need for more old-growth habitat in the LSR. Most of the existing plantations scattered throughout the LSR have never been thinned so they are also overcrowded and hindered in their development of future old-growth habitat characteristics. There is a need to thin overstocked mature stands that are 80-100 years old. Fewer and healthier trees per acre would serve two purposes:
(1)Increase the rate of development of old-growth habitat characteristics and
(2)reduce the loss of existing and developing old-growth habitat in the event of wildfire and outbreaks of disease. There is a need to thin below in old-growth stands over 100 years old. A thinning that leaves the oldest and largest trees would serve two purposes:
(1)Decrease the risk of losing existing old-growth trees and
(2)decrease the risk of losing future replacement old-growth trees. There is a need to thin plantations to increase their growing space and reduce density to levels where flames are not likely to reach the canopy of the adjacent overstory trees during a wildfire. There is also a need to spatially protect late-successional and old-growth habitat from the threat of fire that could start inside or outside the perimeter of the LSR. Current threats of fire include tree mortality from insect and disease in overcrowded stands, and natural or human-caused wildfire. The majority of private land closest to the Gemmill Thin project was harvested in the late 1960s to 1970s and more private harvesting is planned. Two public roads and a transmission line are within or directly adjacent to the project area. These linear features and past harvesting on private lands are associated with higher risk for fire starts that could affect the project area. Proposed Action The proposed action would include the following treatments: 1. Thinning treatments on approximately 750 acres of stands 80 to 100 year old. Implement a thinning from below in 14 stands of mature mixed conifer and hardwood forest. These are stands that do not yet exhibit old-growth characteristics, but have the potential to attain them. In these treatment units, the largest and healthiest trees would be retained. A sufficient number of trees would be removed to a level that maintains or increases growth rates of mature trees and removes fuel ladders. The post treatment stand would average 50% to 60% tree canopy cover. 2. Thinning treatments on approximately 530 acres of stands 100-150 years old. Implement a thinning from below in 10 stands of old-growth mixed conifer and hardwood forest over 100 years old. The largest and oldest trees within each stand would be retained. A sufficient number of smaller trees would be removed to reduce the number of trees per acre to a level that provides an improved competitive advantage for the larger, older trees and removes fuel ladders that may threaten the remaining trees. The post treatment stands would average 60% or more tree canopy cover. 3. Thinning treatments in approximately 45 acres of 20 year old plantations. Thinning and release treatments would be accomplished through mastication (grinding up excess trees) in three plantations. Sufficient numbers of trees would be removed to maintain an average of 150 trees per acre, a level that maintains stand growth rate and reduces the amount ladder fuels. 4. Thinning from below to reconstruct fuelbreaks implemented 20 years ago on approximately 260 acres of stands aged 80 to 150 years old. Implement a thinning from below to retain approximately 40% canopy closure, and remove most understory vegetation. Shaded fuelbreaks are approximately 150 to 300 foot-wide strips on which vegetation has been modified so that fires burning into them can be more readily controlled. The residual canopy closure provides sufficient shade to reduce the growth of brush species in the understory. 5. Reduce hazardous fuels on approximately 25 acres of existing fuels buffers. All live trees would be retained. Dead trees under 10 inches in diameter would be removed. These small dead trees and ground fuels would be concentrated for burning by hand-treatment methods. All proposed treatments would remove excess trees as commercial wood products wherever possible. No trees over 150 years old would be harvested. On approximately 1,460 acres small trees (5 to 10 inches in diameter) would be removed and most trees less than 5 inches in diameter would be removed as activity-generated fuels. The harvest systems used in the proposed action would include mechanized equipment, cable systems, and helicopter. There would be no road construction of new system roads. The project may include reconstruction of road segments, construction of short lengths of temporary roads and decommissioning of other roads. Based on public comment another alternative may be developed that places a diameter limit on all thinning. Responsible Official J. Sharon Heywood, Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.
(530)226-2500. Nature of Decision To Be Made The Forest Supervisor will decide whether to implement the proposed action, implement an alternative action that meets the purpose and need or take no action. The decision may include a non-significant forest plan amendment that permits treatment of stands older than 80 years within Late-Successional Reserves. Scoping Process Notice of the proposed action will be published in the newspaper of record, the Redding Record Searchlight. It will also be published in the Trinity Journal. Scoping letters will be mailed to interested and affected public coincident with publication of this notice of intent in the **Federal Register** and information on the proposed action will be posted on the Forest Web site at *http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/projects* . The Trinity County Firesafe Council has reviewed this proposal and a public meeting was held at the Harrison Gulch Ranger Station on Wednesday, September 28, 2005. This notice of intent initiates the current scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments submitted during this scoping process should be in writing and should be specific to the proposed action. The comments should describe as clearly and completely as possible any issues the commenter has with the proposal. The results of scoping include:
(a)Identifying potential issues,
(b)identifying issues to be analyzed in depth,
(c)eliminating non-significant issues or those previously covered by another environmental analysis,
(d)exploring additional alternatives, and
(e)identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives. Preliminary Issues Potential issues identified during the first public comment period include: • Development of an alternative with a diameter limit for harvesting • The potential for increased vehicle use as a result of proposed road activities • Decommissioning roads that provide access for public use and fire fighting Early Notice of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC,* 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel,* 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris,* 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Dated: May 25, 2007. Scott G. Armentrout, Deputy Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. [FR Doc. 07-2718 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 67
Traces to 67 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
71 references not yet in our index
  • 7 CFR 28
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • Pub. L. 102-237
  • 7 USC 471-476
  • 7 CFR 301
  • 7 CFR 301.53-1
  • 7 CFR 3015
  • 7 USC 7701-7772
  • 7 CFR 2.22
  • Pub. L. 106-113
  • Pub. L. 106-224
  • 114 Stat. 400
  • 7 CFR 319
  • 7 CFR 319.40
  • 7 CFR 1
  • 7 CFR 372
  • 7 CFR 319.40-1
  • 9 CFR 94
  • 9 CFR 93.504(a)(3)
  • 12 CFR 215
  • 12 CFR 563.43
  • Pub. L. 109-351
  • 12 CFR 551
  • 12 CFR 551.150(a)
  • 12 CFR 551.140(d)(1)
  • 12 USC 553(d)
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 33 CFR 100
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • 33 USC 1233
  • 33 CFR 117
  • 33 CFR 117.145
  • Pub. L. 102-587
  • 106 Stat. 5039
+ 31 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 601
C.F.R.§ 121.201
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 473a
U.S.C.§ 553
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 1421
F. App'x472 F.3d 882
F. App'x375 F.3d 537
F. App'x285 F.3d 63
Cites 138 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.