Proposed Rules. Proposed rule; withdrawal

42,816 words·~195 min read·/register/2007/06/20/07-3015

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 2003-NM-67-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 and EMB-145 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: This action withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)that proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145 series airplanes. That action would have required an inspection of the base and support surfaces of the glide slope antenna and of certain electrical connectors of the navigation system, and applicable corrective actions if necessary. Since the issuance of the NPRM, we have received new data showing that the proposed inspection and corrective actions will not eliminate the display of erroneous or misleading information to the flightcrew in the cockpit. However, we have been informed that the navigation system manufacturer has developed effective corrective actions to address the unsafe condition identified in the NPRM. Since we issued the NPRM, we have issued other rulemaking, which provides corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition. Accordingly, the proposed rule is withdrawn. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1175; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145 series airplanes, was published in the **Federal Register** as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)on March 11, 2004 (69 FR 11549). The proposed rule would have required an inspection of the base and support surfaces of the glide slope antenna and of certain electrical connectors of the navigation system, and applicable corrective actions if necessary. That action resulted from reports of degradation in the performance of the VOR/ILS/MB system due to the presence of moisture, dirt, and corrosion between the base and the support of the glide slope antenna and in the electrical connectors of the navigation system. The proposed actions were intended to prevent the display of erroneous or misleading information to the flightcrew in the cockpit due to degradation in the performance of the VOR/ILS/HM system. Actions That Occurred Since the NPRM Was Issued Since the issuance of that NPRM, we have received new data showing that the degradation in the performance of the VOR/ILS/MB system was not caused by dirt and corrosion affecting the glide slope antenna and certain navigation system connectors. The degraded performance was caused by a parasitic oscillation affecting an internal module of the navigation system, and the navigation system manufacturer has provided service information detailing proven corrective actions. Accordingly, we issued AD 2006-22-05 (71 FR 62907, October 27, 2006), which superseded AD 2003-04-06, amendment 39-13054 (68 FR 8539, February 24, 2003). AD 2006-22-05 provides terminating action for the unsafe condition described in AD 2003-04-06, which was also addressed by the previously mentioned NPRM, Docket No. 2003-NM-67-AD. Therefore, that NPRM is redundant. FAA's Conclusions Upon further consideration, we have determined that the proposed rule is not necessary. Accordingly, the NPRM is hereby withdrawn. Withdrawal of this NPRM constitutes only such action, and does not preclude the agency from issuing another action in the future, nor does it commit the agency to any course of action in the future. Regulatory Impact Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Withdrawal Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket 2003-NM-67-AD, published in the **Federal Register** on March 11, 2004 (69 FR 11549), is withdrawn. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 13, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-11928 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28376; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-108-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of each fuel quantity indication system

(FQIS)wire harness connector for corrosion of the shield-to-backshell connection, corrosion on the ground jumper, and damage to the ground jumper; a loop resistance test of each FQIS wire harness; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of corrosion of the out-tank wire harness of the spar connector backshell for the FQIS. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct corrosion of the out-tank wire harness, which could prevent correct grounding of the lightning shield and result in total loss of the electrical grounding between the lightning shield and the airplane structure. This condition, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Sheridan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6441; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28376; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-108-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion There have been several reports of corrosion of the out-tank wire harness of the spar connector backshell for the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS). Investigations by the airplane manufacturer and the wire harness supplier found that the corrosion was caused by moisture at the connection between the lightning shield, a tin-plated copper braid, and the aluminum backshell. The moisture wicked up the copper braid and was trapped between the ferrule and the backshell. Corrosion of the out-tank wire harness, if not detected and corrected, could prevent correct grounding of the lightning shield and result in total loss of the electrical grounding between the lightning shield and the airplane structure. This condition, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-28-0087, dated February 5, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for a detailed inspection of each FQIS wire harness connector for corrosion of the shield-to-backshell connection, corrosion on the ground jumper, and damage to the ground jumper. The service bulletin also describes procedures for corrective action if necessary. The corrective action is either upgrading the wire harness by installing a backshell assembly upgrade kit, or replacing the wire harness with a new wire harness that has an improved backshell. The service bulletin also describes procedures for a loop resistance test of each FQIS wire harness, and the following related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. • If the resistance is lower than certain limits specified in the service bulletin, the procedures include a detailed inspection for damage of the wire harness between the spar connector and the wheel well ground terminals; and repair or replacement if necessary. • If the resistance is higher than certain limits specified in the service bulletin, the procedures include doing a joint resistance test of the rear spar ground jumper, and troubleshooting and repairing the ground jumper connection if necessary. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The special attention service bulletin refers to Cinch Service Bulletin CN1156-28-02, Revision C, dated July 31, 2006, as an additional source of service information for installing a backshell assembly upgrade kit and replacing the wire harness. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 482 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Detailed inspection 1 $80 $80 202 $16,160. Loop resistance test 2 to 3 $80 $160 to $240 202 $32,320 to $48,480. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28376; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-108-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 6, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-28-0087, dated February 5, 2007. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of corrosion of the out-tank wire harness of the spar connector backshell for the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion of the out-tank wire harness, which could prevent correct grounding of the lightning shield and result in total loss of the electrical grounding between the lightning shield and the airplane structure. This condition, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection, Test, and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

(f)Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-28-0087, dated February 5, 2007. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

(1)A detailed inspection of each FQIS wire harness connector for corrosion of the shield-to-backshell connection, corrosion on the ground jumper, and damage to the ground jumper.

(2)A loop resistance test of each FQIS wire harness. Note 1: Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-28-0087, dated February 5, 2007, refers to Cinch Service Bulletin CN1156-28-02, Revision C, dated July 31, 2006, as an additional source of service information for installing a backshell assembly upgrade kit, and replacing the wire harness. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 13, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-11926 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27010; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-259-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Airplanes; Model A310 Airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to all Airbus Model A300 airplanes and Model A310 airplanes, and certain Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that currently requires an inspection of the wing and center fuel tanks to determine if certain P-clips are installed and corrective action if necessary; an inspection of electrical bonding points of certain equipment in the center fuel tank for the presence of a blue coat and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary; and installation of new bonding leads and electrical bonding points on certain equipment in the wing, center, and trim fuel tanks, as necessary. The original NPRM proposed to require, for certain airplanes, installation of bonding on an additional bracket. The original NPRM resulted from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This new action revises the original NPRM by adding a requirement, for certain airplanes, to modify the fuel/defuel valves on the left-hand wing. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to ensure continuous electrical bonding protection of equipment in the wing, center, and trim fuel tanks and to prevent damage to wiring in the wing and center fuel tanks, due to failed P-clips used for retaining the wiring and pipes, which could result in a possible fuel ignition source in the fuel tanks. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by July 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1622; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-27010; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-259-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone

(NPRM)(the “original NPRM”) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-15-09, amendment 39-14689 (71 FR 42026, July 25, 2006). The existing AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 airplanes and Model A310 airplanes, and to certain Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Regisgter** on January 25, 2007 (72 FR 3373). The original NPRM proposed to continue to require inspection of the wing and center fuel tanks to determine if certain P-clips are installed and corrective action if necessary; inspection of electrical bonding points of certain equipment in the center fuel tank for the presence of a blue coat and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary; and installation of new bonding leads and electrical bonding points on certain equipment in the wing, center, and trim fuel tanks, as necessary. The original NPRM also proposed to require, for certain airplanes, installation of bonding on an additional bracket. Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the original NPRM, Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 01, dated April 3, 2007. We referred to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, dated July 28, 2005, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions for Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes in the original NPRM. Revision 01 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6064 includes the additional work of modifying the fuel/defuel valves on the left-hand wing. Therefore, we have included in this supplemental NPRM a new paragraph

(k)to include this new action. We have also revised Table 1 of this supplemental NPRM to specify that either the original issue or Revision 01 of the service bulletin is acceptable for compliance with the actions previously required for these airplanes by AD 2006-15-09. We have also revised the Costs of Compliance section of this supplemental NPRM to reflect the change in costs related to Revision 01 of this service bulletin. Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Request To Use New Revision of Additional Service Bulletin Airbus requests that we refer to Revision 01 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6077, dated October 26, 2006, rather than the original issue of that service bulletin, dated July 25, 2005. (In the original NPRM we referred to the original issue of that service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information for doing the following: Installing a new bonding lead(s) on the water drain system of the trim fuel tank, and installing electrical bonding points for certain airplanes.) We agree with Airbus' request to refer to Revision 01 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6077. The procedures in Revision 01 of the service bulletin are essentially the same as those in the original issue. Revision 01 adds a modification classification table, makes minor changes to procedures, and changes the work hours and kit prices for certain airplanes. Therefore, we have revised Table 1 of this supplemental NPRM to specify that either the original issue or Revision 01 of the service bulletin is acceptable for compliance. We have also revised the Costs of Compliance section of this supplemental NPRM to reflect the change in costs related to this service bulletin. Explanation of Changes to Paragraph

(m)of the Supplemental NPRM Since we issued the original NPRM we have issued alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) for AD 2006-15-09. Therefore, we have revised the AMOCs paragraph of this supplemental NPRM (paragraph

(l)of the original NPRM) to state that AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-15-09 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this supplemental NPRM. We have also revised paragraph

(m)of this supplemental NPRM (paragraph

(l)of the original NPRM) to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM Certain changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance There are about 29 Model A300 airplanes, 63 Model A310 airplanes, and 102 Model A300-600 series airplanes of the affected design in the U.S. fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. For some actions, the estimated work hours and cost of parts in the following table depend on the airplane configuration. Estimated Costs Model Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost A300 airplanes Inspect wing and center fuel tanks for P-clips (required by AD 2006-15-09) 40 None $3,200 29 $92,800. Install bonding leads/points in wing and center fuel tank (required by AD 2006-15-09) Between 136 and 155 Between $3,800 and $5,200 Between $14,680 and $17,600 29 Between $425,720 and $510,400. A310 airplanes Inspect wing and center fuel tanks for P-clips (required by AD 2006-15-09) 40 None $3,200 63 $201,600. Install bonding leads/points in wing and center fuel tank (required by AD 2006-15-09) Between 248 and 285 Between $8,840 and $9,190 Between $28,680 and $31,990 63 Between $1,806,840 and $2,015,370. Inspect and install bonding leads/points in the trim fuel tank (required by AD 2006-15-09) Between 53 and 61 Between $50 and $70 Between $4,290 and $4,950 63 Between $270,270 and $311,850. Install bonding for slat track 11 canister bracket (new proposed action) 2 $30 $190 63 $11,970. A300-600 series airplanes Inspect wing and center fuel tanks for P-clips (required by AD 2006-15-09) 40 None $3,200 102 $326,400. Install bonding leads/points in wing and center fuel tanks (required by AD 2006-15-09) Between 157 and 185 Between $8,840 and $9,190 Between $21,400 and $23,990 102 Between $2,182,800 and $2,446,980. Inspect and install bonding leads/points in the trim fuel tank (required by AD 2006-15-09) Between 2 and 62 Between $60 and $520 Between $220 and $5,480 102 Between $22,440 and $558,960. Modify the fuel/defuel valves on the left-hand wing (new proposed action) 1 $20 $100 102 $10,200. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14689 (71 FR 42026, July 25, 2006) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27010; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-259-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 16, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-15-09. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.

(1)All Model A300 airplanes and Model A310 airplanes.

(2)Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; except those airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i)Airplanes not equipped with trim fuel tanks on which Airbus Modifications 12226, 12365, and 12308 have been incorporated in production.

(ii)Airplanes equipped with trim fuel tanks on which Airbus Modifications 12226, 12365, 12308, 12294, and 12476 have been incorporated in production. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to ensure continuous electrical bonding protection of equipment in the wing, center, and trim fuel tanks and to prevent damage to wiring in the wing and center fuel tanks, due to failed P-clips used for retaining the wiring and pipes, which could result in a possible fuel ignition source in the fuel tanks. 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. Restatement of the Requirements of AD 2006-15-09 Service Bulletin References

(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable. Table 1.—Service Bulletin References For Airbus— And the actions specified in— Use Airbus Service Bulletin— Dated— Model A300 airplanes Paragraph

(g)of this AD A300-28-0081 July 20, 2005. Paragraph

(h)of this AD A300-28-0079 September 29, 2005; or Revision 01, dated June 6, 2006. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 01 may be used. Model A310 airplanes Paragraph

(g)of this AD A310-28-2143 July 20, 2005. Paragraph

(h)of this AD A310-28-2142 August 26, 2005; or Revision 01, dated July 17, 2006. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 01 may be used. Paragraph

(i)of this AD A310-28-2153 July 20, 2005. Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes Paragraph

(g)of this AD A300-28-6068 July 20, 2005. Paragraph

(h)of this AD A300-28-6064 July 28, 2005; or Revision 01, dated April 3, 2007. Paragraph

(i)of this AD A300-28-6077 July 25, 2005; or Revision 01, dated October 26, 2006. Inspection and Corrective Actions

(g)Within 59 months after August 29, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-15-09): Do a general visual inspection of the right and left wing fuel tanks and center fuel tank, if applicable, to determine if any NSA5516-XXND- and NSA5516-XXNJ-type P-clips are installed for retaining wiring and pipes in any tank, and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight after the inspection, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Service Bulletin. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Installation of Bonding Leads and Points for Wing and Center Fuel Tanks

(h)Within 59 months after August 29, 2006: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Service Bulletin.

(1)In the center fuel tank, if applicable, do a general visual inspection of the electrical bonding points of the equipment identified in the service bulletin for the presence of a blue coat, and do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight after the inspection.

(2)In the left and right wing fuel tanks and center fuel tank, if applicable, install bonding leads and electrical bonding points on the equipment identified in the service bulletin. Installation of Bonding Leads and Points for the Trim Fuel Tank

(i)For Model A310 airplanes; Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; equipped with a trim fuel tank: Within 59 months after August 29, 2006, install a new bonding lead(s) on the water drain system of the trim fuel tank and install electrical bonding points on the equipment identified in the service bulletin in the trim fuel tank, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the service bulletin, as applicable. New Requirements of This AD Installation of Bonding for Slat Track 11 Canister Bracket

(j)For all Model A310 airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2142, dated August 26, 2005, have been done before the effective date of this AD: Within 50 months after the effective date of this AD, install bonding for the slat track 11 canister bracket, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2142, Revision 01, dated July 17, 2006. Modification of the Fuel/Defuel Valves

(k)For all Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Within 44 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the fuel/defuel valves on the left-hand wing in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 01, dated April 3, 2007. Parts Installation

(l)As of August 29, 2006, no person may install any NSA5516-XXND- or NSA5516-XXNJ-type P-clip for retaining wiring and pipes in any wing, center, or trim fuel tank, on any airplane. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

(3)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-15-09 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Related Information

(n)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2006-0325, dated October 23, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 13, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-11931 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 171 [Public Notice 5835] RIN 1400-AC25 Search Fees in Freedom of Information Act Cases AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Department of State proposes to revise its regulations on fees to be charged for searching for information responsive to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. The existing regulations have proved to be unworkable, particularly in terms of ascertaining the costs of electronic searches. DATES: The Department will consider any comments from the public that are received by September 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to Margaret P. Grafeld, Director, Office of Information Programs and Services,

(202)261-8300, U.S. Department of State, SA-2, 515 22nd St., NW., Washington, DC 20522-6001; Fax: 202-261-8590. E-mail: *GrafeldMP@state.gov* . If submitting comments by e-mail, you must include the RIN in the subject line of your message. You may view this rule online at *http://www.regulations.gov/index.cfm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Margaret P. Grafeld, Director, Office of Information Programs and Services,

(202)261-8300, U.S. Department of State, SA-2, 515 22nd St., NW., Washington, DC 20522-6001; Fax: 202-261-8590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although the current version of the search fee provision was promulgated in 2004, based largely on previous long-standing regulations, experience has shown that the previous, as well as the current, regulation could not, in fact, be given full effect because the cost of computer searches could not be fully ascertained and because of the difficulties in determining the salary costs attributable to individuals doing manual searches, particularly at overseas posts where Foreign Service Nationals have a different and more frequently changing pay scale. By using average salary costs of the categories of individuals involved in a search (i.e., clerical, professional, executive) instead of the actual salary of each such individual, the proposed revision will permit computer calculation of the fees that should be as accurate as the current method and should not result in any substantial increase or diminution of search fees charged or collected. Regulatory Findings *Administrative Procedure Act* . The Department is publishing this rule as a proposed rule. Public comments are invited for a period of 90 days following this document's publication in the **Federal Register** . *Regulatory Flexibility Act* . The Department, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this proposed rule and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. *Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995* . This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. *Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996* . This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets. *Executive Order 12866* . The Department does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. In addition, the Department is exempt from Executive Order 12866 except to the extent that it is promulgating regulations in conjunction with a domestic agency that are significant regulatory actions. The Department has nevertheless reviewed the regulation to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in that Executive Order. *Executive Order 13132* . This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. *Paperwork Reduction Act* . This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. List Subjects in 22 CFR Part 171 Administrative practice and procedure, fees for searches in Freedom of Information Act cases. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 22 CFR part 171 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 171—AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION AND RECORDS TO THE PUBLIC 1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as follows: Authority: 22 U.S.C. 552, 552a; Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824, as amended; E.O. 12958, as amended, 60 FR 19825, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 333; E.O. 12600, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235. 2. Section 171.14 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: § 171.14 Fees to be charged—general.

(a)* * *

(3)For both manual and computer searches, the Department shall charge the estimated direct cost of each search based on the average current salary rates of the categories of personnel doing the searches. Further information on search fees is available by clicking on “FOIA” at the Department's Web site at *http://www.state.gov* or directly at the FOIA home page at *http://foia.state.gov* . Dated: June 15, 2007. Lee Lohman, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-11944 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-24-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2005-NM-0006; FRL-8328-8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source Review AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan

(SIP)that were submitted to EPA on April 11, 2002, and December 29, 2005. The proposed revisions modify New Mexico's Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)and Nonattainment New Source Review

(NNSR)regulations in the SIP to address changes to the Federal PSD and NNSR regulations, which were promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002 and reconsidered with minor changes on November 7, 2003 (collectively, these two Federal actions are called the “2002 New Source Review

(NSR)Reform Rules”). The proposed revisions include provisions for baseline emissions calculations, an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for calculating emissions changes, options for plantwide applicability limits (PALs), and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. EPA is proposing to approve these revisions pursuant to section 110, parts C and D of the Federal Clean Air Act (Act). DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R06-OAR-2005-NM-0006 by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. EPA Region 6 “Contact Us” Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm.* Please click on “6PD” (Multimedia) and select “Air” before submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell at *spruiell.stanley@epa.gov.* • *Fax:* Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), at fax number

(214)665-7263. • *Mail:* Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section (6PD-), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. • *Hand or Courier Delivery:* Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R06-OAR-2005-NM-0006. The 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 the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail if you believe that it is CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means that 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 along with any disk or CD-ROM submitted. 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 and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. A 15 cent per page fee will be charged for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area on the seventh floor at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. The State submittal is also available for public inspection during official business hours by appointment at the New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone

(214)665-7212; fax number

(214)665-7263; e-mail address *spruiell.stanley@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, any reference to “we,” “us,” or “our” shall mean EPA. Outline I. What Action Is EPA Proposing? II. What Is the Background for This Action? III. What Is EPA's Analysis of New Mexico's NSR Rule Revisions? IV. Does Approval of New Mexico NSR Rule Revisions Interfere With Attainment, Reasonable Further Progress, or Any Other Applicable Requirement of the Act? V. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Proposing? On April 11, 2002, and December 29, 2005, New Mexico submitted revisions to the New Mexico SIP. The submittal consists of revisions to two regulations that are already part of the New Mexico SIP. The affected regulations are 20.2.74 New Mexico Administrative Code

(NMAC)(Permits—Prevention of Significant Deterioration) and 20.2.79 NMAC (Permits—Nonattainment Areas). The revisions will update New Mexico's PSD and NNSR regulations to make them consistent with changes to the Federal NSR regulations published on December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186) and November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021). These EPA rulemakings are collectively referred to as the “2002 NSR Reform Rules.” This SIP revision also includes other non-substantive changes to New Mexico's PSD and NNSR rules needed to update the regulatory citations, make clarifying revisions to the regulatory text, and correct typographical errors. These non-substantive changes do not change the regulatory requirements. Please see the Technical Support Document

(TSD)for further information. The EPA is also proposing to approve portions of the SIP submittal dated April 11, 2002. This action only approves the following provisions of the April 11, 2002, SIP submittal: • The removal of the definition of “complete” currently in Paragraph O of 20.2.74.7 NMAC; and • Revisions to 20.2.74.400 NMAC and 20.2.79 NMAC which relate to the requirements for public notice and public participation for PSD and NNSR permits. The EPA is only addressing two provisions of the April 11, 2002, SIP submittal in this action because these provisions are the only provisions in the submittal that address PSD and NNSR. The EPA will take appropriate action on the remaining provisions of the April 11, 2002, submittal in a separate action. II. What Is the Background for This Action? On December 31, 2002, EPA published final rule changes to 40 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)parts 51 and 52, regarding the Clean Air Act's PSD and NNSR programs. See 67 FR 80186. On November 7, 2003, EPA published a notice of final action on the reconsideration of the December 31, 2002, final rule changes. See 68 FR 63021. In the November 7th final action, EPA added the definition of “replacement unit,” and clarified issues regarding PALs. The purpose of today's action is to propose approval of New Mexico's SIP submittal, which includes revisions to the NNSR and PSD SIP rules. The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part of EPA's implementation of parts C and D of Title I of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515, addressing major sources and major modifications. Part C of Title I of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the PSD program, which applies in areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—“attainment areas”—as well as in areas for which there is insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS—“unclassifiable areas.” Part D of Title I of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the NNSR program, which applies in areas that are not in attainment of one or more of the NAAQS—“nonattainment areas.” EPA regulations implementing the NNSR and PSD programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and appendix S of part 51. The Act's NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting programs that apply to new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants regulated under the Act. These programs include a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets those standards, each State must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for approval, a SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and modification of stationary sources of air pollution to assure that the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air; to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls are applied; to maximize opportunities for economic development consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full public consideration of the consequences of the decision. The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR programs. The rules:

(1)Provide a new method for determining baseline actual emissions in the NNSR and PSD programs;

(2)adopt for the NNSR and PSD programs an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major modification has occurred;

(3)allow major stationary sources to comply with PALs to avoid having a significant emissions increase that triggers the requirements of the NNSR and PSD programs;

(4)provide a new applicability provision in the NNSR and PSD programs for emissions units that are designated clean units; and

(5)exclude pollution control projects from the NNSR and PSD program definitions of “physical change or change in the method of operation.” For additional information on the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002) and *http://www.epa.gov/nsr.* After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and became effective (March 3, 2003), various petitioners challenged numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 5276, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. See *New York* v. *United States,* 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005) *rehearing en banc denied* (December 9, 2005). The Court vacated portions of the Rules pertaining to clean units and pollution control projects; remanded a portion of the Rules regarding recordkeeping, e.g., 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6); and either upheld or did not comment on the other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. The EPA has not yet responded to the Court's remand regarding the recordkeeping provisions. Today's action is consistent with the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals because New Mexico's submittal does not include any portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were vacated. The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that no later than January 2, 2006, State agencies adopt and submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs to implement the minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. See 40 CFR 51.166(a)(6)(i) (requiring State agencies to adopt and submit PSD SIP revisions within three years after new amendments are published in the **Federal Register** ). State agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51 and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules with different but equivalent regulations. If, however, a State decides not to implement any of the new applicability provisions, that State must demonstrate that its existing program is at least as stringent as the Federal program. As discussed in further detail below, EPA believes the revisions contained in this submittal are approvable for inclusion into the New Mexico SIP. III. What Is EPA's Analysis of New Mexico's NSR Rule Revisions? New Mexico currently has an EPA-approved NSR program for new and modified sources, including a minor NSR preconstruction permit program, an NNSR preconstruction permit program, and a PSD preconstruction permit program. Today, EPA is proposing to approve revisions to New Mexico's existing NNSR and PSD regulations in the SIP. These proposed revisions were submitted to EPA on December 29, 2005. Copies of the revised rules, as well as the TSD, can be obtained from the Docket, as discussed in the “Docket”' section above. A discussion of the specific New Mexico rule changes that are proposed for inclusion in the SIP is included in the TSD and summarized below. New Mexico's regulation 20.2.74 NMAC (Permits—Prevention of Significant Deterioration) contains the preconstruction review program that provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of ambient air quality as required under part C of Title I of the Act. The program applies to major stationary sources or modifications constructed or installed in areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS. New Mexico's permitting requirements for major sources in or impacting upon non-attainment areas are set forth at 20.2.79 NMAC (Permitting—Nonattainment Areas). The current New Mexico NNSR program applies to the construction of any new major stationary source or major modification of air pollution in a nonattainment area, as required by part D of Title I of the Act. To receive approval to construct, a source that is subject to this regulation must show that it will not cause a net increase in pollution or create a delay in meeting the NAAQS and that it will install and use control technology that achieves the lowest achievable emission rate. These revisions to 20.2.74 NMAC and 20.2.79 NMAC update the existing provisions to be consistent with the Federal 2002 NSR Reform Rules. These revisions address baseline actual emissions, actual-to-projected-actual applicability tests, and PALs. The revisions included in New Mexico's NNSR and PSD programs are substantively the same as the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. As part of EPA's review of New Mexico's regulations, EPA performed a line-by-line review of the proposed revisions and determined that the proposed revisions are consistent with the program requirements for the preparation, adoption and submittal of implementation plans for NSR set forth at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166. This review is contained in the TSD for this action. The New Mexico rules that EPA reviewed do not incorporate the portions of the Federal rules that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, such as the clean unit provisions and the pollution control projects exclusion. The revised New Mexico rules include the recordkeeping provisions set forth in the Federal rules at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and 51.166(r)(6). However, New Mexico chose to exclude the phrase “reasonable possibility.” In the Federal rule, this phrase limits the recordkeeping provisions to modifications at facilities that use the actual-to-future-actual methodology to calculate emissions changes, where there is a “reasonable possibility” that the modifications will result in a significant emissions increase. Therefore, by leaving out the phrase “reasonable possibility” from Subsection E of 20.2.74.300 NMAC and Subsection E of 20.2.79.199 NMAC, the NMED rules require all modifications that use the actual-to-future-actual methodology to meet the recordkeeping requirements. As noted earlier, EPA has not yet responded to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remand of the recordkeeping provisions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. As a result, EPA's final decision with regard to the remand may require EPA to take further action on this portion of NMED's rules. At present, however, NMED's recordkeeping provisions are at least as stringent as the Federal requirements, and are therefore approvable. In the April 11, 2002, submittal, New Mexico revised the definitions by removing the definition of “complete” from Paragraph O of 20.2.74.7 NMAC. The current SIP contained this definition of “complete” to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(b)(22). Although the definition of “complete” is removed from 20.2.74.7 NMAC, other provisions in 20.2.74 NMAC address the criteria that a permit application must address in order to be administratively complete. Specifically, 20.2.74.301 NMAC and 20.2.74.400 NMAC include each of the elements that an application for a PSD permit must contain in order to be administratively complete. These provisions include and meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(n). Thus the New Mexico rules contain provisions that ensure that PSD permit applications are administratively complete as required by the Federal rules. The April 11, 2002, submittal also includes revisions to 20.2.74.400 NMAC and 20.2.79.118 NMAC, which include the schedules and procedures to determine completeness of PSD and NNSR permit applications and the requirements for public participation and notice. The provisions were revised to provide that the New Mexico Environment Department

(NMED)will review a permit application and determine whether it is administratively complete within 30 days after receipt of the application. If the application is administratively complete, the NMED will notify the applicant of this finding by certified mail. If the application is administratively incomplete, the NMED will inform the applicant of such finding by certified mail and state the additional information or points of clarifications that are necessary to deem the application administratively complete. When the NMED receives additional information or clarification, it will promptly review such information and determine whether the application is administratively complete. The procedures for determining administrative completeness and for public participation meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.161 and 40 CFR 51.166(q) which specifies the public participation requirements for PSD permits. The April 11, 2002, submittal also revised 20.2.74.400 NMAC to include a cross-reference to 20.2.72 NMAC. Specifically, 20.2.74.400 NMAC provides that in order for a PSD permit application to be administratively complete, it must meet 20.2.74.301 NMAC and 20.2.72 NMAC. 20.2.74.301 NMAC includes the source information specified in 40 CFR 51.166(n) and is not substantively changed in this action. Under 20.2.72 NMAC, requirements of a complete application are identified in Paragraph A of 20.2.72.203 NMAC. The cross-reference to Paragraph A of 20.2.72.203 NMAC contains the elements for a complete application which has non-substantive changes to the current SIP. It also contains additional criteria that are in addition to the completeness elements that a permit application must contain in order to be administratively complete. Accordingly, New Mexico retains the minimum requirements for determining whether an application is complete that meets the Federal requirements. The TSD contains a detailed discussion of these completeness provisions. IV. Does Approval of New Mexico's Rule Revisions Interfere With Attainment, Reasonable Further Progress, or Any Other Applicable Requirement of the Act? The Act provides in Section 110(l) that: Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revisions would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Because, as discussed above and in the TSD, the revisions to the New Mexico NNSR and PSD programs are substantively the same as the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, without including any vacated provisions, we conclude that these rules do not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. See 67 FR 80186 and 68 FR 63021 for EPA's detailed explanation of the legal basis for the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. V. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve the changes made in the two rules, 20.2.74 NMAC (Permits—Prevention of Significant Deterioration) and 20.2.79 NMAC (Permits—Nonattainment Areas) as revised in the following SIP submittals: • The portion of the SIP revisions submitted April 11, 2002, which revise 20.2.74 NMAC and 20.2.79 NMAC; and • The NSR Reform provisions submitted December 29, 2005. VI. 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). 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 tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it would approve a State program. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Because this rule merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard, EPA lacks the discretionary authority to modify today's regulatory decision on the basis of environmental justice considerations. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: June 11, 2007. Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E7-11942 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0956; FRL-8328-9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of Dayton-Springfield Area to Attainment for Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a determination under the Clean Air Act

(CAA)that the nonattainment area of Dayton-Springfield, Ohio (Clark, Green, Miami, and Montgomery Counties) has attained the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This determination is based on complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2004-2006 seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS have been attained in the area. EPA is also proposing to approve, as a revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018 in the area. EPA is proposing to approve a request from the State of Ohio to redesignate the Dayton-Springfield area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

(OEPA)submitted this request on November 6, 2006 and supplemented it on November 29, 2006, December 4, 2006, December 13, 2006, January 11, 2007, March 9, 2007, March 27, 2007, and May 31, 2007. EPA is also proposing to approve the State's 2005 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Dayton-Springfield area. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0956, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:*

(312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0956. 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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-1767, *dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: Table of Contents I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take? III. What Is the Background for These Actions? A. What Is the General Background Information? B. What Is the Impact of the December 22, 2006 United States Court of Appeals Decision Regarding EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule? IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These Actions? VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions? VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests? A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation B. Adequacy of Ohio's MVEBs VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking? IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? When submitting comments, remember to: 1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). 2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Actions is EPA Proposing To Take? EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Dayton-Springfield nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that this area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to approve Ohio's request to change the legal designation of the Dayton-Springfield area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve Ohio's maintenance plan SIP revision for Dayton-Springfield (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Dayton-Springfield area in attainment of the ozone NAAQS through 2018. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the newly-established 2005 and 2018 MVEBs for the Dayton-Springfield area. The adequacy comment period for the MVEBs began on November 14, 2006, with EPA's posting of the availability of the submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web site (at *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm).* The adequacy comment period for these MVEBs ended on December 14, 2006. EPA did not receive any requests for this submittal, or adverse comments on this submittal during the adequacy comment period. On April 3, 2007, EPA published a **Federal Register** notice announcing the adequacy of the 2005 and 2018 MVEBs. Please see the Adequacy section of this rulemaking for further explanation on this process. Therefore, we find adequate, and are proposing to approve, the State's 2005 and 2018 MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. III. What Is the Background for These Actions? A. What Is the General Background Information? Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and volatile organic compounds

(VOCs)react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NO X and VOCs are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the NAAQS. Before promulgation of the current 8-hour standard, the ozone NAAQS was based on a 1-hour standard. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56693 and 56813), the Dayton-Springfield area was designated as a moderate nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The area was subsequently redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour standard on May 5, 1995 (60 FR 22289). At the time EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, on June 15, 2005, the Dayton-Springfield area was designated as attainment under the 1-hour ozone 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. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA published a final rule designating and classifying areas under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These designations and classifications became effective June 15, 2004. The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years of air quality data, 2001-2003. The CAA contains two sets of provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2, that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7509a and 7511-7511f, respectively.) Subpart 1 contains general requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant, including ozone, governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, (69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004)), an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value (i.e., the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at the time of designation at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of subpart 2) (69 FR 23954). All other areas are covered under subpart 1, based upon their 8- hour design values (69 FR 23958). The Dayton-Springfield area was designated as a subpart 1, 8-hour ozone nonattainment area by EPA on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857, 23927) based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003 (69 FR 23860). 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I provide that the 8-hour ozone standard is attained 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, when rounded. The data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than 75% data completeness. See 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, 2.3(d). On November 6, 2006, Ohio requested that EPA redesignate the Dayton-Springfield area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Ohio supplemented its submittal on November 29, 2006, December 4, 2006, December 13, 2006, January 11, 2007, March 9, 2007, March 27, 2007, and May 31, 2007. The redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2004 through 2006, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been attained for the Dayton-Springfield area. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are available for the Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard, and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). B. What Is the Impact of the December 22, 2006 United States Court of Appeals Decision Regarding EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule? 1. Summary of Court Decision 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 23951, April 30, 2004). *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA,* 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 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)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. This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the Court's ruling 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 Act and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. 2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard 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 cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon:

(1)EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating State submissions in accordance with the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and,

(2)consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any future requirements. First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the Dayton-Springfield 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. 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). See *Sierra Club* v. *EPA* , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this interpretation. See, e.g. also 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. 3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard With respect to the requirements under the 1-hour standard, the Dayton-Springfield area was an attainment area subject to a CAA section 175A maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard. The Court's ruling does not impact redesignation requests for these types of areas. First, there are no conformity requirements that are relevant for redesignation requests for any standard, including the requirement to submit a transportation conformity SIP. Under longstanding EPA policy, EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirement 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). Federal transportation conformity regulations apply in all States prior to approval of transportation conformity SIPs. The Dayton-Springfield, Ohio 1-hour ozone area was redesignated to attainment without approved State transportation conformity regulations because the federal regulations were in effect in Ohio. When challenged, these 1-hour ozone redesignations, which were approved without state regulations, were upheld by the courts. See *Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001). See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida). Although Ohio does not have approved state transportation conformity regulations, it has developed memoranda of understanding, signed by all parties involved in conformity, to address conformity consultation procedures. The federal transportation conformity regulations, which apply in Ohio, require the approved 1-hour ozone budgets to be used for transportation conformity purposes prior to 8-hour ozone budgets being approved. Second, with respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions for the 1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly retained, the Dayton-Springfield area is an attainment area subject to a maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)) and fee provision requirements no longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour standard. Thus, the decision in South Coast should not alter requirements that would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area. IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation provided that:

(1)The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;

(2)the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k);

(3)the Administrator 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)the Administrator 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 redesignation 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 William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, 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 (TSD's) 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; “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, 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.” V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These Actions? On November 6, 2006, Ohio requested redesignation of the Dayton-Springfield area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Ohio supplemented its submittal on November 29, 2006, December 4, 2006, December 13, 2006, January 5, 2007, January 11, 2007, March 9, 2007, March 27, 2007, and May 31, 2007. EPA believes that the area has attained the standard and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions? Approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of the area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Ohio SIP a plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS. It also establishes MVEBs of 29.19 and 14.73 tons per day

(tpd)VOC and 63.88 and 21.42 tpd NO X for the years 2005 and 2018, respectively. VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests? A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Dayton-Springfield area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that the area has met all other applicable section 107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria. The basis for EPA's determination is as follows: 1. The Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)) EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Dayton-Springfield 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 part 50, Appendix I, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 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 Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. OEPA submitted ozone monitoring data for the 2004 to 2006 ozone seasons. The OEPA quality-assured the ambient monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, and recorded it in the AIRS database, thus making the data publicly available. The data meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 50, Appendix I, which requires a minimum completeness of 75 percent annually and 90 percent over each three year period. Monitoring data is presented in Table 1 below. Data completeness information is presented in Table 2 below. Table 1.—Annual 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentration and 3-Year Averages of 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations County Monitor 2004 4th high

(ppm)2005 4th high

(ppm)2006 4th high

(ppm)2004-2006 average 4th high

(ppm)Clark Springfield, 39-023-001 0.079 0.086 0.076 0.080 Mud Run, 39-023-0003 0.073 0.081 0.074 0.076 Greene Xenia, 39-057-0006 0.075 0.083 0.079 0.079 Miami Miami, 39-109-0005 0.075 0.079 0.073 0.076 Montgomery Webster, 39-113-0033 0.067 0.082 0.071 0.073 Table 2.—Data Completeness in Percent (%) County Monitor 2004 (%) 2005 (%) 2006 (%) 2004-2006 average (%) Clark Springfield, 39-023-001 100 99 100 100 Mud Run, 39-023-0003 99 99 100 99 Greene Xenia, 39-057-0006 100 100 100 100 Miami Miami, 39-109-0005 99 100 99 99 Montgomery Webster, 39-113-0033 98 100 100 99 In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plans, OEPA has committed to continue operating the ozone monitors listed above. OEPA has also committed to consult with EPA prior to making changes to the existing monitoring network, should changes become necessary in the future. OEPA will continue to quality assure and report monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and all other federal requirements. In summary, EPA believes that the data submitted by Ohio provide an adequate demonstration that the Dayton-Springfield area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D; and the Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k). (Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)) We have determined that Ohio has met all currently applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Dayton-Springfield area under Section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We have also determined that the Ohio SIP meets all SIP requirements currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of Title I of the CAA (requirements specific to Subpart 1 nonattainment areas), in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we have determined that the Ohio SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, we have ascertained what SIP requirements are applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation, and have determined that the portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. As discussed more fully below, SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to currently applicable requirements of the CAA. a. The Dayton-Springfield Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (see “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) of the CAA. Under this interpretation, a state and the area it wishes to redesignate must meet the relevant CAA requirements that are due prior to the state's submittal of a complete redesignation request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993 Michael Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's submittal of a complete request remain applicable until a redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA. *Sierra Club* v. *EPA* , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). *General SIP requirements.* Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and that, among other things, it includes enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA; provides for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; provides for implementation of a source permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; includes provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)and part D, NSR permit programs; includes criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting; includes provisions for air quality modeling; and provides for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain 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 (NO X SIP Call, 1 Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR)(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. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. When the transport SIP submittal requirements are applicable to a state, they will continue to apply to the state regardless of the attainment designation of any one particular area in the state. Therefore, we believe that these requirements should not be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 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 ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001). 1 On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NO X SIP call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states, including Ohio, to reduce emissions of NO X in order to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone precursors. In compliance with EPA's NO X SIP call, OEPA has developed rules governing the control of NO X emissions from Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and major cement kilns. EPA approved Ohio's rules as fulfilling Phase I of the NO X SIP Call on June 27, 2005 (70 FR 36845). As discussed above, we believe that section 110 elements which are not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Because there are no section 110 requirements linked to the part D requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas that have become due, as explained below, there are no part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard. *Part D Requirements.* EPA has determined that the Ohio SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA, since no requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due for the 8-hour ozone standard prior to OEPA's submission of the redesignation request for the Dayton-Springfield area. Under part D, an area's classification determines the requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets 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. The Dayton-Springfield area was classified as a subpart 1 nonattainment area, and, therefore, subpart 2 requirements do not apply. *Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements.* For purposes of evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP requirements for the Dayton-Springfield area are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). No requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D became due prior to submission of the redesignation request, and, therefore, none are applicable to the areas for purposes of redesignation. Since the State of Ohio has submitted a complete ozone redesignation request for the Dayton-Springfield area prior to the deadline for any submissions required for purposes of redesignation, we have determined that these requirements do not apply to the Dayton-Springfield area for purposes of redesignation. Furthermore, EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, 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 NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Ohio has demonstrated that the area to be redesignated will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect; therefore, EPA concludes that the State need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The State's PSD program will become effective in the Dayton-Springfield area upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996). *Section 176 conformity requirements.* Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally-supported or funded activities, including highway projects, conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of the U.S. Code 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, which EPA promulgated pursuant to CAA requirements. EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment since such areas would be subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA's federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the absence of federally-approved state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment and, because they must implement conformity under federal rules if state rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. See *Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida). EPA approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively. Ohio has submitted on-highway motor vehicle budgets for the Dayton-Springfield area of 29.19 and 14.73 tpd VOC and 63.88 and 21.42 tpd NO X for the years 2005 and 2018, respectively. The area must use the MVEBs from the maintenance plan in any conformity determination that is effective on or after the effective date of the maintenance plan approval. Thus, the Dayton-Springfield area has satisfied all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA. b. The Dayton-Springfield Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for the Dayton-Springfield area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (See the September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum, page 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 25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing the various required SIP elements applicable to the Dayton-Springfield area under the 1-hour ozone standard. No Dayton-Springfield area SIP provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved. 3. The Improvement in Air Quality 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. (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) EPA finds that Ohio has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Dayton-Springfield area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. In making this demonstration, the State has calculated the change in emissions between 2002 and 2005, one of the years the Dayton-Springfield area monitored attainment. The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air quality over this time period can be attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that Ohio and upwind areas have implemented in recent years. The Dayton-Springfield is impacted by the transport of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind areas. Therefore, local controls as well as controls implemented in upwind areas are relevant to the improvement in air quality in the Dayton-Springfield area. a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls Implemented The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures that have been implemented in the areas: *NO* X *rules* . In compliance with EPA's NO X SIP call, Ohio developed rules to control NO X emissions from Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and major cement kilns. These rules required sources to begin reducing NO X emissions in 2004. From 2004 on, NO X emissions from EGUs and large industrial boilers have been capped at a level well below pre-2002 levels. OEPA expects that NO X emissions will further decline as the State meets the requirements of EPA's Phase II NO X SIP call (69 FR 21604 (April 21, 2004)) and CAIR. *Federal Emission Control Measures.* Reductions in VOC and NO X emissions have occurred statewide as a result of federal emission control measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the future as the state implements additional emission controls. Federal emission control measures include: The National Low Emission Vehicle

(NLEV)program, Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel engine standards. In addition, in 2004, EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule (69 FR 38958 (July 29, 2004)). EPA expects this rule to reduce off-road diesel emissions through 2010, with emission reductions starting in 2008. *Control Measures in Upwind Areas.* On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NO X SIP call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states, including Ohio, to reduce emissions of NO X . The reduction in NO X emissions has resulted in lower concentrations of transported ozone entering the Dayton-Springfield area. Emission reductions resulting from regulations developed in response to the NO X SIP call are permanent and enforceable. b. Emission Reductions Ohio is using 2002 for the nonattainment inventory and 2005, one of the years used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the NAAQS, for the attainment inventory. OEPA developed a 2002 base year inventory which they provided to the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). The base year inventory was processed by LADCO to develop summer day emissions for use in regional air quality analyses and attainment demonstration modeling. Area source emissions data were taken from the Ohio 2002 periodic inventory submitted to EPA. Onroad mobile source emissions were calculated using MOBILE6.2. Point source emissions data was compiled from Ohio's STARShip annual emissions inventory database and EPA's 2002 Air Markets acid rain database. Nonroad mobile emissions were generated using EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), with the following exceptions. Recreational motorboat populations and spatial surrogates were updated and emissions estimates were developed for aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and railroads, three nonroad categories not included in NMIM. For 2005, OEPA estimated point, area, and nonroad mobile source emissions by interpolating between the 2002 inventory and the 2009 inventory described below. Onroad emissions were generated using MOBILE6.2. Based on the inventories described above, Ohio's submittal documents changes in VOC and NO X emissions from 2002 to 2005 for the Dayton-Springfield area. Emissions data are shown in Tables 3 through 5 below. Table 3.—Dayton-Springfield Area: Total VOC and NO X Emissions for Nonattainment Year 2002

(tpd)Clark VOC NO X Greene VOC NO X Miami VOC NO X Montgomery VOC NO X Total VOC NO X Point 0.55 0.11 0.05 9.30 0.29 0.05 2.61 29.32 3.50 38.78 Area 10.40 0.70 5.98 0.67 6.34 0.53 22.35 2.43 45.07 4.33 Nonroad 1.94 3.56 1.79 3.70 1.74 3.49 8.62 12.17 14.09 22.92 Onroad 6.62 14.54 6.22 12.26 4.95 9.88 20.80 41.77 38.59 78.45 Total 19.51 18.91 14.04 25.93 13.32 13.95 54.38 85.69 101.25 144.48 Table 4.—Dayton-Springfield Area: Total VOC and NO X Emissions for Attainment Year 2005

(tpd)Clark VOC NO X Greene VOC NO X Miami VOC NO X Montgomery VOC NO X Total VOC NO X Point 0.50 0.11 0.05 8.75 0.30 0.05 2.60 27.69 3.45 36.60 Area 11.02 0.75 6.08 0.72 6.46 0.56 22.67 2.62 46.23 4.65 Nonroad 1.68 3.16 1.60 3.37 1.55 3.07 7.33 10.64 12.16 20.24 Onroad 4.98 11.82 4.74 10.04 3.81 8.17 15.66 33.85 29.19 63.88 Total 18.18 15.84 12.47 22.88 12.12 11.85 48.26 74.80 91.03 125.37 Table 5.—Dayton-Springfield Area: Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NO X Emissions

(tpd)Sector VOC 2002 2005 Net change (2002-2005) NO X 2002 2005 Net change (2002-2005) Point 3.50 3.45 −0.05 38.78 36.60 −2.18 Area 45.07 46.23 1.16 4.33 4.65 0.32 Nonroad 14.09 12.16 −1.93 22.92 20.24 −2.68 Onroad 38.59 29.19 −9.4 78.45 63.88 −14.57 Total 101.25 91.03 −10.22 144.48 125.37 −19.11 Table 5 shows that the Dayton-Springfield area reduced VOC emissions by 10.22 tpd and NO X emissions by 19.11 tpd between 2000 and 2005. Based on the information summarized above, Ohio has adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. 4. The Areas Have Fully Approved Maintenance Plans Pursuant to Section 175a of the CAA. (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) In conjunction with its requests to redesignate the Dayton-Springfield nonattainment area to attainment status, Ohio submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area through 2018. a. What is required in a maintenance plan? Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required 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 ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for ten years following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations. The September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum clarifies that an ozone Maintenance Plan Should Address The Following Items: The attainment VOC and NO X emissions inventories, a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of the maintenance period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network, factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS. b. Attainment Inventory The OEPA developed an emissions inventory for 2005, one of the years Ohio used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS, as described above. The attainment level of emissions is summarized in Table 4, above. c. Demonstration of Maintenance Ohio submitted with the redesignation request a revision to the 8-hour ozone SIP to include a maintenance plan for the Dayton-Springfield area, in compliance with section 175A of the CAA. This demonstration shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard through 2018 by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NO X for the Dayton-Springfield area remain at or below attainment year emission levels. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See *Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), *Sierra Club* v. *EPA* , 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003). Ohio is primarily using inventories developed by LADCO for the years 2009 and 2018. Point and area source emissions were projected from the 2002 base year to 2009 and 2018 using growth factors. LADCO point source estimates have been supplemented with point source emissions projections based upon data compiled from Ohio's STARShip annual emissions inventory database and statewide EGU NO X budgets from the Ohio NO X rule. Nonroad mobile emissions were generated for 2009 and 2018 using NMIM, with the following exceptions. Recreational motorboat populations and spatial surrogates were updated and emissions estimates were developed for aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and railroads, three nonroad categories not included in NMIM. The Ohio Department of Transportation prepared onroad mobile source emissions estimates using MOBILE6.2. Modeling for 2009 and 2018 includes implementation of the 7.8 low Reid Vapor Pressure fuels program for the area. It should be noted that because Ohio is in the process of seeking approval of the removal of the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program from the Dayton-Springfield SIP, MOBILE6.2 modeling was performed assuming no credit for I/M related emissions reductions in 2009 and 2018. This results in conservatively estimating onroad emissions to be higher in 2009 and 2018 than would be the case if the I/M program were to continue to operate. While the issue of I/M program discontinuation will be addressed in a separate action, it should be noted that Ohio's maintenance plan demonstrates that the area can maintain the standard through 2018 without operation of the I/M program. Emissions estimates are presented in Table 6 below. Table 6.—Dayton-Springfield Area: Comparison of 2005-2018 VOC and NO X Emissions

(tpd)Sector VOC 2005 2009 2018 Net change 2005-2018 NO X 2005 2009 2018 Net change 2005-2018 Point 3.45 3.47 3.72 0.27 36.60 36.24 37.94 1.34 Area 46.23 47.76 52.75 6.52 4.65 5.09 5.45 0.80 Nonroad 12.16 9.62 7.91 −4.25 20.24 16.68 9.84 −10.40 Onroad 29.19 20.50 11.66 −17.53 63.88 46.78 18.50 −45.38 Total 91.03 81.35 76.04 −14.99 125.37 104.79 71.73 −53.64 The emission projections show that OEPA does not expect emissions in the Dayton-Springfield area to exceed the level of the 2005 attainment year inventory during the maintenance period. In the Dayton-Springfield area, OEPA projects that VOC and NO X emissions will decrease by 14.99 tpd and 53.64 tpd, respectively. As part of its maintenance plan, the State elected to include a “safety margin” for the area. 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 which continues to demonstrate attainment of the standard. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The Dayton-Springfield area attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2004-2006 time period. Ohio used 2005 as the attainment level of emissions for the area. In the maintenance plan, OEPA projected emission levels for 2018. For Dayton-Springfield, the emissions from point, area, nonroad, and mobile sources in 2005 equaled 91.03 tpd of VOC. OEPA projected VOC emissions for the year 2018 to be 76.04 tpd of VOC. The SIP submission demonstrates that the Dayton-Springfield area will continue to maintain the standard with emissions at this level. The safety margin for VOC is calculated to be the difference between these amounts or, in this case, 14.99 tpd of VOC for 2018. By this same method, 53.64 tpd (i.e., 125.37 tpd less 71.73 tpd) is the safety margin for NO X for 2018. The safety margin, or a portion thereof, can be allocated to any of the source categories, as long as the total attainment level of emissions is maintained. d. Monitoring Network Ohio currently operates two ozone monitors in Clark County, and one ozone monitor each in Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties. OEPA has committed to continue operating the ozone monitors located in these counties. OEPA has also committed to consult with EPA prior to making changes to the existing monitoring network, should changes become necessary in the future. OEPA will continue to quality assure and report monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and all other federal requirements. e. Verification of Continued Attainment Continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the Dayton-Springfield area depends, in part, on the State's efforts toward tracking indicators of continued attainment during the maintenance period. The State's plan for verifying continued attainment of the 8-hour standard in the Dayton-Springfield area consists of plans to continue ambient ozone monitoring in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. f. Contingency Plan The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures, and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA. As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has adopted a contingency plan for the Dayton-Springfield area to address possible future ozone air quality problems. The contingency plan adopted by Ohio has two levels of response, depending on whether a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard is only threatened (Warning Level Response) or has occurred (Action Level Response). A Warning Level Response will occur when an annual (1-year) fourth-high monitored daily peak 8-hour ozone concentration of 0.88 ppm is monitored within the maintenance area. A Warning Level Response will consist of a study to determine whether the high ozone value indicates a trend toward higher ozone concentrations and whether emissions appear to be increasing. The study will evaluate whether the trend, if any, is likely to continue. If so, control measures necessary to reverse the trend will be selected by the State for evaluation and possible adoption. Implementation of necessary controls in response to a Warning Level Response triggering will occur as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 12 months from the conclusion of the most recent ozone season (September 30). An Action Level Response will be triggered whenever a two-year average fourth-high monitored value of 0.85 ppm or greater is monitored within the area, or a violation of the NAAQS (three-year average fourth-high value of 0.85 ppm or greater) is monitored within the area. When an Action Level Response is triggered, OEPA, in conjunction with the metropolitan planning organization or regional council of governments, will determine what control measures are needed to assure future attainment of the NAAQS. Measures that can be implemented in a short time will be selected in order to be in place within 18 months from the close of the ozone season that prompted the Action Level. The State will select contingency measures for consideration from a comprehensive list of measures deemed appropriate and effective at the time the selection is made. In its maintenance plan, OEPA included the following list of possible contingency measures: i. Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline program; ii. Tighten RACT on existing sources covered by U.S. EPA Control Technique Guidelines issued in response to the 1990 CAA; iii. Apply RACT to smaller existing sources; iv. Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle operations; v. Controls on consumer products consistent with those adopted elsewhere in the United States; vi. Require VOC or NO X emission offsets for new and modified major sources; vii. Require VOC or NO X emission offsets for new and modified minor sources; viii. Increase the ratio of emission offsets required for new sources; and ix. Require VOC or NO X controls on new minor sources (less than 100 tons). It should be noted that a lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline program would only be creditable as a contingency measure to the extent that it goes beyond the program currently approved and included in the maintenance plan emissions estimates. g. Provisions for Future Updates of the Ozone Maintenance Plan As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Ohio commits to submit to the EPA updated ozone maintenance plans eight years after redesignation of the Dayton-Springfield area to cover an additional 10-year period beyond the initial 10-year maintenance period. As required by section 175(A) of the CAA, Ohio has committed to maintaining the existing controls after redesignation unless the State demonstrates that the standard can be maintained without one or more controls. Ohio commits that any changes to its rules or emission limits applicable to VOC and/or NO X sources, as required for maintenance of the ozone standard in the Dayton-Springfield area will be submitted to EPA for approval as a SIP revision. EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by Ohio for the Dayton-Springfield area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. B. Adequacy of Ohio's MVEBs 1. How Are MVEBs Developed and What Are the MVEBs for the Dayton-Springfield Area? Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIP revisions and ozone maintenance plans for ozone nonattainment areas and for areas seeking redesignations to attainment of the ozone standard. These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., reasonable further progress SIP and attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and ozone maintenance plans create MVEBs based on onroad mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. The MVEBs are the portions of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for attainment or maintenance. Under 40 CFR Part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation to attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan. The 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 the MVEB in the SIP and how to revise the MVEB if needed. 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 SIP that addresses emissions from cars and trucks. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not conform, most new transportation 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 assuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must affirmatively find that the MVEBs are “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEBs to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the MVEBs are 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 the adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three basic steps:

(1)Providing public notification of a SIP submission;

(2)providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a public comment period; and,

(3)EPA's finding of adequacy. The process of 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 codified in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments—Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change,” published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations. The Dayton-Springfield area's maintenance plan contains new VOC and NO X MVEBs for the years 2005 and 2018. The availability of the SIP submission with these 2005 and 2018 MVEBs was announced for public comment on EPA's Adequacy Web page on November 14, 2006 at: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.* The EPA public comment period on adequacy of the 2005 and 2018 MVEBs for the Dayton-Springfield area closed on December 14, 2006. No requests for this submittal or adverse comments on the submittal were received during the adequacy comment period. In a letter dated February 9, 2007, EPA informed OEPA that we had found the 2005 and 2018 MVEBs to be adequate for use in transportation conformity analyses. EPA published a **Federal Register** notice announcing the adequacy of the 2005 and 2018 MVEBs on April 3, 2007 (72 FR 15879). EPA, through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for use to determine transportation conformity in the Dayton-Springfield area because EPA has determined that the area can maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the relevant maintenance period with mobile source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs. OEPA has determined the 2005 MVEBs for the Dayton-Springfield area to be 29.19 tpd for VOC and 63.88 tpd for NO X . OEPA has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the area to be 14.73 tpd for VOC and 21.42 tpd for NO X . These MVEBs exceed the onroad mobile source VOC and NO X emissions projected by MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 6 above (“onroad” source sector). OEPA decided to include safety margins (described further below) of 3.07 tpd for VOC and 2.92 tpd for NO X in the MVEBs to provide for mobile source growth. Ohio has demonstrated that the Dayton-Springfield area can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 14.73 tpd of VOC and 21.42 tpd of NO X in 2018, including the allocated safety margins, since emissions will still remain under attainment year emission levels. 2. 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. As noted in Table 6, the Dayton-Springfield area VOC and NO X emissions are projected to have safety margins of 14.99 tpd for VOC and 53.64 tpd for NO X in 2018 (the difference between the attainment year, 2005, emissions and the projected 2018 emissions for all sources in the Dayton-Springfield area). Even if emissions reached the full level of the safety margin, the area would still demonstrate maintenance since emission levels would equal those in the attainment year. The MVEBs requested by OEPA contain safety margins for mobile sources smaller than the allowable safety margins reflected in the total emissions for Dayton-Springfield area. The State is not requesting allocation of the entire available safety margins reflected in the demonstration of maintenance. Therefore, even though the State is requesting MVEBs that exceed the projected onroad mobile source emissions for 2018 contained in the demonstration of maintenance, the increase in onroad mobile source emissions that can be considered for transportation conformity purposes is well within the safety margins of the ozone maintenance demonstration. Further, once allocated to mobile sources, these safety margins will not be available for use by other sources. VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking? EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Dayton-Springfield area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan SIP revision for the Dayton-Springfield area. EPA's proposed approval of the maintenance plan is based on Ohio's demonstration that the plan meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA, as described more fully above. After evaluating Ohio's redesignation request, EPA has determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation of the Dayton-Springfield area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The final approval of this redesignation request would change the official designation for the Dayton-Springfield area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 and 2018 MVEBs submitted by Ohio in conjunction with the redesignation request. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law, and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Redesignation is an action that merely affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allows a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In reviewing program submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a program submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area but 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. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: June 12, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-11958 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 9 and 20 [PS Docket No. 07-114; WC Docket No. 05-196; FCC 07-108] Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: In this document the FCC seeks comment on several issues relating to Enhanced 911

(E911)location accuracy and reliability requirements, in order to ensure that E911 service meets the needs of public safety and the American people, while taking into account the evolution in the use of wireless devices and the further development of location technologies. DATES: Written comments on the geographic scope of the current wireless location accuracy requirements and the question of deferring enforcement of § 20.18(h) at the PSAP service area level are due on or before July 5, 2007 and reply comments are due on or before July 11, 2007. Written comments on all other questions raised in the NPRM are due on or before August 20, 2007 and reply comments are due on or before September 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 07-114 and WC Docket No. 05-196, by any of the identified methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web Site:* * http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Follow the instructions for paper filers below. • *People with Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Simpson, Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,

(202)418-2391, or TTY

(202)418-7233. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*

(NPRM)in PS Docket No. 07-114 and WC Docket No. 05-196, FCC 07-108, adopted on May 31, 2007, and released on June 1, 2007. In section III.A of the NPRM, the FCC seeks comment on its tentative conclusion to adopt a proposal by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc.

(APCO)to clarify § 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules, which specifies the standards for wireless E911 Phase II location accuracy and reliability, to require licensees subject to this rule to satisfy these standards at a geographical level defined by the coverage area of each respective local Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). We also grant APCO's request for an expedited consideration of its proposal, and seek comment on whether, if we adopt this tentative conclusion, we should defer enforcement of § 20.18(h) to allow wireless carriers to come into compliance. In section III.B, of the NPRM, the FCC seeks comment on a number of other tentative conclusions and proposals, including:

(i)If we were to require licensees to meet the standards of § 20.18(h) at the PSAP level, and decide to defer enforcement of § 20.18(h) as so defined, how long we should defer enforcement;

(ii)the tentative conclusion to establish a single location accuracy requirement irrespective of technology;

(iii)how advances in location technologies and the use of hybrid technologies that employ both handset and network-based technologies should impact our analysis;

(iv)whether a more stringent accuracy requirement should be adopted;

(v)how and by what date to require compliance with a uniform and/or new accuracy requirement;

(vi)the methodology for accuracy compliance testing, particularly when wireless phones are used indoors and in rural areas;

(vii)the tentative conclusions to establish a mandatory schedule for accuracy testing and to require carriers to automatically provide accuracy data to PSAPs;

(viii)whether to require carriers to provide E911 location information when a wireless phone roams to an area that uses a different location technology or in which there are no automatic roaming agreements between carriers; and

(ix)the tentative conclusion that to the extent that an interconnected voice over Internet Protocol

(VoIP)service may be used in more than one location, service providers must employ an automatic location technology that meets the same accuracy standards that apply to services provided by circuit-switched commercial mobile radio services

(CMRS)carriers. I. Procedural Matters A. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding 1. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules as well. B. Comment Dates 2. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using

(1)the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),

(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or

(3)by filing paper copies. *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24,121 (1998). 3. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. 4. For ECFS filers, if multiple dockets or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send and e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov* , and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. 5. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. 6. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. 7. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. 8. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. 9. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 10. Comments and reply comments and any other filed documents in this matter may be obtained from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., in person at 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at

(202)488-5300, via facsimile at

(202)488-5563, or via e-mail at *FCC@BCPIWEB.COM* . The pleadings will be also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, and through the Commission's Electronic Filing System

(ECFS)accessible on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs.* 11. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). 12. Commenters who file information that they believe is should be withheld from public inspection may request confidential treatment pursuant to § 0.459 of the Commission's rules. Commenters should file both their original comments for which they request confidentiality and redacted comments, along with their request for confidential treatment. Commenters should not file proprietary information electronically. Even if the Commission grants confidential treatment, information that does not fall within a specific exemption pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)must be publicly disclosed pursuant to an appropriate request. *See* 47 CFR 0.461; 5 U.S.C. 552. We note that the Commission may grant requests for confidential treatment either conditionally or unconditionally. As such, we note that the Commission has the discretion to release information on public interest grounds that does fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption. C. Paperwork Reduction Act 13. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 14. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the first page of the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 15. In the Notice, we seek comment on how to best ensure that public safety answering points (PSAPs) receive location information that is as accurate as possible for all wireless E911 calls. The Notice also asks whether and to what extent providers of interconnected voice over Internet Protocol

(VoIP)services should be required to provide automatic location identification (ALI), and whether they should be subject to the same location accuracy requirements as providers of circuit-switched commercial mobile radio services (CMRS). The objective is to ensure that PSAPs receive reliable and accurate location information irrespective of the location of the caller or the technology that may be used. 16. The Notice tentatively concludes that wireless carriers must comply with § 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules, which sets forth the standards for Phase II wireless E911 location accuracy and reliability, at the PSAP service area level. This tentative conclusion responds to a petition for declaratory ruling filed by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc.

(APCO)expressing concern that by measuring and testing location accuracy over geographic areas larger than PSAP service areas, a wireless carrier can assert that it satisfies the requirements of § 20.18(h) even when it is not meeting the location accuracy requirements in substantial segments of its service area. In recognition of the fact that many carriers are not currently measuring and testing location accuracy at the PSAP level, the Notice seeks comment on whether—and for what length of time—the Commission should defer enforcement of § 20.18(h) if it adopts the tentative conclusion to require compliance at the PSAP level. 17. The Notice explores other possible ways to improve wireless E911 location accuracy and reliability. The item tentatively concludes that the public interest would be better served by a single, technology-neutral location accuracy requirement for wireless E911 service, rather than the separate accuracy requirements for network-based and handset-based location technologies that are currently in place. In light of this tentative conclusion, the Notice seeks comment on what an appropriate uniform accuracy standard would be, what level of accuracy is possible with current location technologies, whether hybrid solutions that employ both network-based and handset-based location technologies can produce improved location accuracy, and how long carriers should be given to come into compliance if the Commission adopts a new, uniform location accuracy standard. 18. The Notice tentatively concludes that the Commission will establish a mandatory schedule for accuracy testing, and that carriers should automatically provide accuracy data to PSAPs. The Notice seeks comment on these tentative conclusions, and also seeks comment on whether the Commission should require wireless carriers to deliver location information for “roaming” 911 calls placed by another carrier's customers. 19. With respect to interconnected VoIP, the Notice seeks comment on whether and to what extent providers of interconnected VoIP services should be required to provide automatic location identification, or ALI, and whether they should be subject to the same location accuracy requirements as providers of circuit-switched CMRS. The Notice tentatively concludes that to the extent that an interconnected VoIP service may be used in more than one location, providers must employ an automatic location technology that meets the same accuracy standards that apply to CMRS carriers. Legal Basis 20. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this Notice is contained in sections 4(i) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 332. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 21. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and

(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Telecommunications Service Entities, Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers 22. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 23. *Cellular Licensees.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census category “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small. Also, according to Commission data, 437 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio

(SMR)Telephony services, which are placed together in the data. We have estimated that 260 of these are small, under the SBA small business size standard. 24. *Common Carrier Paging.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census category, “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. In the Paging *Third Report and Order,* we developed a small business size standard for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won. Also, according to Commission data, 375 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of paging and messaging services. Of those, we estimate that 370 are small, under the SBA-approved small business size standard. 25. *Wireless Telephony.* Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio

(SMR)telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 445 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony. We have estimated that 245 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. 26. *Broadband Personal Communications Service.* The broadband Personal Communications Service

(PCS)spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined “small entity” for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These standards defining “small entity” in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as “small” or “very small” businesses. Subsequent events, concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. 27. *Narrowband Personal Communications Services.* To date, two auctions of narrowband personal communications services

(PCS)licenses have been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already been held, “small businesses” were entities with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less. Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41 licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To ensure meaningful participation of small business entities in future auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in the *Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order.* A “small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A “very small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. In the future, the Commission will auction 459 licenses to serve Metropolitan Trading Areas

(MTAs)and 408 response channel licenses. There is also one megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in reserve and that the Commission has not yet decided to release for licensing. The Commission cannot predict accurately the number of licenses that will be awarded to small entities in future auctions. However, four of the 16 winning bidders in the two previous narrowband PCS auctions were small businesses, as that term was defined. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis that a large portion of the remaining narrowband PCS licenses will be awarded to small entities. The Commission also assumes that at least some small businesses will acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means of the Commission's partitioning and disaggregation rules. 28. *Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). The Commission uses the SBA's small business size standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” *i.e.* , an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 29. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. We will use SBA's small business size standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA small business size standard. 30. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service.* This service operates on several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this service. We are unable to estimate at this time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers 31. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireline firms within the broad economic census category, “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 2,432 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,395 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 37 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 32. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, *inter alia,* meets the pertinent small business size standard ( *e.g.* , a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 33. *Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. 34. *Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 769 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 12 carriers have reported that they are “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and all 12 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 39 carriers have reported that they are “Other Local Service Providers.” Of the 39, an estimated 38 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that may be affected by our action. 35. *Local Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 143 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an estimated 141 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action. 36. *Toll Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 770 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 747 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 23 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action. 37. *Payphone Service Providers (PSPs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 613 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these, an estimated 609 have 1,500 or fewer employees and four have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers are small entities that may be affected by our action. 38. *Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 316 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 292 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be affected by our action. 39. *Operator Service Providers (OSPs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 23 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 20 have 1,500 or fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities that may be affected by our action. 40. *Prepaid Calling Card Providers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 89 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these, 88 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that all or the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by our action. 41. *800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 800 and 800-like service (“toll free”) subscribers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these service subscribers appears to be data the Commission collects on the 800, 888, and 877 numbers in use. According to our data, at the end of January, 1999, the number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,692,955; the number of 888 numbers assigned was 7,706,393; and the number of 877 numbers assigned was 1,946,538. We do not have data specifying the number of these subscribers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the SBA size standard. Consequently, we estimate that there are 7,692,955 or fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 7,706,393 or fewer small entity 888 subscribers; and 1,946,538 or fewer small entity 877 subscribers. International Service Providers 42. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of international service. The appropriate size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad census categories of “Satellite Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.” Under both categories, such a business is small if it has $13.5 million or less in average annual receipts. 43. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action. 44. The second category of Other Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in

(1)providing specialized telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or

(2)providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite systems.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 303 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action. Cable and OVS Operators 45. *Cable and Other Program Distribution.* The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged as third-party distribution systems for broadcast programming. The establishments of this industry deliver visual, aural, or textual programming received from cable networks, local television stations, or radio networks to consumers via cable or direct-to-home satellite systems on a subscription or fee basis. These establishments do not generally originate programming material.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which is: all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 46. *Cable Companies and Systems.* The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size standard, most cable systems are small. 47. *Cable System Operators.* The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard. 48. *Open Video Services (OVS).* In 1996, Congress established the open video system

(OVS)framework, one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers (LECs). The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard of Cable and Other Program Distribution Services, which consists of such entities having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified 25 OVS operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service providers

(BSPs)are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises. As of June, 2005, BSPs served approximately 1.4 million subscribers, representing 1.5 percent of all MVPD households. Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN), which serves about 371,000 subscribers as of June, 2005, is currently the largest BSP and 14th largest MVPD. RCN received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC and other areas. The Commission does not have financial information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. We thus believe that at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities. Internet Service Providers 49. *Internet Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs “provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide related services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or software consulting related to Internet connectivity.” Under the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average annual receipts of $23 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 2,437 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 47 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less then $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action. 50. *All Other Information Services.* “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing other information services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives).” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $6.5 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 195 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 172 had annual receipts of under $5 million, and an additional nine firms had receipts of between $5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action. Equipment Manufacturers 51. *Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing.* The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 52. *Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing.* The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and data communications equipment. These products may be standalone or board-level components of a larger system. Examples of products made by these establishments are central office switching equipment, cordless telephones (except cellular), PBX equipment, telephones, telephone answering machines, LAN modems, multi-user modems, and other data communications equipment, such as bridges, routers, and gateways.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 518 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 511 had employment of under 1,000, and an additional 7 had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 53. *Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing.* These establishments manufacture “computer storage devices that allow the storage and retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical, or magnetic/optical media.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 1,082 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 987 had employment of under 500, and 52 establishments had employment of 500 to 999. 54. *Computer Storage Device Manufacturing.* These establishments manufacture “computer storage devices that allow the storage and retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical, or magnetic/optical media.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 209 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 197 had employment of under 500, and eight establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 55. The Notice includes a tentative conclusion that carriers should automatically provide accuracy data to PSAPs. Accordingly, it is possible that the Commission may establish rules imposing additional recordkeeping requirements on small entities. The Notice seeks comment on what specific information carriers should provide to PSAPs; the Commission will examine the resulting record to determine whether any requirements should apply to small entities. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 56. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives:

(i)The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

(ii)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;

(iii)the use of performance, rather than design standards; and

(iv)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 57. In the Notice, the Commission specifically considers the impact of potential revisions to the wireless E911 accuracy rules on small entities. The Notice asks whether certain classes of carriers and/or rural networks should be held to a uniform standard of accuracy if the Commission were to adopt one, and if so, by what date they should be required to come into compliance with a more stringent, uniform accuracy requirement. In previous rulemakings, the Commission has established different compliance deadlines for small wireless carriers. The questions posed in today's Notice will enable the Commission to assess whether similar concessions to small entities are warranted with respect to wireless E911 accuracy requirements. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 58. None. III. Ordering Clauses 59. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 332, that the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* is adopted. 60. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11404 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 15 [ET Docket No. 03-65; FCC 07-79] Interference Immunity Performance Specifications for Radio Receivers AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Termination of proceeding. SUMMARY: This document terminates the “Interference Immunity Performance Specifications” proceeding. The Commission finds that with the passage of time, the NOI and record in this proceeding have become outdated. Further, to the extent receiver interference immunity performance specifications are desirable, they may be addressed in proceedings that are frequency band or service specific. As there does not appear to be a need for further Commission action at this time, we are terminating this proceeding without prejudice to its substantive merits. DATES: This proceeding is terminated as of May 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rodney Small, Policy and Rules Division, Office of Engineering and Technology,

(202)418-2452, e-mail *Rodney.Small@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Order* , ET Docket No. 03-65, FCC 07-79, adopted May 2, 2007 and released May 4, 2007. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's Internet site at *http://www.fcc.gov.* It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; telephone

(202)488-5300; fax

(202)488-5563; e-mail *FCC@BCPIWEB.COM.* Summary of the Order 1. On March 13, 2003, the Commission adopted a *Notice of Inquiry* (“NOI”), 68 FR 23677, May 5, 2003, in this proceeding. The NOI sought information on whether the Commission should incorporate receiver interference immunity performance specifications into spectrum policy decisions on a broad basis. 2. The Commission finds that with the passage of time, the NOI and record in this proceeding have become outdated. Further, to the extent receiver interference immunity performance specifications are desirable, they may be addressed in proceedings that are frequency band or service specific. As there does not appear to be a need for further Commission action at this time, we are terminating this proceeding without prejudice to its substantive merits. If any party wishes to pursue these issues in the future, nothing precludes us from evaluating them in the context of other proceedings. 3. The Commission will not send a copy of this *Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the *Order* does not adopt any rules it only terminates the proceeding. Ordering Clauses 4. Pursuant to sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 154(j), ET Docket No. 03-65 is terminated, as of May 4, 2007. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11811 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 697 [Docket No. 0612243160-7167-01] RIN 0648-AU07 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster Fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes new Federal American lobster ( *Homarus americanus* ) regulations that would implement further minimum carapace length (gauge) increases, escape vent size increases, and trap reductions in the offshore American lobster fishery, consistent with recommendations for Federal action in the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster (ISFMP) and pending management actions of the Commission's American Lobster Management Board (Board). DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time on or before August 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Harold Mears, Director, State, Federal and Constituent Programs Office, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to *Lob0607@noaa.gov* , via fax

(978)281-9117 or via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal at *www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Burns, Fishery Management Specialist,

(978)281-9144, fax

(978)281-9117, e-mail *peter.burns@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statutory Authority The proposed regulations would modify Federal lobster conservation management measures in the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)under the authority of section 803(b) of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act) 16 U.S.C 5101 *et seq.* , which states, in the absence of an approved and implemented Fishery Management Plan under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ) and, after consultation with the appropriate Fishery Management Council(s), the Secretary of Commerce may implement regulations to govern fishing in the EEZ, i.e., from 3 to 200 nautical miles

(nm)offshore. The regulations must be

(1)compatible with the effective implementation of an ISFMP developed by the Commission and

(2)consistent with the national standards set forth in section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Purpose and Need for Management American lobsters are managed within the framework of the Commission. The Commission serves to develop fishery conservation and management strategies for certain coastal species and coordinates the efforts of the states and Federal Government toward concerted sustainable ends. The Commission, under the provisions of the Atlantic Coastal Act, decides upon a management strategy as a collective and then forwards that strategy to the states and Federal government, along with a recommendation that the states and Federal Government take action (e.g., enact regulations) in furtherance of this strategy. The Federal Government is obligated by statute to support of the Commission's overall efforts. Relevant to this action, the Commission's Lobster Board recommended that the Federal Government create regulations consistent with the measures set forth in the Commission's Lobster ISFMP as identified in Addenda II, III, and IV and XI to Amendment 3 of the ISFMP. As initially adopted, these addenda included management measures for several lobster conservation management areas (LCMAs/Areas) including Area 3, the Outer Cape Cod (Outer Cape) Area and Area 1. Specifically, these measures included an escape vent size increase for both Area 1 and the Outer Cape Area and a series of gauge increases for the Outer Cape Area in addition to the measures considered for Area 3. However, the Board, in May 2006, determined that only the Area 3 measures were required and repealed those specific to the Outer Cape and Area 1. Consequently, NMFS proposes to implement regulatory measures in three general categories for LCMA 3: 1) gauge size increases (recommended in Addenda II); 2) escape vent increases (recommended in Addendum IV); and 3) trap reductions (recommended in Addendum IV and Addendum XI). The proposed regulatory changes serve as the Federal government's response to the Commission's requested action and are consistent with NMFS' resource objectives, legal mandates, and overall practical/managerial requirements. The best available science suggests and supports the need for broodstock protection and effort reductions for the Southern New England

(SNE)stock. The SNE stock encompasses all of Areas 4, 5, and 6, and part of Areas 2 and 3. The Commission has adopted measures for the areas other than Area 3 that NMFS will address in future and ongoing rulemakings. The Area 3 broodstock and effort control measures relevant to this action directly address the concerns of the most recent stock assessment. The peer-reviewed lobster stock assessment in 2005 showed that the American lobster resource presents a mixed picture (see the Commission Stock Assessment Report No. 06-03, published January 2006 at *www.asmfc.org* .). One theme throughout the assessment was the high fishing effort and high mortality rates in all three stock areas. The assessment indicated that there is stable abundance for the Georges Bank

(GBK)stock and much of the Gulf of Maine

(GOM)stock and decreased abundance and recruitment, yet continued high fishing mortality rates, for the SNE stock and in Statistical Area 514 (Massachusetts Bay and Stellwagen Bank) in the GOM stock. Of particular concern in the 2005 peer-reviewed stock assessment report is the SNE stock, where depleted stock abundance and recruitment coupled with high fishing mortality rates over the past few years led the stock assessment and peer review panel to recommend additional harvest restrictions. The SNE stock encompasses all of Areas 4, 5, and 6, and part of Areas 2 and 3. Overall, stock abundance in the GOM is relatively high with recent fishing mortality comparable to the past. The GOM stock encompasses all of Area 1, and part of both Area 3 and the Outer Cape Management Area. Currently, high effort levels in GOM continue in concert with high stock abundance, although high effort levels are not likely to be supportable if abundance returns to long-term median levels. The GBK stock seems stable, with current abundance and fishing mortality similar to the 20-year average. The GBK stock encompasses part of Areas 2, 3, and the Outer Cape Management Area. While the report noted the female proportion of the stock is increasing slightly, it also cautioned that further increases in effort are not advisable, hence, the need for additional effort reduction and broodstock protection. Background The Commission's American lobster management strategy is neither predicated upon a single measure nor is it contained within a single document. Rather, the structure is based on facilitating ongoing adaptive management with necessary elements implemented over time. The Commission set forth the foundation of its American Lobster ISFMP in Amendment 3 in December 1997. The Federal Government issued compatible regulations that complemented Amendment 3 in December 1999. Amendment 3 regulations established assorted measures that directly, even if preliminarily, address overfishing (e.g., trap caps and minimum gauge sizes). Amendment 3 created seven lobster management areas and established industry-led lobster management teams that make recommendations for future measures to end overfishing, based on the current status of the stocks. Additional management measures were set forth in subsequent Amendment 3 addenda including measures to limit future access to LCMAs 3, 4, and 5 in Addendum I (approved by the Commission in August 1999 and compatible Federal regulations enacted March 2003); and measures to increase protection of American lobster broodstock in Addenda II and III (approved by the Commission in February 2001 and February 2002, respectively, and compatible Federal regulations enacted March 2005). Addenda II and III measures include gauge increases and mandatory v-notch requirements for Area 3. Additional lobster management measures, notably measures that would control effort, were set forth in later addenda, including Addendum III, and relative to this action, Addendum IV (approved by the Commission in December 2003)that included additional trap reductions in Area 3; Addendum V (approved by the Commission in March 2004) that included a reduced trap cap in Area 3; Addendum VI (approved by the Commission in February 2005); Addendum VII (approved by the Commission in November 2005); Addendum VIII (approved by the Commission in May 2006); Addendum IX (approved by the Commission in October 2006), Addendum X (approved by the Commission in October 2006), and Addendum XIthat includes recommendations for additional trap reductions and a delay in the escape vent size increase in Area 3 (approved by the Commission in May 2007). This current Federal rulemaking is one of three

(3)Federal rulemakings that have their genesis, at least in part, in Commission Addenda II and III. The first Addenda II—III rulemaking began with the publishing, in the **Federal Register** , of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) on May 24, 2001 (66 FR 28726), and ended with the publishing of a final rule on March 14, 2006 (71 FR 13027). This first rulemaking focused primarily on the broodstock protection measures set forth in the two addenda, and it was this similarity in purpose that resulted in NMFS combining the addenda recommendations into a single rulemaking. Addenda II and III, however, also contained additional management recommendations; most notably effort control measures and “if necessary” measures, so called because they would be considered only if determined necessary in later years. These separate measures became more prominent as the Commission issued later addenda, causing NMFS to start a second rulemaking involving Addenda II—III in 2005. The second Addenda II—III rulemaking actually focuses more on Commission Addenda IV—VII. This second rulemaking formally began with NMFS' publication of an ANPR in a **Federal Register** notice dated May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24495), and remains ongoing. Specifically, NMFS determined that the Addenda II—III effort control measures were modified substantively and revised by the Commission's Addenda IV, V, VI, and VII. Overall, measures proposed in those Addenda involve additional limited access programs for Area 2 and the Outer Cape LCMAs and proposals to transfer traps in LCMAs 2, 3 and the Outer Cape. As a result, NMFS will analyze the Addenda II—III effort control programs as a component of the larger more detailed second rulemaking associated with the effort control recommendations in Addenda IV—VII. NMFS is still engaged in this second proposed rulemaking, and the Commission's effort control measures are still under analysis. The third proposed Addenda II—III rulemaking, which is represented in this proposed rule, also involves later Commission action, most notably draft Addendum XI. This third proposed rulemaking formally began on December 13, 2005, with NMFS' publication of an ANPR in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 73717). The rulemaking initially focused on Addenda IIIII's so called “if necessary” measures because, although the measures were in Addenda II—III at the time of the first Federal rulemaking, the Commission had not actually deemed them necessary until too late in the process for their inclusion in the March 26, 2006, final rule. Ultimately, the Commission modified the requirements of the ISFMP, voting on May 8, 2006 that the “if necessary” measures were, in fact, required only in LCMA 3, but not in the other LCMAs. The repealed measures include the additional escape vent size increase for LCMA 1 (2 inches × 5 3/4 inches (5.08 cm × 14.61 cm) rectangular or 2 5/8 inches (6.67 cm) circular by 2008); in the Outer Cape Cod LCMA, four additional 1/32 inch (0.08 cm) gauge increases up to 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm) by July 2008 and an escape vent increase to 2 1/16 inches × 5 3/4 inches (5.24 cm × 14.61 cm) rectangular or 2 11/16 inch (6.83 cm) circular by 2008. The Commission voted to approve draft Addendum XI for public comment on January 31, 2007, and the document was approved as part of the ISFMP on May 8, 2007. The Addendum includes two additional 2.5 percent trap reductions for LCMA 3 and a delay in the implementation of the LCMA 3 escape vent size increase until 2010. NMFS incorporated the Addendum XI proposed measures in this third rulemaking in an ANPR filed in the **Federal Register** on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 75705), with the expectation that the Board would ultimately adopt the measures as part of the lobster management framework. At present, most states have issued their complementary regulations; the Federal Government has not. Most Federal lobster permit holders also hold a state lobster license, and they must abide by the ISFMP measures by virtue of their state license, even if the same restrictions have not yet been placed on their Federal permit. Generally, the exception to state coverage of all ISFMP measures, under the Commission's ISFMP, is for states that are classified as de minimis states. The focus of the analysis of measures in this action is for Federal lobster permit holders from states that have not implemented all measures in the Commission's ISFMP, and, in the case of this proposed rule, exceptions to coverage exist for Federal permit holders from Connecticut, New Jersey, and the de minimis states. Both the states of New Jersey and Connecticut voted to approve Addenda II and III and it is expected that those states will issue compatible regulations in the immediate future.Certain states at the southern end of the range qualify for de minimis status because a given state's declared annual landings, averaged over a two-year period, amount to less than 40,000 lb (18,144 kg) of American lobster. While de minimis states are required to promulgate all coastwide measures contained in Section 3.1 of Amendment 3, many of the area-specific measures for Area 3 identified in this action are not required to be implemented by the de minimis states. However, Federal lobster regulations apply to all entities fishing for lobster in Federal waters, including Federal permit holders in de minimis states. Based on the preliminary impact analysis relative to this proposed rule, a negligible number of Federal trap and non-trap vessels would be impacted by adoption of the proposed measures. The impacts are concentrated on those few vessels hailing from Connecticut, New Jersey and the de minimis states. However, should Connecticut and New Jersey ultimately implement these measures as mandated by the Commission's ISFMP, as expected, the impacts will be reduced even further.Impacts in the de minimis states are also expected to be minimal; by definition, the lobster catch has to be small to even qualify for de minimis status and lobster catch is not a principle component of the overall fishery in those states.In addition to the minimal impacts associated with Federal action, adoption of the proposed measures into the Federal regulations will facilitate the cooperative state and Federal enforcement of lobster regulations by reducing the regulatory gap between the states and NMFS. Comments and Responses Addenda II through VII to Amendment 3 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) for American lobster are part of an overall lobster fishery management regime which is intended to achieve a healthy resource, develop a management regime that provides for sustainable harvest, maintains opportunities for participation, and provides for the cooperative development of conservation measures by stakeholders. In an ANPR published in the **Federal Register** on December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73717), NMFS sought public comment on the implementation of further minimum gauge and escape vent size increases in the Federal lobster fishery consistent with the Commission's recommendations for Federal action across multiple Lobster Conservation Management Areas. Subsequent to that publication, many LCMA-specific Commission recommendations were modified in response to information in an updated peer-reviewed stock assessment published in January 2006 (see detailed information in Background section). Consequently, NMFS published an ANPR on December 18, 2006 in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 75706), which revises the previous ANPR and, again, invited comments on the implementation of updated gauge increase, escape vent size increase, and trap reductions in the offshore American lobster fishery, consistent with the ISFMP for American lobster. At the time of publication, the latest ANPR included measures that had yet to be adopted by the Board, in the interest of time required to promulgate Federal regulations and to facilitate evaluation of the associated impacts by bundling like measures into a single analysis. This section is specific to the comments received on the measures relevant to this proposed rule. Therefore, comments from the first ANPR regarding measures that are no longer related to this rulemaking are not addressed here. NMFS notes that the public is encouraged to submit comments on this proposed rule during the comment period, as specified in the DATES section of this document. Overall Summary of Comments Received in Response to the First ANPR To summarize, a total of 17 comments were received in response to the two ANPR's that were published relevant to this action. The comments ranged from full support of the proposed measures to recommendations of alternate measures and requests for stricter enforcement. Half of the comments support all or a portion of the measures to increase gauge size, increase escape vent size, and incrementally reduce trap allocations. A total of 6 comments proposed alternative conservation measures, including alternate gauge increases, a maximum size, and establishing a buyback program. Some comments voiced concerns that stricter regulations and additional enforcement will be necessary. Breakdown of Comments Received for Each Request for Comments ANPR published on December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73717) Five comments were received, of which two fully supported the suite of measures that are required by Amendment 3 of the ASMFC American Lobster FMP. The additional three commenters were generally opposed to the rulemaking for a myriad of reasons. Of these, one proposed to halt the minimum gauge increases at 3 7/16 inches (8.7 cm) (the July 2006 level) and simultaneously enact a maximum gauge size at 6.0 inches (15.24 cm), for the protection of large female lobsters. Another stated that the conservation measures included in the ANPR were not strong enough. The last noted that as a recent stock assessment has been completed, it would be imprudent to implement management measures based on an outdated stock assessment. ANPR published on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 75706) A total of 11 comments were received in response to the ANPR published on December 18, 2006. Four of the commenters supported the entire suite of measures addressed in the ANPR. Two additional comments supported a specific portion of the proposed regulations. One voiced support for the proposed vent increase, and recommended that the increases come all at once instead of incrementally. The second supported the gauge increase but could not support a future maximum size limit. Several other commenters proposed additional initiatives such as a maximum size, a permit buyback, a trap fishing moratorium on Stellwagen Bank, and an 1,800 trap limit in Area 3 with a subsequent 10 percent trap reduction. Two commenters called for further enforcement of lobster regulations. Response to Comments *Comment 1:* Six of the 11 commenters responding to the second ANPR are in favor of the gauge increases and escape vent size increases and the associated delay of the vent increase until 2010. Five of those six commenters are in favor of the full suite of trap reductions proposed in this action. *Response:* NMFS believes that adoption of these measures will benefit the industry and the lobster resource and will create a more consistent set of state and Federal lobster regulations which will facilitate enforcement. *Comment 2:* Within responses to the first ANPR, several voice their disapproval. Particularly, one opposed the proposed gauge increases. Additionally, another noted that the recent stock assessment should be considered before management decisions are made. *Response:* Since the first ANPR was published, a new stock assessment was released. Its findings prompted the Board to eliminate many of the management measures that were previously included in the ISFMP (see Background and Management Measures Considered but Rejected at this Time). As a result, this rulemaking is consistent with the revised recommendations for Federal action in the ISFMP. It also considers the findings of the most recent stock assessment published in January 2006 (see Purpose and Need for Management). *Comment 3:* One commenter expressed support for a single vent increase as proposed, since frequent escape vent changes can wear out traps and are difficult to perform at sea. *Response:* Escape vents facilitate lobster survivability and can, depending upon the minimum size and corresponding vent size, allow legal sized lobsters a chance to escape from the traps, with unquantifiable benefits to egg production. However, given the proposed gauge increases in this action, consistent with the ISFMP and Area 3 LCMT recommendations, NMFS proposes to postpone the next escape vent size increase until 2010. This may provide some relief to the offshore industry regarding the costs and time associated with replacing the vent. Any foregone biological benefits associated with not requiring the larger vent prior to 2010, will likely be offset by the increase in the minimum size over the next two years, to 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm). NMFS Trawl Survey data has indicated that the median lobster size for the Georges Bank stock far exceeds 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm), so most lobster that are caught in the traps are likely at or above the intended 3 1/2 inch (8.89 cm) minimum size.Further, to the extent that a sub-legal lobster is unable to use a smaller escape vent, the best available science indicates that lobster bycatch experience low mortality when returned to the sea. *Comment 4:* Three commenters recommended additional measures to what was included in either ANPR including a permit buyback program, a trap limit of 1,800 traps, with a subsequent 10 percent trap reduction, and a trap moratorium on Stellwagen Bank. *Response:* The Area 3 LCMT has proposed a plan for a lobster trap buyback in Area 3 and the plan is under development and has not yet been analyzed by the Commission or recommended to NMFS and would be premature to implement at this time. NMFS initially implemented an 1,800 fixed trap limit in Area 3 in 2000. However, in response to a previous stock assessment indicating that all three stocks of lobster were overfished, NMFS implemented a limited entry program for the lobster trap industry in Area 3 in a rulemaking filed in March 2003 to cap and control fishing effort in the offshore EEZ. This program was based on the recommendations of the Area 3 lobster trap industry and consistent with the recommendations for Federal action in the ISFMP in Addendum I to Amendment 3. Area 3 is now limited to only 139 lobster trap vessels, each with a specific trap limit based on documented fishing history. Future opportunities for trap reductions from a conservation tax from a inter-transferable trap program, currently under analysis by NMFS in a separate rulemaking, consistent with the ISFMP and industry recommendations, could, if adopted into the Federal regulations, assist in the further reduction of traps in Area 3. NMFS will seek public comment on this issue in a separate rulemaking currently under development. One respondent recommended a moratorium on traps on Stellwagen Bank to assist in the survival of endemic and seasonally migrating fauna. A closed area on Stellwagen Bank, however, is not a formal part of the interjurisdictional lobster management program and if implemented by the Federal Government only, would likely increase regulatory incongruence between jurisdictions. Seasonal closed areas are in effect south of Georges Bank to address gear conflicts between the trap and non-trap fishing sectors. There is no available information regarding a particular biological need to stop trap fishing on Stellwagen Bank in particular and such an action is outside the purpose and need of the present action. *Comment 5:* Two commenters differed in opinions about maximum gauge size: one fully supported it, while the other was opposed, but was generally supportive of gauge increases. *Response:* A maximum gauge size for Area 3 has long been discussed between industry and management as a potential tool for broodstock protection. On May 8, 2007, the Board adopted Addendum XI to Amendment 3 of the ISFMP which included, in part, a maximum size for lobster harvested from Area 3. The addendum requires a maximum carapace length limit of 7 inches (17.78 cm) in the first year of implementation, with incremental reductions in the maximum size by 1/8 inch (0.32 cm) annually for the following two years resulting in an eventual maximum size of 6inches (17.15 cm). Addendum XI has recommended that the Federal government take action on this measure. Consequently, NMFS will analyze the impacts of the maximum size in Area 3 as adopted into the ISFMP and entertain public comments in a future rulemaking action. With respect to gauge increases, NMFS proposes to implement the suite of gauge increases as adopted into the ISFMP. *Comment 6:* One respondent recommended a five year moratorium on lobster fishing or an increase of 12 inches (30.48 cm) to the current minimum size. Additionally, the commenter recommended a 200 percent increase in the vent size and a 50 percent trap reduction. *Response:* The commenter's measures are likely more extreme than necessary to address the sustainability of the resource, fail to address the social and economic impacts and would greatly increase regulatory incongruence between jurisdictions. The proposed measures do not meet the purpose and need of this action and consequently were not analyzed in this rulemaking. Proposed Changes to the Current Regulations NMFS proposes the following changes to the Federal American lobster regulations for LCMA 3. Increase Minimum Carapace Length in Area 3 To protect lobster broodstock NMFS proposes to implement two additional gauge increases that would result in a 3 1/2 inch (8.89 cm) minimum gauge size requirement for LCMA 3 by July 1, 2008. Most states have already begun the four-year gauge increase schedule, beginning in 2005, as mandated by the ISFMP. To remain consistent with the ISFMP, NMFS proposes to implement a gauge increase subsequent to publication of a final rule later in 2007. These measures are consistent with the ISFMP. Increase Lobster Trap Escape Vent Size for Area 3 in 2010 NMFS proposes escape vent size increases in LCMA 3 to 2 1/16 inches x 5 3/4 inches rectangular (5.24 cm x 14.61 cm) or two circular vents at 2 11/16 inches diameter (6.83 cm) by July 1, 2010. Although the ISFMP requires the escape vent increase implementation by July 1, 2008, the delay until 2010 is currently included in the Commission's Addendum XI. Area 3 Lobster Trap Reductions Through 2010 NMFS also is considering a suite of trap reductions in LCMA 3. First, Addendum IV to Amendment 3 of the ISFMP calls for a 10 percent trap reduction implemented over two consecutive years with a scheduled 5 percent reduction for 2007 and a 5 percent reduction in 2008. To address the need for further fishing mortality and fishing effort reductions in the offshore fishery as identified in the updated stock assessment released in 2005, the Board developed Addendum XI, that included consideration of an additional 5 percent reduction in traps in LCMA 3, to be implemented as a 2.5 percent reduction each year for two consecutive years following the initial 10 percent trap reduction specified in Addendum IV. The Commission voted to approve draft Addendum XI for public comment on January 31, 2007, and subsequently Addendum XI was approved by the Commission on May 9, 2007, including the requirement for an additional 5 percent reduction in traps in LCMA 3. Table 1 illustrates the LCMA 3 gauge increases, escape vent size increases and the 10 percent trap reductions currently recommended in the ISFMP for Federal implementation. Also included in the table are the two additional 2.5 percent trap reductions for LCMA 3 just approved by the Board in May 2007. These pending trap reductions are included within the scope of this rulemaking because they have been adopted into the ISFMP and recommended for Federal implementation. Table 1. American Lobster ISFMP Gauge, Escape Vent and Trap Reduction Schedule for LCMA 3 and Corresponding Federal Action (Includes only the measures currently recommended in the ISFMP for Federal implementation and relevant trap reductions). [Measurements are in inches] LCMA Addenda II-VIII, XI gauge vent* trap reductions Current Federal Lobster Regulations gauge vent* Proposed Changes to Federal Lobster Regulations gauge vent* trap reductions** LCMA3 3 3/8 July 2004 3 13/32 July 2005 3 7/16 July 2006 3 15/32 July 2007 3 1/2 July 2008 2 1/16 X 5 3/4 rectangular or 2 11/16 circular by 2010 5% in 2007 5% in 2008 2.5% in 2009 2.5% in 2010 3 3/8 2 X 5 3/4 rectangular or 2 5/8 circular 3 15/32 in 2007 3 1/2 by 2008 2 1/16 X 5 3/4 rectangular or 2 11/16 circular by 2010 5% in 2007 5% in 2008 2.5% in 2009 2.5% in 2010 * All vent sizes include a rectangular and corresponding circular vent size. In all cases, each trap is required to have one rectangular vent or two circular vents at the sizes indicated. ** The two 5% trap reductions scheduled for 2007 and 2008 were established in Addendum IV; the two 2.5% reductions and delay of the escape vent increase until 2010 were incorporated into the ISFMP in Addendum XI. Management Actions Considered but Rejected at this Time Referring specifically to the proposals discussed in this section, the Commission Lobster Board (Board) took several actions in 2001 and 2002 that were contingent in part on the future status of the lobster stocks, as determined by updated stock assessment information. In essence, several Area-specific management measures were inserted in Addenda II—IV that would be implemented if the measures were deemed “necessary” to meet the ISFMP goals and objectives. These proposed measures are commonly referred to as the “if necessary” measures. The Board approved several “if necessary” provisions, including: provisions for additional lobster minimum gauge increases for Area 3 and the Outer Cape Area, and provisions to increase the lobster trap escape vent size for traps fished in Area 1 and Area 3. In addition, if ISFMP trap reduction targets for the Outer Cape Management Area were not met from the implementation of a limited entry transferable trap program outlined in Addendum I, the ISFMP included “if necessary” provisions to continue additional trap reductions totaling 10 percent over two years. When an updated lobster stock assessment was completed in January 2006 (ASMFC 2006), the Board revisited the “if necessary” proposals specified in Addenda II—IV. Based on the updated assessment, on May 8, 2006, the Lobster Board repealed the “if necessary” provisions described above for LCMAs where the lobster stocks are not considered overfished. For copies of the 2006 Assessment, or Addenda II—IV, visit the Commission website at: *http://www.asmfc.org/* . In addition to the “if necessary” proposals outlined in the paragraph above, the Board took several actions in 2002-2003 to address the reported sharp decline in lobster landings in Area 2, (the nearshore Area adjacent to Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York). Based on several meetings between the Area 2 industry, the Commission, and impacted state and Federal agencies, in February 2003, the Board took Emergency Action to implement an increase in the minimum gauge size in Area 2, from 3 3/8 inches to 3 1/2 inches (8.57 cm to 8.89 cm), pending further evaluation of the scope and extent of the resource decline, and implementation of appropriate management action to address the Area 2 situation. At that time, the Area 2 LCMT began development of a comprehensive limited access program for Area 2 that ultimately was incorporated in Addendum VII, approved in November, 2005 by the Commission. A component of Addendum VII included the revocation of the Emergency Action that mandated the increase in the minimum gauge size in Area 2, and established a minimum gauge size in Area 2 of 3 3/8 inches (8.57 cm). NMFS is analyzing the Addendum VII recommendations in a separate rulemaking. Implement an Area 1 Lobster Trap Escape Vent Increase by 2007 The Commission approved an “if necessary” provision to increase the lobster trap escape vent size for traps fished in Area 1 as specified in Addendum III, approved by the Commission in February 2002. If this provision had not been rescinded by the Commission on May 8, 2006, the ISFMP would require a lobster trap escape vent size increase in Area 1 from one rectangular escape vent measuring per trap at least 1 15/16 inches by 5 3/4 inches (4.92 cm x 14.61 cm), or two circular escape vents measuring 2 7/16 inches (6.19 cm), to a requirement for each trap to contain at least one rectangular escape vent measuring at least 2 inches by 5 3/4 inches (5.08 cm x 14.61 cm), or two circular escape vents measuring 2 1/2 inches (6.35 cm), later revised in Addendum IV to 2 5/8 inches (6.67 cm) circular. The Area 1 trap escape vent increase was rescinded by the Commission after a determination, based on the updated stock assessment completed in 2006, that the measure was unnecessary to meet the ISFMP goals and objectives for the Gulf of Maine lobster stock, as previously specified in Addendum III. Therefore, based on that determination, the Area 1 trap escape vent increase is no longer considered as a recommendation for complementary action by the Federal government. To implement such a measure at the Federal level would create a regulatory incongruence between the Federal regulations and the Commission Lobster Plan. Accordingly, the measure is considered but NMFS is proposing that it be rejected for this action. Increase the Minimum Gauge Size in Outer Cape Management Area by 2008 The Commission approved an “if necessary” provision to increase the Outer Cape Management Area minimum gauge size to 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm) by 2008 as specified in Addendum III, approved by the Commission in February 2002. If this provision had not been rescinded by the Commission on May 8, 2006, the minimum gauge size for all lobsters taken in the Outer Cape Management Area would increase from the current minimum gauge size of 3 3/8 inches (8.57 cm) to 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm). The Outer Cape Management Area minimum gauge size provision was rescinded by the Commission after a determination, based on the updated stock assessment completed in 2006, that the measure was unnecessary to meet the ISFMP goals and objectives for the Gulf of Maine lobster stock, as previously specified in Addendum III. Therefore, based on that determination, the Outer Cape Management Area minimum gauge size provision is no longer considered as a recommendation for complementary action by the Federal government. To implement such a measure at the Federal level would create a regulatory incongruence between the Federal regulations and the Commission Lobster Plan. Accordingly, the measure is considered but NMFS is proposing that it be rejected for this action. Active Trap Reductions for the Outer Cape Management Area The Commission approved an “if necessary” provision to require lobster vessels with trap allocations in the Outer Cape Management Area be reduced by 5 percent per year for a two year period if a limited entry transferable trap program, approved for the Outer Cape Management Area in Addendum III, did not achieve a 20 percent reduction in the total number of traps allowed to be fished in the Outer Cape Management Area. The Outer Cape Management Area If Necessary trap reduction schedule provision was rescinded by the Commission after a determination, based on information provided by the impacted state management agency, that the limited entry transferable trap program had meet the ISFMP goals and objectives, as previously specified in Addendum III. Therefore, based on that determination, the Outer Cape Management Area “if necessary” trap reduction provision is no longer considered as a recommendation for complementary action by the Federal government. To implement such a measure at the Federal level would create a regulatory incongruence between the Federal regulations and the Commission Lobster Plan. Accordingly, the measure is considered but NMFS is proposing that it be rejected for this action. Increase in the Area 2 Minimum Gauge Size up to 3 1/2 Inches (8.89 cm) by 2008 The Commission approved in February 2003, via Emergency Action, a provision to increase the minimum gauge size in Area 2, from 3 3/8 inches to 3 1/2 inches (8.57 cm to 8.89 cm). During this time period, the Area 2 LCMT and impacted participants in the Area 2 lobster fishery, held multiple public meetings that culminated in approval of a limited entry transferable trap program for Area 2 as specified in Addendum VII, approved November 2005. Based on the implementation of an integrated plan to address the status of the stock in Area 2, in Addendum VII, the Commission approved the revocation of the Emergency Action that mandated the minimum gauge size increase in Area 2, and, by the same action, established a minimum gauge size in Area 2 of 3 3/8 inches (8.57 cm). Therefore, based on that determination, the provision to increase the minimum gauge size in Area 2 is no longer considered as a recommendation for complementary action by the Federal government. To implement such a measure at the Federal level would create a regulatory incongruence between the Federal regulations and the Commission Lobster Plan. Accordingly, the measure is considered but NMFS is proposing that it be rejected for this action. Classification This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as defined in E.O. 13132. NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, the reason for consideration, and its legal basis are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble in this proposed rule. As previously described, the proposed action would implement two additional gauge increases that would result in a 3 1/2 inch (8.89 cm) minimum gauge size requirement for LCMA 3 by July 1, 2008. Most states have already begun the four-year gauge increase schedule in 2005 as mandated by the ISFMP which brings the ISFMP's minimum size in Area 3 to 3 15/32 inches (8.81 cm) beginning July 1, 2007, with the final 1/32 inch (0.08 cm) increase scheduled for July 1, 2008. Therefore, NMFS proposes to implement a gauge increase subsequent to publication of a final rule later in 2007 that will raise the minimum carapace length in Area 3 to 3 15/32 inches (8.81 cm), with the regulatory text specifying an additional increase to 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm) effective July 1, 2008. In addition, NMFS proposes to adopt the escape vent size increase for lobster traps in Area 3 to 2 1/16 inches x 5 3/4 inches rectangular (5.24 cm x 14.61 cm) or two circular vents at 2 11/16 inches diameter (6.83 cm). However, consistent with an industry proposal recently approved by the Commission's Lobster Management Board in Addendum XI, NMFS proposes to delay the implementation of the Area 3 escape vent size increase until July 1, 2010. Finally, NMFS proposes a suite of trap reductions in LCMA 3. First, Addendum IV to Amendment 3 of the ISFMP calls for a 10 percent trap reduction implemented over two consecutive years with a scheduled 5 percent reduction for 2007 and a 5 percent reduction in 2008. To address the need for further fishing mortality and fishing effort reductions in the offshore fishery as identified in the updated stock assessment released in 2005, the Board developed Addendum XI, that included consideration of an additional 5 percent reduction in traps in LCMA 3, to be implemented as a 2.5 percent reduction each year for two consecutive years following the initial 10 percent trap reduction specified in Addendum IV. The Commission voted to approve draft Addendum XI for public comment on January 31, 2007, and subsequently Addendum XI was approved by the Commission on May 8, 2007, including the requirement for the two additional 2.5 percent reductions in traps in LCMA 3. Table 1 illustrates the LCMA 3 gauge increases, escape vent size increases, the 10 percent trap reductions recommended in Addendum IV to the ISFMP and the two additional 2.5 percent trap reductions for LCMA 3 recommended in Addendum XI, approved by the Board in May 2007. The proposed action was compared to the no action alternative and one other alternative as noted in Table 1 of this proposed rule. In summary, the no action alternative would retain the current LCMA 3 vessel-specific trap allocations, and retain the current Federal minimum gauge and escape vent sizes in LCMA 3. The non-preferred alternative would implement a 10% trap reduction over two years as specified in Addendum IV, increase the minimum gauge size from 3 3/8 inches (8.57 cm) to 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm) over four years, and increase the escape vent size in 2008. The preferred alternative selected for this proposed action would implement a 15% trap reduction over four years as specified in Addendum IV and Addendum XI, increase the minimum gauge size to 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm) over two years to coincide with the gauge size requirements specified for the last two years (2007 and 2008) of the Commission's four year minimum gauge schedule, and implement the escape vent size increase in 2010 as specified in Addendum XI. After fully evaluating all three alternatives, the proposed alternative is preferred for several reasons. This preferred option would best address the concerns of the stock assessment and call for action to reduce effort and provide for broodstock protection because, simply, it would bring all Federal lobster permit holders under the same set of regulations. As explained in the draft environmental assessment completed for this action, the impacts associated with no action, or limited action will have a negligible effect on the biology of the lobster resource since nearly the entire fishery is or will be bound under state regulations to the suite of Area 3 management measures adopted into the ISFMP. However, the preferred alternative will facilitate the effective management of the resource by providing a standard gauge size for all Federal lobster vessels that fish in or elect to fish in Area 3, including those not covered under state lobster regulations. The states and the Commission's Lobster Board, with input from public sector scientists and the Area 3 lobster industry, have indicated the need for these additional gauge increases to further conserve the offshore lobster fishery and ensure its sustainability. The Commission has recommended that the Federal government adopt these gauge increases into the Federal regulations to assist in this goal. By adopting these gauge increases in Area 3, NMFS will support the Commission's ISFMP in the conservation of the resource with compatible measures for fishery management. The delay in the implementation of the escape vent increase will offer a more palatable option for a sector of the industry that has been relatively proactive in developing and promoting its own regulatory program: the epitome of area management. In the meantime, the gauge increases will afford protection to legal lobster that are not able to escape from the current vents. Finally, the preferred alternative would implement the Commission's adopted trap reductions and seizes the opportunity, on the prompting of industry, to address scientific concerns associated with fishing effort, to further ensure that latent and real-time effort are controlled to the maximum degree available under the current management scenario. Description of and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply The proposed action would have a potential effect on the 139 federally permitted vessels with an Area 3 trap allocation. The proposed action would also have a potential effect on federally permitted vessels that elected to fish lobster using non-trap gear of which there were 1,105 in fishing year 2006. Gross sales for any one of these vessels would not exceed the small business size standard for commercial fishing of $4 million. Therefore, all 1,244 fishing businesses are considered small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Since the proposed action would only change regulations for trap and non-trap vessels fishing in Area 3, only vessels that actually fished or intend to fish in Area 3 would be effected. Available data indicate that 87 of the 139 vessels with an Area 3 trap allocation and 265 non-trap vessels actually landed lobster while fishing Area 3 for a total of 352 small entities (about 30 percent of the total number of potentially effected permit holders) that have demonstrated recent participation in the Area 3 lobster fishery. The ASMFC has lead responsibility for managing lobster and developing a regulatory framework for implementation by the individual member states and making recommendations for complementary action by the Federal government. Since nearly all permit holders must be licensed in a state and are bound by the most restrictive management measures no matter where they fish, Federal action will have added economic impact only in cases where the federal regulation would be more restrictive than any given state regulation. The proposed Federal action would either align Federal regulations with that of already existing state regulations or anticipates highly probable state actions to be taken in the future. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action Minimum Size Increases The ISFMP calls for a scheduled increase of 1/32 inch (0.08 cm) from 3 3/8 inches (8.57 cm) in Area 3 in 2004 to 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm) by July 2008. These scheduled gauge increases have already been implemented by all states except for New Jersey, Connecticut and the de minimis states. Currently, the minimum Federal gauge size in Area 3 is 3 3/8 inches (8.57 cm). However, since the majority of lobster trap and non-trap vessels are licensed in states that have already implemented the ASMFC recommended size increases for Area 3, only 21 of the participating federally permitted trap and non-trap vessels are currently able to retain lobster at the lower federal minimum gauge. The proposed action would raise the gauge to 3 15/32 -inches (8.81 cm) in July 2007 and to 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm) in July 2008. This schedule would replicate what has already been implemented by most states and would effect the 21 participating Area 3 vessels that are currently licensed in states that have not implemented the recommended gauge size. The economic impact on these vessels is uncertain but is expected to be low for the 6 effected trap vessels and even lower for the 15 effected non-trap vessels. That is, lobsters landed from Area 3 tend to be larger than lobsters landed elsewhere. For example, sea sampling data indicate that the minimum carapace length for 98 percent of non-trap lobster landings on observed trips was at least 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm) in both 2004 and 2005. Assuming the size distribution of the trap-gear catch is similar to that of non-trap gear the majority of lobster income by either trap or non-trap vessels would be unaffected by the increase in the Area 3 Federal gauge. However, non-trap vessel impacts are likely to be proportionally lower than that of the trap vessels because lobster comprises only a small percentage of total fishing income for non-trap vessels. Escape Vent Size Increase When the environmental assessment was conducted to evaluate the impacts of this proposed action, the Commission had not yet adopted Addendum XI and therefore, the preferred alternatives associated with the delay of the escape vent size increase and two additional 2.5 percent trap reductions were not yet incorporated into the ISFMP. However, the Commission just recently adopted these measures into the ISFMP in May 2007. Therefore, the proposed action would be consistent with the current ISFMP and would delay implementation of increase in vent size to 2 1/16 x 5 3/4 inches (5.24 cm x 14.61 cm) rectangular or 2 11/16 inches (6.83 cm) circular until 2010 instead of 2008, as originally adopted by the Commission. Delaying the escape vent size would have no effect on non-trap vessels but would provide some economic relief to any vessel that fished traps in Area 3. The larger escape vent size would allow any sub-legal and some legal sized lobsters to escape. Delaying the increase in escape vent size would retain all legal sized lobsters which would provide some compensation for the change in the minimum gauge size since more legal size lobsters would be retained. Note that all vessels would still be required to bear the cost of replacing non-conforming escape vents but the two-year delay in implementation provide sufficient additional income to offset the cost of replacing escape vents. Adoption of this measure would also maintain consistency between the state escape vent size requirements for Area 3 as dictated by the ISFMP, and Federal regulations. Trap Reductions The preferred alternative would implement the Commission recommended reductions in individual trap allocations of 5 percent in July 2007 and in July 2008. In addition, the preferred alternative would also implement two additional reductions in individual allocations or 2.5 percent in 2009 and another 2.5 percent in 2010 recently approved by the Commission in May 2007. Since the majority of states have already implemented the scheduled Area 3 trap reductions for 2007 and 2008 Federal action would not impose any added economic costs on the majority of participating Area 3 trap vessels. Federal action would effect an estimated 13 trap vessels from New Jersey and the de minimis states that have not yet implemented the Area 3 trap reductions for 2007 and 2008. Regardless of whether states or the Federal government implement trap reductions the economic impact on small entities is difficult to quantify. Given the number of potential adaptations to fishing strategies available to lobster trap businesses, the realized impact on landings and revenue is uncertain but is likely to be proportionally less than the reduction in traps. There may be differences in impact, however, among Area 3 participants that fish in other LCMAs if the total trap allocation falls below the number of traps they may be eligible to fish in those other areas. Specifically, due to the Federal definition of the most restrictive provision, any vessel whose Area 3 trap allocation falls below the number of traps that may be fished elsewhere would still be limited to the smaller of the number of eligible traps in any area. For example, a vessel that qualifies for 800 Area 3 traps and that designates both Area 1 and Area 3 would be able to fish a total of 800 traps in any combination in Area 1 and Area 3. In 2007, however, after the same vessel's Area 3 allocation would decline to 760 Area 3 traps, which would also mean that the number of traps that could be fished in Area 1 would also be limited to 760 traps even though other Area 1 participants would be able to fish 800 traps. Historically, however, Area 3 had a trap cap of 1,800, which was 1,000 traps greater than the 800 trap caps set in the other LCMAs. Accordingly, for the majority of participants, would likely to continue to be so even with reductions. NMFS is presently analyzing its application of the most restrictive trap standard as part of a separate rulemaking. Economic Impacts of the Non-Preferred Alternatives to the Proposed (Preferred) Action Non-Preferred Alternatives to the Proposed Minimum Gauge Size Increases No Action—Taking no action would not change the economic status of the overwhelming majority of participating Area 3 trap and non-trap vessels. No action would provide some economic relief to the 21 vessels identified above. This alternative was not selected because it would perpetuate an inconsistency between state and Federal regulations in Area 3 as well as creating inequities between the majority of Area 3 participants and the small number of vessels that might benefit from continuing present regulations. Furthermore, continued inconsistency would undermine the effectiveness of the ISFMP in promoting cooperative State-Federal management of the lobster fishery. Implement Scheduled Size Increases Beginning in 2007—This alternative would maintain the original schedule of four consecutive gauge size increases beginning with a 1/32 inch (0.08 cm) increase from 3 3/8 inches (8.57 cm) in July 2007 and ending at 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm) in 2010. As noted previously this alternative would provide some negligible relief to the 21 vessels that are not currently bound by state regulation. This alternative schedule of gauge increases would eventually resolve any inconsistencies between State-Federal regulations, but would not do so until two years later than the preferred alternative and what has already been implemented by most states effecting the majority of participating small entities. This alternative was not selected since the negligible economic benefit to a small minority of small entities would not outweigh the potential to undermine the intended objectives of the ISFMP to achieve consistency between State-Federal lobster fishery management. Non-Preferred Alternatives to the Escape Vent Size Increase in 2010 No Action—Taking no action would leave the escape vent in Area 3 at its current size of 2 x 5 3/4 inches (5.08 cm x 14.61 cm) rectangular or 2 5/8 inches (6.67 cm) circular. However, since the ISFMP required, prior to the recent approval of Addendum XI in May 2007, that all states implement the larger escape vents size by 2008, the majority of participating Area 3 trap vessels would be required to replace all escape vents with or without Federal action since the majority of states have already promulgated regulations in accordance with the ISFMP. In the absence of Federal action, a total of 16 vessels would be exempted from the 2008 vent size increases as they are currently licensed by states (Connecticut and New Jersey) that have not yet implemented the recommended change in escape vent size. This action would provide less economic relief across the entire Area 3 trap fishery as compared to the preferred alternative and would perpetuate inconsistency between State-Federal lobster fishery management. For these reasons, the no action alternative is not preferred. Implement the Escape Vent Size Increase in 2008—The ISFMP had initially adopted 2008 as the implementation year of the escape vent size increase associated with this action. However, with the Commission's adoption of Addendum XI in May 2007, this measure is now part of the ISFMP. Therefore, Federal implementation of this measure would allow for consistency between the ISFMP and Federal regulations. Compared to the preferred alternative, this alternative would require all vessels to replace all escape vents two years earlier without the potential mitigating effects of the higher retention rates associated with a delay in the escape vent size. Non-Preferred Alternatives to the Area 3 Trap Reductions No Action—Taking no action would leave the present federally allowable Area 3 trap allocations unchanged. However, the Federal regulations at 50 CFR 697.3(c) require that Federal lobster vessels that designate more than one lobster management area, be limited to the lowest trap allocation of all the lobster management areas associated with the vessel's Federal permit and the lower of any differing state or federal allocations. Since the majority of states have already implemented the ISFMP required 5 percent trap reductions for 2007 and 2008 most participating Area 3 lobster trap vessels would be held to the state mandated trap allocations even in the absence of Federal action. A small number of vessels

(13)from states that have not yet implemented the Commission adopted trap reductions would not be effected under the no action alternative. Since the Commission adopted the LCMT 3 recommended trap reductions for implementation in 2009 and 2010, there would be no appreciable difference in economic impact between the preferred and the no action alternative, with the exception of the 13 vessels that would remain unaffected. Implement Trap Reductions in Only 2007 and 2008—This alternative would limit the Area 3 trap reductions to 5 percent in 2007 and another 5 percent in 2008 as initially recommended by the Commission. However, the Commission has since adopted the additional 2.5 percent trap reduction in 2009 and again in 2010, consistent with the NMFS preferred alternative. The economic impacts of this alternative on small fishing entities would be equivalent to that of the preferred alternative in 2007 and 2008 and would be similar to that of taking no action. If the Commission had not adopted the Area 3 management team proposed trap reduction in 2009 and 2010, then this alternative would allow participating vessels to fish more traps as compared to the preferred alternative. Since the Commission did implement, in May 2007, the additional trap reductions for 2009 and 2010, a Federal delay would require a separate subsequent action to implement complementary Federal regulations; a process that has frequently resulted in delayed implementation of Commission proposed measures. In this case, there would be added administrative costs associated with taking Federal action but economic impact on small entities fishing traps in Area 3 would be similar to that of the preferred alternative. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 697 Fisheries, Fishing. Dated: June 14, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR chapter VI, part 697, is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 697—ATLANTIC COASTAL FISHERIES COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT 1. The authority citation for part 697 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 5101 *et seq.* 2. In § 697.19, paragraph

(b)is revised to read as follows: § 697.19 Trap limits and trap tag requirements for vessels fishing with lobster traps.

(b)*Trap limits for vessels fishing or authorized to fish in the EEZ Offshore Management Area* .

(1)Beginning September 1, 2003, vessels fishing only in or issued a management area designation certificate or valid limited access American lobster permit specifying only EEZ Offshore Management Area 3, or, specifying only EEZ Offshore Management Area 3 and the Area 2/3 Overlap, may not fish with, deploy in, possess in, or haul back from such areas more than the number of lobster traps allocated by the Regional Administrator pursuant to the qualification process set forth at § 697.4 (a)(7)(vi) and the maximum trap limits identified in Table 1, Column 2 to this part, except as noted in paragraphs

(c)and

(e)of this section.

(2)Beginning November 1, 2007, vessels fishing only in or issued a management area designation certificate or valid limited access American lobster permit specifying only EEZ Offshore Management Area 3, or, specifying only EEZ Offshore Management Area 3 and the Area 2/3 Overlap, may not fish with, deploy in, possess in, or haul back from such areas more than the number of lobster traps allocated by the Regional Administrator pursuant to the qualification process set forth at § 697.4 (a)(7)(vi) and the maximum trap limits identified in Table 1, Column 3, to this part, except as noted in paragraphs

(c)and

(e)of this section.

(3)Beginning July 1, 2008, vessels fishing only in or issued a management area designation certificate or valid limited access American lobster permit specifying only EEZ Offshore Management Area 3, or, specifying only EEZ Offshore Management Area 3 and the Area 2/3 Overlap, may not fish with, deploy in, possess in, or haul back from such areas more than the number of lobster traps allocated by the Regional Administrator pursuant to the qualification process set forth at § 697.4 (a)(7)(vi) and the maximum trap limits identified in Table 1, Column 4, to this part, except as noted in paragraphs

(c)and

(e)of this section.

(4)Beginning July 1, 2009, vessels fishing only in or issued a management area designation certificate or valid limited access American lobster permit specifying only EEZ Offshore Management Area 3, or, specifying only EEZ Offshore Management Area 3 and the Area 2/3 Overlap, may not fish with, deploy in, possess in, or haul back from such areas more than the number of lobster traps allocated by the Regional Administrator pursuant to the qualification process set forth at § 697.4 (a)(7)(vi) and the maximum trap limits identified in Table 1, Column 5, to this part, except as noted in paragraphs

(c)and

(e)of this section.

(5)Beginning July 1, 2010, and beyond, vessels fishing only in or issued a management area designation certificate or valid limited access American lobster permit specifying only EEZ Offshore Management Area 3, or, specifying only EEZ Offshore Management Area 3 and the Area 2/3 Overlap, may not fish with, deploy in, possess in, or haul back from such areas more than the number of lobster traps allocated by the Regional Administrator pursuant to the qualification process set forth at § 697.4 (a)(7)(vi) and the maximum trap limits identified in Table 1, Column 6, to this part, except as noted in paragraphs

(c)and

(e)of this section. 3. In § 697.20, paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5) are revised and paragraph (a)(6) through (a)(9) are added to read as follows: § 697.20 Size, harvesting and landing requirements.

(a)* * *

(3)The minimum carapace length for all American lobsters harvested in or from the EEZ Nearshore Management Area 2, 4, 5 and the Outer Cape Lobster Management Area is 3 3/8 inches (8.57 cm).

(4)The minimum carapace length for all American lobsters landed, harvested or possessed by vessels issued a Federal limited access American lobster permit fishing in or electing to fish in EEZ Nearshore Management Area 2, 4, 5 and the Outer Cape Lobster Management Area is 3 3/8 inches (8.57 cm).

(5)The minimum carapace length for all American lobsters harvested in or from the Offshore Management Area 3 is 3 15/32 inches (8.81 cm).

(6)The minimum carapace length for all American lobsters landed, harvested or possessed by vessels issued a Federal limited access American lobster permit fishing in or electing to fish in EEZ Offshore Management Area 3 is 3 15/32 inches (8.81 cm).

(7)Effective July 1, 2008, the minimum carapace length for all American lobsters harvested in or from the Offshore Management Area 3 is 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm).

(8)Effective July 1, 2008, the minimum carapace length for all American lobsters landed, harvested or possessed by vessels issued a Federal limited access American lobster permit fishing in or electing to fish in EEZ Offshore Management Area 3 is 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm).

(9)No person may ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, any whole live American lobster this is smaller than the minimum size specified in paragraph

(a)of this section. 4. In § 697.21, paragraph

(c)is revised to read as follows: § 697.21 Gear identification and marking, escape vent, maximum trap size, and ghost panel requirements.

(c)*Escape vents* .

(1)All American lobster traps deployed or possessed in the EEZ Nearshore Management Area 1 or the EEZ Nearshore Management Area 6 or, deployed or possessed by a person on or from a vessel issued a Federal limited access American lobster permit fishing in or electing to fish in the EEZ Nearshore Management Area 1 or the EEZ Nearshore Management Area 6, must include either of the following escape vents in the parlor section of the trap, located in such a manner that it will not be blocked or obstructed by any portion of the trap, associated gear, or the sea floor in normal use:

(i)A rectangular portal with an unobstructed opening not less than 1 15/16 inches (4.92 cm) by 5 3/4 inches (14.61 cm);

(ii)Two circular portals with unobstructed openings not less than 2 7/16 inches (6.19 cm) in diameter.

(2)All American lobster traps deployed or possessed in the EEZ Nearshore Management Area 2, 4, 5, and the Outer Cape Lobster Management Area, or, deployed or possessed by a person on or from a vessel issued a Federal limited access American lobster permit fishing in or electing to fish in the EEZ Nearshore Management Area 2, 4, 5, and the Outer Cape Lobster Management Area, must include either of the following escape vents in the parlor section of the trap, located in such a manner that it will not be blocked or obstructed by any portion of the trap, associated gear, or the sea floor in normal use:

(i)A rectangular portal with an unobstructed opening not less than 2 inches (5.08 cm) x 5 3/4 inches (14.61 cm);

(ii)Two circular portals with unobstructed openings not less than 2 5/8 inches (6.67 cm) in diameter.

(3)Effective through June 30, 2010, all American lobster traps deployed or possessed in the EEZ Offshore Management Area 3, or deployed or possessed by a person on or from a vessel issued a Federal limited access American lobster permit fishing in or electing to fish the EEZ Offshore Management Area 3, must include either of the following escape vents in the parlor section of the trap, located in such a manner that it will not be blocked or obstructed by any portion of the trap, associated gear, or the sea floor in normal use:

(i)A rectangular portal with an unobstructed opening not less than 2 inches (5.08 cm) 5 3/4 inches (14.61 cm);

(ii)Two circular portals with unobstructed openings not less than 2 5/8 inches (6.67 cm) in diameter.

(4)Effective July 1, 2010, all American lobster traps deployed or possessed in the EEZ Offshore Management Area 3, or deployed or possessed by a person on or from a vessel issued a Federal limited access American lobster permit fishing in or electing to fish in the EEZ Offshore Management Area 3, must include either of the following escape vents in the parlor section of the trap, located in such a manner that it will not be blocked or obstructed by any portion of the trap, associated gear, or the sea floor in normal use:

(i)A rectangular portal with an unobstructed opening not less than 2 1/16 inches (5.24 cm) x 5 3/4 inches (14.61 cm);

(ii)Two circular portals with unobstructed openings not less than 2 11/16 inches (6.82 cm) in diameter.

(5)The Regional Administrator may, at the request of, or after consultation with, the Commission, approve and specify, through a technical amendment of this final rule, any other type of acceptable escape vent that the Regional Administrator finds to be consistent with paragraph

(c)of this section. 5. In part 697, Table 1 to part 697 is revised to read as follows: Table 1 to Part 697—Area 3 Trap Reduction Schedule HISTORIC Trap Allocation Column 1 Year 2006 Trap Allocation Column 2 Year 1—5% Trap Reduction Effective November 1, 2007 Column 3 Year 2—5% Trap Reduction Effective July 1, 2008 Column 4 Year 3—2.5% Trap Reduction Effective July 1, 2009 Column 5 Year 4—2.5% Trap Reduction Effective July 1, 2010 Column 6 200 200 190 181 176 172 240 240 228 217 211 206 250 250 238 226 220 214 264 264 251 238 232 226 300 300 285 271 264 257 320 320 304 289 282 275 325 325 309 293 286 279 360 360 342 325 317 309 370 370 352 334 326 317 400 400 380 361 352 343 450 450 428 406 396 386 480 480 456 433 422 412 500 500 475 451 440 429 590 590 561 532 519 506 600 600 570 542 528 515 700 700 665 632 616 601 720 720 684 650 634 618 768 768 730 693 676 659 800 800 760 722 704 686 883 883 839 797 777 758 900 900 855 812 792 772 930 930 884 839 818 798 1000 1000 950 903 880 858 1004 1004 954 906 883 861 1020 1020 969 921 898 875 1100 1100 1045 993 968 944 1150 1150 1093 1038 1012 987 1170 1170 1112 1056 1030 1004 1200-1299 1200 1140 1083 1056 1030 1300-1399 1200 1140 1083 1056 1030 1400-1499 1200 1140 1083 1056 1030 1500-1599 1276 1212 1152 1123 1095 1600-1699 1352 1284 1220 1190 1160 1700-1799 1417 1346 1279 1247 1216 1800-1899 1482 1408 1338 1304 1271 1900-1999 1549 1472 1398 1363 1329 2000-2099 1616 1535 1458 1422 1386 2100-2199 1674 1590 1511 1473 1436 2200-2299 1732 1645 1563 1524 1486 2300-2399 1789 1700 1615 1574 1535 2400-2499 1845 1753 1665 1623 1583 2500-2599 1897 1802 1712 1669 1628 2600-2699 1949 1852 1759 1715 1672 2700-2799 2000 1900 1805 1760 1716 2800-2899 2050 1948 1850 1804 1759 2900-2999 2100 1995 1895 1848 1802 3000-3099 2150 2043 1940 1892 1845 3100-3199 2209 2099 1994 1944 1895 >3199 2267 2154 2046 1995 1945 [FR Doc. E7-11964 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 118 Wednesday, June 20, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 14, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Farm Service Agency *Title:* Food Aid Request Entry System (FARES). *OMB Control Number:* 0560-0225. *Summary of Collection:* The Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended (Title II, Pub. L. 480), Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, (Section 416(b)), Food for Progress Act of 1985, as amended (Food for Progress), and the International School Lunch Program, known as the Global Food for Education and Child Nutrition Act, authorizes Commodity Credit Corporation Export Operations Division and Bulk Commodities Division to procure, sell, transport agricultural commodities and obtain discharge/delivery survey information. Commodities are delivered to foreign countries through voluntary agencies, United Nations World Food Program, the Foreign Agricultural Service, and the Agency for International Development. The program information will be electronically captured, requirements validated, and improved commodity request visibility will be provided via FARES web-based application technology tool. The FARES is for the customers to submit online to process the commodity request electronically and to access the information. *Need and Use of the Information:* The Farm Service Agency will collect the following information from FARES: The name of the Private Voluntary Organization, the program, the types of commodities being requested for export, quantities of commodities, destinations of commodities, and special requirements for packaging. Without this information collection process, Kansas City Commodity Office would not be able to meet program requirements. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other-for-profit; Federal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 305. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (bi-weekly/bi-monthly). *Total Burden Hours:* 1,708. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-11821 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket AMS-FV-2006-0201; FV-06-314] United States Standards for Grades of Parsley AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)of the Department of Agriculture

(USDA)is revising the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Parsley. Specifically, AMS is revising the standards to allow percentages to be determined by count rather than weight. AMS is also eliminating the unclassified category. The revisions would bring the standards for parsley in line with current marketing practices, thereby improving the usefulness in serving the industry. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 20, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent J. Fusaro, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch;

(202)720-2185. The United States Standards for Grades of Parsley are available either through the address cited above or by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. AMS makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is revising the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Parsley using procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). These standards were last published on July 30, 1930. Background Prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revision of the grade standards, AMS published a notice in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 41755) on July 24, 2006, soliciting comments on the possible revisions to the United States Standards for Grades of Parsley. A subsequent notice was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 77366-77367) on December 26, 2006, soliciting comments on allowing percentages to be determined by count rather than weight and eliminating the unclassified category. In response to this notice, AMS received one comment from an industry group representing receivers. The comment is available by accessing: *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main* or AMS's Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fpbdocketlist.htm.* The commenter was in favor of the proposed revision to allow the percentages for tolerances and defects to be determined by count rather than weight. AMS is eliminating the unclassified category from all standards as they are revised. This category is not a grade and only serves to show that no grade has been applied to the lot. It is no longer considered necessary. Based on the comment received and the information gathered, AMS is revising the parsley standards to allow percentages for tolerances and defects to be determined by count rather than weight and will remove the unclassified category. The official grade of a lot of parsley covered by these standards is determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (Sec. 51.1 to 51.61). The revisions to the United States Standards for Grades of Parsley will become effective 30 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: June 14, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-11930 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Funding Opportunity Title: Crop Insurance Education in Targeted States (Targeted States Program) *Announcement Type:* Modification—Competitive Cooperative Agreements.This announcement modifies the Request for Application Notice published in the **Federal Register** , March 14, 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 49, Pages 11839-11846). The Dates and Summary portions have been modified. *CFDA Number:* 10.458 *Dates:* Applications are due July 5, 2007. *Summary:* The following paragraph has been added to the beginning of the Summary portion of the March 14, 2007, **Federal Register** Notice:The Risk Management Agency

(RMA)did not receive valid application packages for the State of Utah under the original Request for Application Notice published in the **Federal Register** on March 14, 2007, for the Crop Insurance Education in Targeted States Program (Targeted States Program). RMA is re-announcing its Funding Opportunity—Request for Applications under the Targeted States Program for the State of Utah. Applicants who previously submitted an application under the March 14, 2007, Targeted States Program Request for Applications Notice for Utah must reapply in accordance with the original Notice published in the **Federal Register** on March 14, 2007. All other portions and sections of the full text Notice remain unchanged. *For Further Information Contact:* Applicants and other interested parties are encouraged to contact: Lon Burke, USDA-RMA-RME, phone: 202-720-5265, fax: 202-690-3605, e-mail: *RMA.Risk-Ed@rma.usda.gov.* You may also obtain information regarding this announcement from the RMA Web site at: *http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/agreements/.* Signed in Washington, DC, on June 14, 2007. Eldon Gould, Manager,Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-11898 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee

(RAC)will meet in Red Bluff, California. Agenda items to be covered include:

(1)Introductions,

(2)Member Status,

(3)Public Comment,

(4)Status of Project Proposals,

(5)Recab of Previous Projects,

(6)Chairman's Perspective,

(7)General Discussion,

(8)Next Agenda. DATES: The meeting will be held on July 12, 2007 from 9 a.m. and end at approximately 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Lincoln Street School, Pine Room, 1135 Lincoln Street, Red Bluff, CA. Individuals wishing to speak or propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Eduardo Olmedo, DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobbin Gaddini, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, P.O. Box 164, Elk Creek, CA 95939.

(530)968-5329; e-mail *ggaddini@fs.fed.us.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by July 10, 2007 will have the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions. Dated: June 12, 2007. Eduardo Olmedo, Designated Federal Official. [FR Doc. 07-3015 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 26

Traces to 26 documents