Rules and Regulations. Withdrawal of direct final rule

61,511 words·~280 min read·/register/2007/06/28/07-3164

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130-200714(w); FRL-8332-6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: State of Florida; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Power Plants Subject to the Florida Power Plant Siting Act; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule published May 25, 2007 (72 FR 29273), approving a revision to the State Implementation Plan of the State of Florida.

This revision grants full approval to implement the State's Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration program for electric power plants subject to the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if EPA received an adverse comment by June 25, 2007, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received an adverse comment. EPA will address the comment in a subsequent action. DATES: The direct final rule is withdrawn as of June 28, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air Permits Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is

(404)562-9117. Ms. Fortin can also be reached via electronic mail at *fortin.kelly@epa.gov.* 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. Dated: June 19, 2007. Russell L. Wright, Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.530 (which published in the **Federal Register** on May 25, 2007, at 72 FR 29273) is withdrawn as of June 28, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-12585 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0090; FRL-8332-2] RIN 2060-AO05 Extension of the Deferred Effective Date for 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Denver Early Action Compact AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is taking final action to extend the deferral of the effective date of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) designation for the Denver Early Action Compact

(EAC)from July 1, 2007 to September 14, 2007. The EAC areas have agreed to reduce ground-level ozone pollution earlier than the Clean Air Act

(CAA)requires. On November 29, 2006, EPA extended the deferred effective date for the Denver EAC area from December 31, 2006, to July 1, 2007. In that final rulemaking, EPA noted that there were issues with Denver's EAC that would need to be addressed before EPA would extend their deferral until April 15, 2008. The action extending the deferral to July 2007 was challenged, and the parties are discussing settlement. EPA is now issuing a short further deferral to preserve the status quo as settlement discussion take place. EPA is issuing at this time a short further deferral of the effective date of Denver's designation for the 8-hour ozone standard from July 1, 2007 to September 14, 2007. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on June 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0090. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Air and Radiation Docket is

(202)566-1742. In addition, we have placed a copy of the rule and a variety of materials relevant to Early Action Compact areas on EPA's Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara Driscoll, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number

(919)541-1051 or by e-mail at: *driscoll.barbara@epa.gov* or Mr. David Cole, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C304-05, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number

(919)541-5565 or by e-mail at: *cole.david@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action applies only to the Denver EAC area. B. How Is This Document Organized? The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: Outline I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? B. How Is This Document Organized? II. What Is the Purpose of This document? III. What Action Has EPA Taken to Date for Early Action Compact Areas? IV. What Progress Has the Denver Early Action Compact Area Made? V. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the March 1, 2007 Proposal To Extend the Deferral of the Effective Date of the Nonattainment Designation for the Denver Early Action Compact? VI. What Is the Final Action for the Denver Early Action Compact Area? VII. What Is EPA's Schedule for Taking Further Action for Early Action Compact Areas? VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act L. Petitions for Judicial Review II. What Is the Purpose of This Document? The purpose of this document is to issue a short further deferral of the effective date of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment designation for the Denver EAC area from July 1, 2007 to September 14, 2007. III. What Action Has EPA Taken to Date for Early Action Compact Areas? This section discusses EPA's actions to date with respect to deferring the effective date of nonattainment designations for certain areas of the country that are participating in the EAC program. The EPA's April 30, 2004, air quality designation rule (69 FR 23858) provides a description of the compact approach, the requirements for areas participating in the compact and the impacts of the compact on those areas. On December 31, 2002, we entered into compacts with 33 communities. To receive the first deferral, these EAC areas agreed to reduce ground-level ozone pollution earlier than the CAA would require. The EPA agreed to provide an initial deferral of the nonattainment designations for those EAC areas that did not meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as of April 30, 2004, and to provide subsequent deferrals contingent on performance vis-à-vis certain milestones. On December 16, 2003 (68 FR 70108), we published our proposed rule to defer until September 30, 2005, the effective date of designation for EAC areas that did not meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Fourteen of the 33 compact areas did not meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Our final designation rule published April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), as amended June 18, 2004 (69 FR 34080), included the following actions for compact areas: deferred the effective date of nonattainment designation for 14 compact areas until September 30, 2005; detailed the progress compact areas had made toward completing their milestones; described the actions/milestones required for compact areas in order to remain eligible for a deferred effective date for a nonattainment designation; detailed EPA's schedule for taking further action to determine whether to further defer the effective date of nonattainment designations; and described the consequences for compact areas that do not meet a milestone. In the April 2004 action, we also discussed three compact areas which did not meet the March 31, 2004, milestone: Knoxville, Memphis, and Chattanooga, Tennessee. Knoxville and Memphis were designated nonattainment effective June 15, 2004. Chattanooga was later determined to have met the March 31, 2004, milestone, and we deferred the designation date until September 30, 2005 (69 FR 34080). This brought the number of participating compact areas to 31. Since then, two additional areas, Haywood and Putnam Counties, Tennessee have withdrawn from the program, leaving the participating number of compact areas at 29. On August 29, 2005, we published a final rule extending the deferred effective date of designation from September 30, 2005, to December 31, 2006, for the same 14 compact areas. In order to receive this second deferral, EAC areas needed to submit a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)with locally adopted measures and a modeled attainment demonstration by December 31, 2004. The EPA approved the SIP revisions as meeting the EAC Protocol and EPA's EAC regulations at 40 CFR 81.300, and these approvals were the basis for extending the deferred effective date until December 31, 2006. Information on local measures, SIP submittals and background on the EAC program may be found on EPA's Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/* . On November 29, 2006, we published a final rule extending the deferred effective date of designation for 13 EAC areas from December 31, 2006, to April 15, 2008, and for the Denver EAC area until July 1, 2007. For that deferral, all compact areas were required to submit two progress reports, one by December 30, 2005, and the other by June 30, 2006. In these progress reports, the States provided information on progress towards implementing local control measures that were incorporated in their SIPs. Each of the EAC areas submitted the required progress reports and these reports are available at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/* . Issues were noted by the State of Colorado with the Denver EAC area regarding emissions from oil and gas exploration and production condensate tanks. In a report and action plan submitted by the State of Colorado to EPA, dated June 2, 2006, the State provided information that indicated volatile organic compound

(VOC)emissions from oil and gas operations within the Denver EAC area were higher than had been estimated in the attainment demonstration modeling. In response to this issue, the State of Colorado initiated public rulemaking activities to amend Colorado's Regulation No. 7 to require additional emissions reductions from oil and gas exploration and production condensate tanks to achieve the level of reductions relied on in the EPA-approved modeled attainment demonstration. However, an issue arose because the State's rulemaking efforts before the Colorado Air Quality Commission

(AQCC)in the latter part of 2006 would not be completed before EPA needed to publish a final rule for the last deferral of the effective date of the nonattainment designations for all of the EAC areas (see 71 FR 69022, November 29, 2006). Based on the above information, EPA decided to defer the effective date of the nonattainment designation for the Denver EAC area until July 1, 2007. This decision was designed to accommodate the necessary State rulemaking activities and to also ensure that continued progress was made on the Regulation No. 7 rulemaking actions as they proceeded before the AQCC and State Legislature. In our November 29, 2006, final rulemaking, we detailed a timeline for subsequent rulemaking action for the Denver EAC area. Since the November 29, 2006, rulemaking, all compact areas submitted their six month progress reports in December 2006 as required. These reports were reviewed and approved by EPA. You may find copies of the December progress reports at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/index.htm#List* . IV. What Progress Has the Denver Early Action Compact Area Made? On December 31, 2006, the State of Colorado submitted their progress report for the Denver EAC area to EPA indicating that progress had been made in several areas. On September 21, 2006 the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's (CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division

(APCD)presented proposed revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 7, before the Colorado AQCC, for a more stringent regulatory scheme to control VOCs from oil and gas exploration and production condensate tanks located in the Denver EAC area. These proposed revisions to Section XII of Regulation No. 7 were amended and adopted by the AQCC on December 17, 2006 along with associated revisions to the EPA-approved Denver EAC Ozone Action Plan. These AQCC rulemaking actions are for the purpose of achieving the required VOC emissions reductions from the oil and gas exploration and production condensate tanks that are located within the Denver EAC area boundary. In addition, the State continues working with all parties to reduce emissions of ozone and its precursors. The EPA's deferral of the effective date of the nonattainment designation of the Denver EAC area was based upon the actions of the AQCC on December 17, 2006, to approve revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 7 and also in consideration of the review of those AQCC-approved revisions, from January 15, 2007, to February 15, 2007, by the Colorado State Legislature. The State Legislature did not object or seek further review of the December 17, 2006, actions of the AQCC, which meant that all changes to Regulation No. 7 were automatically adopted and were to be submitted to EPA for final approval and incorporation into the SIP. The changes in Regulation 7 contain a compliance date of May 1, 2007, which is just before the beginning of the Colorado high ozone season. V. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the March 1, 2007 Proposal To Extend the Deferral of the Effective Date of the Nonattainment Designation for the Denver Early Action Compact? We received 12 comments on the proposed rule to extend the deferred effective date of the nonattainment designation for the Denver EAC to April 15, 2008. We have responded to the comments in this section. *Comment:* Two commenters stated that EPA lacks authority under the CAA to defer the effective date of nonattainment designations (in particular as this applies to the Denver EAC); enter into EACs with areas; and allow areas to be relieved of obligations under Title I, Part D of the CAA while they are violating the 8-hour ozone standard or are designated nonattainment for that standard. *Response:* We have determined that EACs as designed, give local areas and the State the flexibility to develop their own approach to meeting the 8-hour ozone standard. In this case, the State of Colorado is serious in its commitment and has made progress implementing State and local measures for controlling emissions from sources earlier than the CAA would otherwise require. People living in the Denver metropolitan area and other EAC areas are already breathing healthier air due to reductions in ozone pollution achieved by the EAC attainment plan and these benefits would not otherwise have been realized until after June 2007 if the Denver EAC and other EAC areas had been designated nonattainment. *Comment:* One commenter expressed concerns that if Denver violated the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA would not designate the area nonattainment. *Response:* EPA's requirements for EAC areas are codified at 40 CFR 81.300, and ensure that if Denver violates the 8-hour ozone standard, the nonattainment designation for the area will take effect. Under these provisions, States with EAC areas have until December 31, 2007, to demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If an EAC area does not attain the 8-hour ozone standard, the nonattainment designation becomes effective as of April 15, 2008. See 40 CFR 81.300(e)(3)(ii)(C). The area will then be subject to the full planning requirements of title I, part D of the CAA. 40 CFR 81.300 requires former EAC areas that are designated nonattainment to submit a revised attainment demonstration SIP within 1 year of the effective date of the nonattainment designation. *Comment:* The emissions reductions from the final revised Regulation No. 7 will be less than reductions that would have been achieved by the original proposed revisions. *Response:* We believe the modeled attainment demonstration is the appropriate benchmark for our consideration, not whether the original proposed revisions would have achieved a 77% reduction versus a 75% reduction achieved by the adopted rules. After EPA initially approved the attainment demonstration for the area, the State and EPA realized that the rules requiring reductions of VOC emissions from condensate tanks did not achieve the level of reduction relied on as part of the modeled attainment demonstration. This is because growth in condensate tank flash emissions was significantly greater than anticipated. According to the State's updated inventory projections and calculations, the 75% reduction of VOC emissions required by Section XII of Colorado's revised Regulation No. 7 is consistent with the control scenario inventory value for 2007 (91.3 tons per day) relied on in the modeled attainment demonstration. See the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division's presentation for the rulemaking hearing on the revisions to Regulation No. 7, which can be found at *http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/reg7/Reg7AQCCDec.pdf* . *Comment:* Due to the change to weekly calculations of emissions and the use of a system-wide approach, APCD and citizens won't know if required reductions are met until after the fact. Citizens will not be able to react in time to prevent unhealthy ozone pollution if companies fail to meet the required emissions reductions. *Response:* While we originally favored the threshold approach, we believe the system-wide approach is enforceable and will lead to the projected reductions. We already approved a system-wide approach when we approved the previous revisions to Regulation No. 7 (See 70 FR 48652, August 19, 2005). We believe the current revisions make significant improvements to the original approach that will lead to improved compliance. We note that with any emission limit, compliance is judged after the fact. The commenter did not provide (and EPA is not aware of) any support for his concern that weekly calculations will significantly alter EPA's, the State's or a citizen's ability to address violations in a timely way. *Comment:* The commenter is concerned that the Denver EAC area's ozone levels approached unhealthy levels in 2006. *Response:* EPA agrees that several exceedances of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS were observed in the Denver EAC area's air quality monitoring network in 2006. However, even with these exceedances none of the ambient air quality monitors in the 8-hour ozone monitoring network recorded a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, we note that the ambient air quality monitors for the Denver EAC area have shown attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the periods, 2002 through 2004, 2003 through 2005, and 2004 through 2006. Although the Denver EAC area has not violated the standard for the past three 3-year periods, EPA notes that air quality in the area remains very close to the standard, indicating that the additional emission reductions revised Regulation No. 7 will achieve are important to ensure that air quality in the area remains below the standard. EPA notes the commenter's concerns for the potential for a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2007 ozone season. If this happens, the area will be designated nonattainment. *Comment:* It is unclear how deferring Denver's nonattainment designation will further the goal of reducing ozone pollution/protecting health. *Response:* We believe that the EAC has already achieved reductions in ozone precursor emissions that would not yet have been achieved had Denver followed the traditional nonattainment designation pathway. The State's and the area's desire to achieve an attainment designation has led to two rounds of significant revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 7, revisions that are already reducing ozone pollution in the area. If the area had been designated nonattainment on June 15, 2004, an attainment demonstration SIP wouldn't have been due until June 15, 2007. Thus, with the EAC, emission reductions have been achieved earlier than they would have been under the standard designation procedures. *Comment:* The commenter notes that the Denver EAC has fallen short of achieving the planned reductions in emissions of ozone forming compounds from condensate tanks. *Response: * The commenter is correct that actual growth in flash emissions of VOCs has significantly exceeded the State's projections in the original Denver EAC SIP as approved by EPA on August 19, 2005 (70 FR 48652). The State identified this issue in its June 2, 2006, EAC progress report and has since taken steps to address it. We explain this more fully in our final rule of November 29, 2006 (71 FR 69022). In that final rule, we discuss the State's acknowledgement of the increase in VOC emissions from oil and gas activities, the State's report of June 2, 2006, detailing these findings (see 71 FR 69023), and the State's rulemaking efforts to achieve the necessary additional emission reductions to meet the projections relied upon in the EPA-approved attainment demonstration (see 71 FR 69025.) As noted in our proposed rule of March 1, 2007 (72 FR 9285), the State revised Colorado's Regulation No.7, “Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds,” to require additional emission reductions from oil and gas exploration and production condensate tanks to achieve the level of reductions relied on in the EPA-approved modeled attainment demonstration. The Colorado AQCC approved these revisions to Regulation No. 7 on December 17, 2006. Thus, the State has taken the steps necessary to address the shortfall in emission reductions under the prior version of Colorado's Regulation No. 7. *Comment:* The commenter expresses concerns with emissions of ozone forming compounds from other oil and gas exploration and production activities that were not addressed as part of the Denver EAC attainment demonstration, such as emissions from drill rigs, well completions, fugitive leaks, water tanks, and heater treaters. According to the commenter, oil and gas drilling has increased north of Denver, and infrared photography shows the potentially large amount of fugitive emissions from condensate tanks. *Response:* We note that the State is not required to control all emission sources as part of its SIP. Instead, the goal of the SIP program is to ensure that sources are controlled to ensure that the area will attain and maintain the relevant NAAQS. The State is free to choose the mix of sources necessary to achieve that goal and EPA cannot second guess the State if the plan demonstrates compliance with the NAAQS. At the time the State was conducting the modeling for the attainment demonstration, flash emissions from condensate tanks were considered the most significant source of largely uncontrolled VOC emissions. As a result, the State targeted control of these emissions as the best means to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. By correcting the defects in the regulation regulating these sources, we believe the State's plan will demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour NAAQS and we cannot disapprove the plan on the basis that the State has not chosen to regulate certain other sources to reach this goal. Regarding fugitive emissions and infrared photography, we note that photos at one source may not be representative of emissions at another source, and the infrared photos shown tell us nothing about the VOC concentrations in the emissions. *Comment:* The commenter is concerned that 29 reciprocating internal combustion engines have been granted exemptions from installing pollution controls to reduce emissions of VOCs and nitrogen oxide (NOx). The commenter indicates that Kerr-McGee has simply failed to install the controls at 11 of its internal combustions engines. *Response:* Certain reciprocating internal combustion engines have been granted exemptions from controlling emissions of VOCs because they meet the exemption criteria stipulated in section XVI of Colorado's Regulation No. 7. EPA approved the control requirements and these exemption criteria for internal combustion engines when it approved the rest of Colorado's Regulation No. 7 on August 19, 2005 (see 70 FR 48652). Regarding Kerr-McGee's 11 engines, the State has issued a Notice of Violation and is currently negotiating a settlement with Kerr-McGee to control emissions from these engines. In other words, the State is taking appropriate steps to ensure compliance with the EAC plan and Colorado's Regulation No. 7. *Comment:* The commenter is concerned that the modeling for the EAC may have underestimated emissions due to the reactivity of VOC emissions. *Response:* The reactivity of VOC emissions is embedded as a function in the EPA-approved CAM x dispersion model that the State used to model attainment in the Denver EAC area. Measured values for the various VOCs are input into the CAM x model, and the model's embedded Carbon Bond photochemical algorithm processes these values to produce an estimate of ozone concentrations. This algorithm has reactivity profiles for each VOC chemical species already built into it. We don't adjust the reactivities for individual SIP applications—the Carbon Bond mechanism is a “canned” algorithm. While the commenter is correct that alkanes as a group may be more reactive as an ozone precursor in an urban atmosphere where there are more compounds with which to react, the Carbon Bond mechanism already accounts for this; the reactivity profiles account for a higher degree of chemical reactivity in a polluted urban environment. We note that the State's contractor utilized the most current version of CAM x when it conducted the dispersion modeling in 2003 and early 2004. *Comment:* The commenter noted that industry is failing to fully comply with the required emission reductions from flash emissions from condensate tanks as required under the EAC. *Response:* While EPA agrees that compliance with the control requirements in the approved attainment demonstration has not been 100%, we note that the State is taking appropriate steps to achieve the compliance effectiveness to support the EAC. We note the table provided in the commenter's letter presents historical information from 2005. On December 31, 2006, the State submitted a progress report for the Denver EAC area to EPA indicating that progress has been made in several areas. Additional compliance data collected by the State indicated overall control for the 2006 ozone season met Regulation No. 7's 47.5% VOC emission reduction requirement. This is because some larger sources achieved greater reductions than required. For those sources that did not meet the regulation's requirements, the State is pursuing enforcement/negotiations to ensure compliance. Additionally, the table the commenter cites may not accurately address those condensate tanks that were exempt from the requirements of section XII of Regulation No. 7. For example, the entry for Machii Ross shows uncontrolled emissions of 17.04 tons per year which would have made this an exempt facility; at that time, controls were only required if emissions were 30 tons per year or greater. Finally, compliance shortcomings are not unusual when an activity or industry is first regulated. We have no reason to think that compliance would have been better if the area had been designated nonattainment. If the State had not moved to rectify the problems, we would be very concerned. However, we believe the State is taking appropriate steps to ensure compliance with the EAC attainment plan and Colorado's Regulation No. 7, and we believe these steps will result in rates of compliance consistent with projections. *Comment:* The commenter raises a concern that the revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 7, adopted by the AQCC on December 17, 2006, have not been incorporated into the Colorado SIP. *Response:* The commenter is correct that the revisions to Regulation No. 7 have not been federally-approved and incorporated into Colorado's SIP. However, as described in our proposed rule of March 1, 2007 (72 FR 9285), the revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 7 made it through Colorado's Legislative review process without changes, and we expect to receive the Governor's submittal of the revisions for our approval shortly. Once we receive the submittal, we intend to expedite our action on it. In the meantime, the Regulation No. 7 revisions have been adopted by the State and are fully enforceable by the State. Sources must start complying with the revised regulation by May 1, 2007. As indicated in response to previous comments, the State is taking appropriate steps to ensure compliance with the regulation, and we fully expect the State will continue its efforts. VI. What Is the Final Action for the Denver Early Action Compact Area? Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action (RMCAA) challenged our action deferring the effective date of the nonattainment designation of the Denver EAC area until July 1, 2007. 71 Fed. Reg. 69022 (November 29, 2006). *Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action* v. *EPA* , D.C. Cir. No. 07-1012. We are currently in settlement discussions with RMCAA. In order to preserve the status quo while we continue settlement discussions, we are taking final action at this time to issue a short further deferral of the effective date of designation for Denver until September 14, 2007. We are leaving open our proposal to the extent that we initially proposed to extend the deferral to as late as April 15, 2008. We may in the future take additional final action pursuant to that proposal to extend the deferral beyond September 14, 2007. This action will be effective June 28, 2007. Because this action will relieve a restriction by further deferring the effective date of the nonattainment designation for the Denver EAC area, the requirement of section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act that a rule not take effect earlier than 30 days following publication does not apply. VII. What Is EPA's Schedule for Taking Further Action for Early Action Compact Areas? All EAC areas have one remaining milestone which is to demonstrate attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 31, 2007. No later than April 15, 2008, we will determine whether the compact areas that received a deferred effective date of April 15, 2008, attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 31, 2007, and met all compact milestones. If the area did not attain the standard, the nonattainment designation will take effect. If the compact area attained the standard, EPA will designate the area as attainment. Any compact area that did not attain the NAAQS and thus has an effective nonattainment designation will be subject to the full planning requirements of title I, part D of the CAA, and the area will be required to submit a revised attainment demonstration SIP within 1 year of the effective date of designation. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order

(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action” in that it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the EO. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* This final rule does not require the collection of any information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an Agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:

(1)A small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the Small Business Administration's

(SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;

(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Rather, this rule would extend the deferred effective date of the nonattainment designation for the Denver area to implement control measures and achieve emissions reductions earlier than otherwise required by the CAA in order to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. In this final rule, EPA is deferring the effective date of nonattainment designation for the Denver EAC. Thus, this final rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because this rule does not contain Federal mandates. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the E.O. to include regulations that 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.” This final rule does not have federalism implications. It 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the scheme whereby States take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS. This final rule would not modify the relationship of the States and EPA for purposes of developing programs to implement the NAAQS. Thus, E.O. 13132 does not apply to this final rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have “Tribal implications” as specified in E.O. 13175. It does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, since no Tribe has implemented a CAA program to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at this time or has participated in a compact. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that

(1)is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001 because it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards

(VCS)in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This final rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS. The EPA will encourage States that have compact areas to consider the use of such standards, where appropriate, in the development of their SIPs. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; Feb. 16, 1994 establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The health and environmental risks associated with ozone were considered in the establishment of the 8-hour, 0.08 ppm ozone NAAQS. The level is designed to be protective with an adequate margin of safety. K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective June 28, 2007. L. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by August 27, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. *See* CAA Section 307(b)(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7408; 42 U.S.C. 7410; 42 U.S.C. 7501-7511f; 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1). Dated: June 22, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reason set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 81—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, *et seq* . Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment Status Designations 2. Section 81.300 is amended by revising the last sentence in paragraph (e)(3)(i) to read as follows: § 81.300 Scope.

(e)* * *

(3)* * *

(i)*General* . * * * The Administrator shall defer until September 14, 2007 the effective date of a nonattainment designation of the Denver area. 3. In § 81.306, the table entitled “Colorado-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” is amended by revising footnote 2 to read as follows: § 81.306 Colorado. Colorado-Ozone (8-Hour Standard) 2 Early Action Compact Area, effective date deferred until September 14, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-12570 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-8331-4] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Direct Final Deletion of the Mannheim Avenue Dump Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region II, announces the deletion of the Mannheim Avenue Dump Superfund Site (Site), located in Galloway Township, New Jersey, from the National Priorities List

(NPL)and will consider public comment on this action. The NPL was promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended and is Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This Direct Final Deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of New Jersey, through the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). EPA and NJDEP have determined that potentially responsible parties have implemented all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, and further remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is not appropriate. Moreover, EPA and NJDEP have determined that the Site poses no significant threat to public health and the environment. DATES: This direct final deletion will be effective August 27, 2007 unless EPA receives significant adverse comments by July 30, 2007. If significant adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the **Federal Register** , informing the public that the deletion will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments. *E-mail: robinson.nigel@epa.gov:* Nigel Robinson, Remedial Project Manager *seppi.pat@epa.gov:* Pat Seppi, Community Involvement Coordinator. *Fax:*

(212)637-4429 *Mail:* Nigel Robinson, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Emergency & Remedial Response Division, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007; or Pat Seppi, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Public Affairs Division, 290 Broadway, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10007. *Hand delivery:* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emergency & Remedial Response Division, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the 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 whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, Room 1828, New York, New York 10007-1866,

(212)637-4308, Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday; and at Atlantic County Library, Galloway Township Branch, 306 W. Jimmie Leeds Road, Pomona, NJ 08240; Hours: Mon-Th, 9 a.m.-8 p.m., Fri-Sat, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.,

(609)652-2352. Nigel Robinson, Remedial Project Manager, Emergency & Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, 19th floor, New York, New York 10007-1866; or e-mail to: *robinson.nigel@epa.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Nigel Robinson, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emergency & Remedial Response Division, 290 Broadway, 19th floor, New York, New York 10007; telephone number

(212)637-4394; Fax Number

(212)637-4429; e-mail address: *robinson.nigel@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Site Deletion V. Deletion Action I. Introduction EPA Region II announces the deletion of the Mannheim Avenue Dump Superfund Site from the NPL. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of those sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment. Sites on the NPL can have remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substances Superfund Response Trust Fund. As described in Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for remedial actions if conditions at the site warrant such action. EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, and therefore, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a Notice of Intent to Delete. This action will be effective August 27, 2007 unless EPA receives significant adverse comments by July 30, 2007 on this action or the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete published in the Notice section of today's **Federal Register** . If significant adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period of this action or the Notice of Intent to Delete, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this Direct Final Deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, if appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment. Section II explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Mannheim Avenue Dump Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period. II. NPL Deletion Criteria Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. EPA shall consider, in consultation with the State of New Jersey, whether any of the following criteria has been met: i. Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required; ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is appropriate; or iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking remedial measures is not appropriate. Further, the State of New Jersey shall concur with the deletion, in accordance with Section 300.425(e)(2) and the public will be informed of the proposed and final deletion action, in accordance with Section 300.425(e)(4) and (5). In addition, a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for remedial actions if conditions at the Site warrant such action, in accordance with Section 300.425(e)(3). III. Deletion Procedures The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

(1)The EPA consulted with the NJDEP and NJDEP concurred with the deletion on August 30, 2006.

(2)A Final Close Out Report was prepared on April 2, 2007.

(3)Concurrently with the publication of this Direct Final Deletion, a Notice of Intent to has been published today in the “Notice” section of the **Federal Register** . Notices are also being published in a major local newspaper of general circulation at or near the Site and is being distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local government officials and other interested parties; the newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

(4)The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in the Site information repositories identified above.

(5)If no significant adverse comments are received, the Site will be deleted. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this deletion before its effective date and will prepare, if appropriate, a response to comments and may continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments received. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. IV. Basis for Site Deletion The following summary provides a brief description of the actions taken at this Site which provides the Agency's rationale for deletion. The Mannheim Avenue Dump Site is located along Mannheim Avenue in a two acre sand and gravel clearing occupying Lots 2 and 3 of Block 54 in Galloway Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey. The Site lies on Mannheim Avenue between Shiler Road and Clarks Landing Road. The Site is approximately 1,500 feet southeast of Tar Kiln Branch and two miles southwest of the Mullica River. The Site was originally used as a sand and gravel excavation operation by Galloway Township for road construction materials. After mining operations ceased in 1964, the excavated portions of the Site were used for waste disposal. Beginning in 1964, Lenox, Inc. obtained permission from Galloway Township to use the Site to dispose of industrial waste produced at its manufacturing facility in Pomona, New Jersey. Drummed wastes from Lenox, Inc. along with other municipal waste were disposed of in the excavated areas and covered with soil. Leaded porcelain fragments and household refuse were also mixed in with the waste. An investigation by NJDEP in 1982 revealed that many of the drums were exposed and deteriorating. Samples collected from the exposed drums indicated the presence of trichloroethylene (TCE), toluene, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, cadmium, lead, nickel and chromium. The Site was placed on the National Priorities List

(NPL)in 1983. Under a 1984 EPA Administrative Order, Lenox, a PRP, undertook the removal and off-site disposal of waste material buried in soil mounds at the Site. In July and August of 1985, the site was fenced and approximately 25,000 pounds of waste, 95 percent of the wastes, were consolidated into drums and disposed of off-site. In June 1989, the remaining wastes were also disposed of, off-site. In 1985 and 1986, Lenox conducted soil, groundwater, surface water, and domestic well sampling. This sampling showed that the principal contaminants within the waste at the Site were lead and TCE. In accordance with a 1988 Administrative Order on Consent, Lenox and the Township of Galloway conducted a remedial investigation (RI). The RI revealed levels of TCE below the detection limit of 0.5 parts per million

(ppm)for Site soils. For lead, only one of the twenty samples analyzed contained lead above EPA's acceptable level for residential use of 400 ppm. The average lead concentrations in these samples was 80 ppm, substantially below EPA's current cleanup criteria of 400 ppm. Consequently, no further action for Site soils was conducted under CERCLA. On September 27, 1990, EPA issued a ROD for the groundwater remediation. The selected remedy included: —Restoration of the groundwater aquifer to the maximum contaminant level

(MCL)of 1 part per billion

(ppb)for TCE by extracting contaminated groundwater from both the shallow and deep zones of the aquifer system, followed by on-site treatment and discharge of the treated groundwater back to the aquifer; —Short-term and long-term monitoring of the groundwater to ensure the effectiveness of the system in removing contaminants and controlling migration; and —Contingency planning to install individual carbon adsorption treatment units at residences, if monitoring indicates that site-related contamination is threatening residential wells. In June 1991, Lenox and the Township of Galloway, entered into a Consent Decree with EPA to implement the remedy selected in the ROD. This implementation involved the performance of the Remedial Design

(RD)and the construction of the remedy. Between November 1993 and January 1994, Lenox installed Point of Entry Treatment Systems (POETS) to six of the fourteen residential wells downgradient of the Site. The installation was based on the detection of low levels of TCE in one of the monitoring wells located on-site upgradient of the residential wells. POETS are granular activated carbon absorption filter systems that provide clean drinking water by removing organic contaminants from the incoming groundwater supply. The POETS were sampled on the same sampling schedule as the monitoring wells. In 1994, construction of the groundwater remediation system was completed and the system began operating. Sampling of the groundwater monitoring wells, the POETS and the treatment system influent and effluent was initially performed. After operating for 14 months, sampling data in 1995 indicated that TCE in the influent groundwater to the treatment plant had decreased to less than 1 ppb. The data prompted Lenox to petition EPA for permission to shut down the treatment plant. EPA agreed with the shut down of the treatment plant, but required that monitoring continue. EPA conducted a five-year review of the site in September 1999 and found the remedy protective of human health and the environment. From January 1999 through April 2002, all but one monitoring well achieved the New Jersey Drinking Water Standard of 1 ppb for TCE. This well did however achieve the cleanup standard in October 2002. From October 2002 through October 2003, four rounds of groundwater sampling indicated that all monitoring wells had achieved the groundwater cleanup standard of 1 ppb for TCE. Based on the sampling data, EPA allowed the PRPs to discontinue groundwater monitoring at the site. The second five-year review, completed in September 2004 determined that the implemented remedy not only continued to be protective of human health and the environment but had achieved the goal set forth in the ROD of restoring the groundwater aquifer to Drinking Water Standard and recommended deletion of the site from the NPL. In 2005, the PRPs initiated the closure of all monitoring and extraction wells; this task was completed in 2006. Monitoring is no longer being conducted because the site allows for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, residential cleanup criteria have been achieved for both groundwater and soils. No further monitoring is required for POETS, since the residential groundwater cleanup criteria for the site has been achieved. The POETS are currently owned and maintained by the PRPs. Since the POETS are no longer required, they will either be disconnected or their ownership will be transferred to the homeowners who will then be responsible for future sampling and maintenance. The State of New Jersey and the Atlantic County Health Department are aware of this process and may decide to continue the sampling and maintenance of these POETS. Public participation activities for the Site have been satisfied as required in CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. The RI/FS and the 1990 ROD were both subject to a public review process. The five-year reviews were also locally noticed to the public. All documents and information which EPA relied on or considered in reaching the conclusion that this Site can be deleted from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories. V. Deletion Action The EPA, with concurrence of the State of New Jersey, has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and that no further response actions, under CERCLA are necessary. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL. Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective August 27, 2007 unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 30, 2007. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of the deletion before the effective date of the deletion and it will not take effect and, EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: April 27, 2007. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. For the reasons set out in this document 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. Appendix B—[Amended] 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended under New Jersey

(NJ)by removing the site name “Mannheim Avenue Dump” and the corresponding city/county designation “Galloway Township.” [FR Doc. E7-12536 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-2389; MB Docket No. 03-57; RM-10565] Radio Broadcasting Services; Crede, Fort Collins, Westcliffe and Wheat Ridge, CO AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; dismissal. SUMMARY: This document dismisses an Application for Review filed by Meadowlark Group, Inc. directed to the *Memorandum Opinion and Order* in this proceeding. With this action, the proceeding is terminated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2177. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Memorandum Opinion and Order* in MB Docket No. 03-57, adopted June 6, 2007, and released June 8, 2007. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this proposed rule was dismissed.) List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, *Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.* [FR Doc. E7-12546 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 72 124 Thursday, June 28, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 1, 101, 400, and 401 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27390; Notice No. 07-06] RIN 2120-AI88 Requirements for Amateur Rocket Activities; Correction AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rule; correction. SUMMARY: This document corrects the docket number to a proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** of Thursday, June 14, 2007, regarding Requirements for Amateur Rocket Activities. DATES: The comment period will close September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles P. Brinkman, telephone:

(202)493-4562, or E-mail: *phil.brinkman@faa.gov.* Correction In proposed rule Requirements for Amateur Rocket Activities beginning on page 32816 in the **Federal Register** issue of June 14, 2007, make the following corrections. 1. On page 32816, in the first column, fourth line of the heading, “Docket No. FAA-2007-27310” should have read, “Docket No. FAA-2007-27390.” 2. On page 32816, in the first column, in the ADDRESSES paragraph, in the second and third lines, “Docket Number FAA-2007-27310” should have read “Docket Number FAA-2007-27390.” Issued in Washington, DC on June 21, 2007. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-12463 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28172; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-23-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company

(GE)CF6-80C2A5F Turbofan Engines 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 GE CF6-80C2A5F turbofan engines installed on Airbus A300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require removing previous software versions from the engine electronic control unit (ECU). Engines with new version software will have increased margin to flameout. This proposed AD results from reports of engine flameout events during flight, including reports of events where all engines simultaneously experienced a flameout or other adverse operation. Although the root cause investigation is not yet complete, we believe that exposure to ice crystals during flight is associated with these flameout events. We are proposing this AD to minimize the potential of an all-engine flameout event caused by ice accretion and shedding during flight. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by August 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment 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. • *Hand Delivery:* Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from General Electric Company via Lockheed Martin Technology Services, 10525 Chester Road, Suite C, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215, telephone

(513)672-8400, fax

(513)672-8422. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Golinski, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *john.golinski@faa.gov;* telephone:

(781)238-7135, fax:

(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28712; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-23-AD” in the subject line 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 the DOT 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 AD 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 AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Discussion GE CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series turbofan engines continue to experience flameout events caused by ice accretion and shedding into the engine during flight. Although the investigation is not yet complete, we believe that the ice accretion is caused by exposure to ice crystals during flight. Industry reports 34 airplane flameout events, including reports of multi-engine events where all engines on the airplane simultaneously experienced a flameout. Some of these events had high pressure compressor blade damage that may have been caused by impact with shedding ice. In all events, the engines restarted and continued to operate normally for the remainder of the flight. This proposed AD addresses only the CF6-80C2A5F turbofan engines, installed on Airbus A300 series airplanes. We believe this model of CF6-80C2 engine is susceptible to flameouts caused by ice accretion and shedding into the engine during flight. Similar AD actions for other CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series engines may be forthcoming. We view an all-engine flameout event as an unsafe condition particularly for low-altitude events, or other factors that might result in the inability to restart the engines and regain control of the airplane. Since some aspects of this problem are not completely understood, this proposed AD is considered an interim action due to GE's on-going investigation. Future AD action might become necessary based on the results of the investigation and field experience. This condition of insufficient margin to engine flameout due to ice accretion and shedding during flight, if not addressed, could result in an all-engine flameout event during flight. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of GE Service Bulletin

(SB)No. CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0352, dated February 7, 2007. That SB describes procedures for removing certain software versions from the ECU, and installing a software version that is FAA-approved. The new FAA-approved software version described in the SB modifies the variable bleed valve schedule, which will provide an increased margin to flameout. This increased margin is expected to reduce the rate of flameout occurrences due to ice accretion and shedding during flight. 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 products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require removing certain software versions from the engine ECU. Interim Action These actions are interim actions due to the on-going investigation. We may take further rulemaking actions in the future, based on the results of the investigation and field experience. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 81 CF6-80C2A5F turbofan engines installed on Airbus A300 series airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate it would take about 3.5 work-hours per ECU to perform the proposed actions. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost to U.S. operators to be $22,680. Our cost estimate is exclusive of warranty coverage. 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 AD: 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. Would 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. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **General Electric Company:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28172; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-23-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by August 27, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to General Electric Company

(GE)CF6-80C2A5F turbofan engines, installed on Airbus A300 series airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of engine flameout events during flight, including reports of events where all engines simultaneously experienced a flameout or other adverse operation. We are issuing this AD to minimize the potential of an all-engine flameout event, due to ice accretion and shedding during flight. Exposure to ice crystals during flight is believed to be associated with these flameout events. 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. Interim Action

(f)These actions are interim actions due to the on-going investigation, and we may take further rulemaking actions in the future based on the results of the investigation and field experience. Engine ECU Software Removal

(g)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, remove software version 8.4.E or older versions, from the engine ECUs, part numbers 1797M63P01, 1797M63P02, 1797M63P03, 1797M63P04, 1797M63P05, 1820M99P01, 1820M99P02, 1820M99P03, 1820M99P04, and 1820M99P05. Previous Software Versions of ECU Software

(h)You may use an ECU installed on an engine with a software version of 8.4.E or older for no longer than 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

(i)Once software version 8.4.E or older has been removed and new FAA-approved software version is installed in an ECU, reverting to version 8.4.E or older of ECU software in that ECU is prohibited.

(j)After 24 months from the effective date of this AD, use of an ECU with a software version of 8.4.E or older is prohibited. Alternative Methods of Compliance

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

(l)Special flight permits are not authorized. Related Information

(m)Information on removing ECU software and installing new software, which provides increased margin to flameout, can be found in GE Service Bulletin No. CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0352 dated February 7, 2007.

(n)Contact John Golinski, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; email: *john.golinski@faa.gov* ; telephone:

(781)238-7135, fax:

(781)238-7199, for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 22, 2007. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-12490 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28379; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-077-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88). * * * Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport aircraft * * * are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. This Airworthiness Directive (AD), which renders mandatory the modification of the fuel pump wiring against short circuit, is a consequence of this design review. The unsafe condition is chafing of the fuel pump cables, which could result in short circuits leading to fuel pump failure, intermittent operation, arcing, and possible fuel tank explosion. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*

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

(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28379; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-077-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0066, dated March 13, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88). In their letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296, dated March 4th, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3rd, 2003, the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) recommended the application of a similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA). Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3402 kg) or more, which have received their certification since January 1st, 1958, are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. This Airworthiness Directive (AD), which renders mandatory the modification of the fuel pump wiring against short circuit, is a consequence of this design review. Note: For A310 and A300-600 aircraft, refer to [EASA] AD 2006-0284R1. [On March 7, 2007, the FAA issued a corresponding NPRM for Model A310 and A300-600 airplanes, which was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 11302, March 13, 2007.)] The unsafe condition is chafing of the fuel pump cables, which could result in short circuits leading to fuel pump failure, intermittent operation, arcing, and possible fuel tank explosion. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. The JAA has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference

(ECAC)representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-24-0103, Revision 01, dated January 11, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 29 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 72 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $5,050 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $313,490, or $10,810 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this 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 this 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. 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28379; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-077-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by July 30, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 series airplanes, all certified models, all serial numbers, certificated in any category; except Model A300-600 series airplanes; and except those modified by Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0103, Revision 01, dated January 11, 2007. Subject

(d)Electrical Power. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88). In their letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296, dated March 4th, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3rd, 2003, the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) recommended the application of a similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA). Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3402 kg) or more, which have received their certification since January 1st, 1958, are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. This Airworthiness Directive (AD), which renders mandatory the modification of the fuel pump wiring against short circuit, is a consequence of this design review. Note: For A310 and A300-600 aircraft, refer to [EASA] AD 2006-0284R1. [On March 7, 2007, the FAA issued a corresponding NPRM for Model A310 and A300-600 airplanes, which was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 11302, March 13, 2007.)] The unsafe condition is chafing of the fuel pump cables, which could result in short circuits leading to fuel pump failure, intermittent operation, arcing, and possible fuel tank explosion. Actions and Compliance

(f)Within 31 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, modify the inner and outer fuel pumps wiring, route 1P and 2P harnesses in the LH (left-hand) wing and in the RH (right-hand) wing, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0103, Revision 01, dated January 11, 2007. Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0103, dated March 15, 2006, for airplanes under configuration 1 as defined in the service bulletin, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: 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. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

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

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

(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

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

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2007-0066, dated March 13, 2007, and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0103, Revision 01, dated January 11, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 21, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-12495 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27787; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-032-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000T Gliders AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: The digital engine indicating system (DEI-NT) and associated control unit must get their latest software update. It has been found out in operation, that some combinations of system states while pressing switches can cause electrical damages to the system. A new software update is mandated to correct this deficiency and to incorporate additional safety functions to the system. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4130; fax:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27787; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-032-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No. 2007-0040, dated February 23, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: The digital engine indicating system (DEI-NT) and associated control unit must get their latest software update. It has been found out in operation, that some combinations of system states while pressing switches can cause electrical damages to the system. A new software update is mandated to correct this deficiency and to incorporate additional safety functions to the system. As a result, the Flight and Maintenance Manuals need to be revised, specifically regarding the stall warning. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information DG Flugzeugbau GmbH has issued Technical Note No. 1000/09, EASA approved December 12, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 1 product of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $80, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this 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 this 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. 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **DG Flugzeugbau GmbH:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27787; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-032-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by July 30, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to DG-1000T gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 77: Engine Indicating. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: The digital engine indicating system (DEI-NT) and associated control unit must get their latest software update. It has been found out in operation, that some combinations of system states while pressing switches can cause electrical damages to the system. A new software update is mandated to correct this deficiency and to incorporate additional safety functions to the system. As a result, the Flight and Maintenance Manuals need to be revised, specifically regarding the stall warning. Actions and Compliance

(f)Within the next 60 days after the effective day of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions:

(1)Replace the Digital Indicating System (DEI-NT) unit with an updated unit that incorporates software version V1.5, and replace the control unit with an updated unit that incorporates software version V1.9 following DG-Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 1000/09, EASA approved December 12, 2006.

(2)Insert the new Flight Manual pages 0.1, 0.5, 7.14, and 7.15 and the new Maintenance Manual pages 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 0.10, 1.22, and 1.23, issued October 2006 marked with TN1000/09, and add Diagram 15a into your maintenance program (maintenance manual) following DG-Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 1000/09, EASA approved December 12, 2006.

(3)Prior to further flight after the action required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, do not install a DEI-NT or control unit in any DG-1000T airplane, unless it incorporates the software versions required in this AD. Note 1: The referenced DG-Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 1000/09, EASA approved December 12, 2006, also includes instructions for replacement of the fuel cock, which is not required by this AD. Note 2: As specified in the flight manual, the glider can only be operated in the non-powered configuration without the DEI-NT installed. Engine operation is not possible. FAA AD Differences Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4130; fax:

(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found 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.

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

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

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)AD No. 2007-0040, dated February 23, 2007; and DG-Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 1000/09, EASA approved December 12, 2006, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 21, 2007. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-12508 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 7 Cape Hatteras National Seashore; Off-Road Vehicle Management AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Intent

(NOI)to Establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, Cape Hatteras National Seashore. SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior is giving notice of intent to establish the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Off-Road Vehicle Management at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Committee) to negotiate and develop special regulations (proposed rule) for management of off-road vehicles

(ORV)at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore). DATES: Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposal to create this Committee. In addition, any persons who believe that they will be affected significantly by the proposed rule and who believe their interests will not be represented adequately by the persons identified in this NOI are invited to apply for or nominate another person for membership on the Committee. Each application must contain the information described in the “Application for Membership” section below. Comments and/or applications or nominations for membership on the Committee must be received by close of business July 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments and/or applications for membership may be submitted to Michael B. Murray, Superintendent, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 1401 National Park Drive, Manteo, North Carolina 27954. Alternatively, comments and applications may be submitted on-line through the National Park Service

(NPS)Planning, Environment and Public Comment system

(PEPC)at *http://parkplanning.nps.gov/CAHA.* Only comments and/or applications submitted through PEPC or hand-carried or mailed to the address above will be accepted. Comments and applications received will be available for inspection at the address listed above from 8:30 to 4, EST, Monday through Friday following the close of the comment period. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael B. Murray, Superintendent, Cape Hatteras National Seashore at the address listed below, or by telephone at 252 473-2111 extension 148. Information on negotiated rulemaking and on the ORV Management Plan/EIS is also available on-line at *http://parkplanning.nps.gov/CAHA* by clicking on Cape Hatteras National Seashore Off-Road Vehicle Negotiated Rulemaking and Management Plan/EIS, and on Documents List and/or Links. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The establishment of this Committee is in the public interest and supports the NPS in performing its duties and responsibilities under the NPS Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.* , Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, 36 CFR 4.10, the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* , the enabling legislation for the Seashore, 16 U.S.C. 459 *et seq.* , and other legal authorities. The Committee will negotiate to reach consensus on concepts and language to be used as the basis for a proposed rule governing ORV use at the Seashore. With the participation of knowledgeable affected parties, NPS expects to develop a practical approach to addressing the management and public-use issues involved in the public's desire for

(1)access to beach areas by ORV for fishing and other recreational activities,

(2)the quiet enjoyment of the natural scenery without motorized vehicles or their tire tracks, or sounds associated with their use,

(3)public safety, and

(4)the protection of beach environments and their associated plant and wildlife communities. Background Use of ORVs has become an issue of concern and a source of controversy at several units of the National Park System in recent years. Executive Order 11644, amended by Executive Order 11989, requires certain Federal agencies permitting ORV use on agency lands to publish regulations designating specific trails and areas for this use. Title 36, § 4.10 of the Code of Federal Regulations implements the Executive Orders for the NPS by providing that routes and areas designated for ORV use shall be promulgated as special regulations. Section 4.10 also provides that the designation of routes and areas shall comply with Executive Order 11644, and with § .5 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, regarding closures. While special regulations governing ORVs have been developed at some units of the National Park System, presently no comprehensive ORV Management Plan nor special regulations are in place at the Seashore. An ORV management plan and special regulations are necessary to ensure NPS compliance with the above authorities and NPS management policies. The absence of special regulations governing ORVs at the Seashore has led to inconsistent management of ORV use, increased conflicts between Seashore uses, and potential damage to natural and cultural resources. An ORV Management Plan and special regulations must be developed in order to provide consistency in ORV management and resource protection in areas of ORV use. The NPS contracted with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to provide a feasibility assessment as to whether a negotiated rulemaking is a practicable means to develop consensus on proposed special regulations for the Seashore. The feasibility assessment concluded that this negotiated rulemaking would satisfy the requirements of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 561 *et seq.* , and that a rulemaking for ORV management at the Seashore is appropriate for development through negotiation. Concurrently with the negotiated rulemaking, NPS will develop the ORV Management Plan using the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)planning process. *Scope of the Proposed Rule.* Within the constraints of NPS statutory and policy responsibilities to preserve natural and cultural resources and to provide for their enjoyment, the Committee will evaluate and address key issues possibly including, but not limited to, the designation of specific ORV routes and areas, the periods of the year and times of day during which ORVs may be operated, and other conditions that govern the operation of ORVs at the Seashore. Special ORV regulations at the Seashore would identify criteria to designate appropriate ORV use areas and routes, and would establish consistent ORV management practices and procedures that include the ability to adjust ORV management in response to changes in the Seashore's dynamic physical and biological environment. The management methodology embodied in the proposed rule would minimize adverse impacts to park resources due to ORV use, provide for visitor enjoyment and safety, and allow ORV use for those activities that are consistent with resource preservation as recognized under the Seashore's enabling legislation. *List of Interests Significantly Affected.* The NPS has identified a number of interests that are likely to be affected significantly by the rule. Those parties are Federal, State, and county government interests; local civic and neighborhood association and homeowner interests; environmental and conservation interests; various Seashore user interests, including ORV use, open access, recreation, water sports, recreational fishing, bird watching, and other general uses; and local tourism, visitation and business interests. Other parties who believe they are likely to be affected significantly by the proposed rule may apply for membership on the Committee under the “Application for Membership” section below. *Proposed Agenda and Schedule for Publication of Proposed Rule.* Members of the Committee, with the assistance of a neutral facilitator, will determine the agenda for the Committee's work, which will include interactions with the concurrent NEPA planning process for developing an ORV Management Plan at the Seashore. *Records of Meetings.* In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appx. 1994, the NPS will keep a record of all Committee meetings. *Administrative Support.* To the extent authorized by law, the NPS will fund the costs of the Committee, keep a record of all Committee meetings, and provide administrative support and technical assistance for the activities of the Committee. The NPS will also provide staff expertise in resource management and operations to facilitate the Committee's work. *Committee Membership.* In accordance with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, membership is limited to 25, with each member having an alternate, unless the agency head determines that a greater number of members is necessary for the functioning of the committee or to achieve balanced membership. For this committee to achieve balanced membership among diverse national, regional, and local interests the feasibility assessment has recommended and the agency has determined, that a greater number of members is necessary. A membership of 28 is proposed for the Committee, consisting of the following: Civic and Homeowner Associations: 1. Rodanthe-Waves-Salvo Civic Association, member C.A. Duke, alternate Pat Weston (Greater Kinnakeet Shores Homeowners Inc. and Rodanthe-Waves-Salvo Civic Association) 2. Avon Property Owners Association, member Frank Folb, alternate Pat Weston (Greater Kinnakeet Shores Homeowners Inc. and Rodanthe-Waves-Salvo Civic Association) 3. Hatteras Village Civic Association, member Roy Kingery, alternate Jeffrey Wells (Hatteras Landing Homeowners Association) Commercial Fishermen: 4. North Carolina Fisheries Association, Michael Peele, alternate William Foster (North Carolina Fisheries Association) Environmental and Natural Resource Conservation Advocates, State/Regional/Local: 5. Southern Environmental Law Center, member Derb Carter, alternate Michelle Nowlin (Southern Environmental Law Center) 6. North Carolina Audubon, member Walker Golder, alternate Sidney Maddock (National Audubon Society) Environmental and Natural Resource Conservation Advocates, National: 7. Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, member Robert Milne, alternate Dwight Rettie (Coalition of National Park Service Retirees) 8. Defenders of Wildlife, member Jason Rylander, alternate Andrew Hawley (Defenders of Wildlife) 9. Natural Resources Defense Council and The Wilderness Society, member Destry Jarvis, alternate Leslie Jones (The Wilderness Society) 10. The Nature Conservancy, member Sam Pearsall, alternate Aaron McCall (The Nature Conservancy) Government, County: 11. Dare County, member Warren Judge, alternate Ray Sturza (Dare County) 12. Hyde County, member David Scott Esham, alternate Kevin Howard (Hyde County) Government, Federal: 13. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, member Michael Murray, alternate Thayer Broili (Cape Hatteras National Seashore) 14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, member Pete Benjamin, alternate David Rabon (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Government, State: 15. North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission, member Wayne Mathis, alternate Sara Winslow (North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission) 16. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, member David Allen, alternate Susan Cameron (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission) Tourism, Visitation, and Businesses: 17. Cape Hatteras Business Allies, member Judy Swartwood, alternate Stacy Stacks (Cape Hatteras Business Allies) 18. Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce, member Scott Leggat, alternate Sam Hagedon (Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce) 19. Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, member Carolyn McCormick, alternate Renee Cahoon User Groups, ORV Use: 20. North Carolina Beach Buggy Association, member Jim Keene, alternate David Joyner (North Carolina Beach Buggy Association) 21. United Four Wheel Drive Associations, member Carla Boucher, alternate Lyle Piner (United Four Wheel Drive Associations) User Groups, Open Access: 22. Outer Banks Preservation Association, member David Goodwin, alternate John Alley (Outer Banks Preservation Association) User Groups, Other Users: 23. Cape Hatteras Bird Club, member Ricky Davis, alternate Raymond Moore (Cape Hatteras Bird Club) 24. Cape Hatteras Recreational Alliance, member Jim Lyons, alternate Steven Kayota (Frisco and Hatteras Homeowners Coalition) 25. Water Sports Industry Association, member Trip Foreman, alternate Matt Nuzzo (Water Sports Industry Association) User Groups, Recreational Fishing: 26. American Sportfishing Association, member Bob Eakes, alternate Carol Forthman (American Sportfishing Association) 27. Cape Hatteras Anglers Club, member Larry Hardham, alternate Robert Davis (Cape Hatteras Anglers Club) 28. Recreational Fishing Alliance, member Patrick Paquette, alternate Ronald Bounds (Recreational Fishing Alliance) *Application for Membership.* Persons who believe they will be significantly affected by proposals to develop special regulations for ORV use at the Seashore and who believe that their interests will not be represented adequately by any person identified in the “Committee Membership” section above may apply for or nominate another person for membership on the Committee. In order to be considered, each application or nomination must include: 1. The name of the applicant or nominee and a description of the interest(s) such person shall represent, 2. Evidence that the applicant or nominee is authorized to represent parties related to the interest(s) the person proposes to represent, 3. A written commitment that the applicant or nominee will actively participate in good faith in the development of the proposed rule, and 4. The reasons that the proposed members of the committee identified above do not represent the interests of the person submitting the application or nomination. To be considered, the application must be complete and received by the close of business 30 days after publication of this NOI in the **Federal Register** at the location indicated in the ADDRESSES section above. Full consideration will be given to all applications and nominations submitted in a timely manner. The decision whether or not to add a person to the Committee will be based on NPS's determination whether an interest of that person will be significantly affected by the proposed rule, whether that interest is already adequately represented on the Committee, and if not, whether the applicant or nominee would adequately represent it. *Certification.* I hereby certify that the administrative establishment of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of the Interior by the Act of August 25, 1916, 16 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.* and other statutes relating to the administration of the National Park System. Dated: June 13, 2007. Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior. [FR Doc. E7-12012 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-Y6-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011; FRL-8332-4] RIN 2060-AN72 Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of public comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that the comment period on the proposed rule amendments for the Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries, published on May 14, 2007, is being extended until August 27, 2007. DATES: *Comments* . Comments on the proposed amendments must be received on or before August 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*

(202)566-1741. • *Mail:* U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503. • *Hand Delivery:* In person or by courier, deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *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 through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (6102T), EPA West Building, Room 3444, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is

(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Lucas, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:

(919)541-0884; fax number:

(919)541-0246; e-mail address: *lucas.bob@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Regulated Entities* . Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include: Category NAICS* code Examples of potentially regulated entities Industry 32411 Petroleum refiners. Federal government Not affected. State/local/tribal government Not affected. * North American Industrial Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.480 and 40 CFR 60.590. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed amendments to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. *Worldwide Web (WWW)* . In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed amendments is available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the proposed amendments will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg* . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Comment Period We received several requests to extend the public comment period to August 27, 2007. We agreed to this request, therefore, the public comment period will now end on August 27, 2007, rather than July 13, 2007. How can I get copies of the proposed amendments and other related information? The proposed rule amendments for the Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries, published on May 14, 2007 (72 FR 27178). EPA has established the official public docket for the proposed rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011. Information on how to access the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES section. Dated: June 20, 2007. Robert J. Meyers, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E7-12584 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-8331-3] National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Mannheim Avenue Dump Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)Region II is issuing a notice of intent to delete the Mannheim Avenue Dump Superfund Site

(Site)located in Galloway Township, New Jersey from the National Priorities List

(NPL)and requests public comments on this notice of intent. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is found at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of New Jersey, through the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, including operation and maintenance and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund. In the “Rules and Regulations” Section of today's **Federal Register,** we are publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Mannheim Avenue Dump Superfund Site without prior notice of intent to delete because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct final deletion. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this notice of intent to delete or the direct final notice of deletion, we will not take further action on this notice of intent to delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final notice of deletion and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final deletion notice based on this notice of intent to delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this notice of intent to delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For additional information, see the direct final notice of deletion which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . DATES: Comments concerning this Site must be received by July 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: robinson.nigel@epa.gov:* Nigel Robinson, Remedial Project Manager. *seppi.pat@epa.gov:* Pat Seppi, Community Involvement Coordinator. • *Fax:*

(212)637-4429. • *Mail:* Nigel Robinson, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Emergency & Remedial Response Division, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007 or Pat Seppi, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Public Affairs Division, 290 Broadway, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10007. *Hand delivery:* Nigel Robinson, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emergency & Remedial Response Division, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the 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 whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, Room 1828, New York, New York 10007-1866,

(212)637-4308; Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday; and at Atlantic County Library, Galloway Township Branch, 306 W. Jimmie Leeds Road, Pomona, NJ 08240; Hours: Mon.-Th., 9 a.m.-8 p.m., Fri.-Sat., 9 a.m.-5 p.m.,

(609)652-2352. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nigel Robinson, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007,

(212)637-4394. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. Dated: April 27, 2007. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. E7-12537 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [FRL-8331-2] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the Grand Street Mercury Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2, is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Grand Street Mercury Superfund Site

(Site)from the National Priorities List

(NPL)and requests public comment on this action. The Grand Street Mercury Site is located in the city of Hoboken, Hudson County, New Jersey. The NPL is Appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and the State of New Jersey, through the Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), have determined that all appropriate remedial actions have been completed and no further remedial actions are required. In addition, EPA and NJDEP have determined that the cleanup goals attained at this Site are protective of public health and the environment. DATES: Comments concerning the deletion of this site from the NPL must be received July 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1997-0001, by one of the following methods: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments. *E-mail: saghafi.farnaz@epa.gov.* *Fax:* 212-637-4429. *Mail:* Ms. Farnaz Saghafi, Remedial Project Manager, New Jersey Remediation Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New York, 10007-1866. *Hand delivery:* 290 Broadway Street, 18th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1997-0001. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going to *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the 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 whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at: U.S. EPA Records Center, 290 Broadway—18th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. *Hours:* Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Phone:* 212-637-4308. Hoboken Public Library, 500 Park Avenue, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030. *Phone:* 201-420-2280. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Farnaz Saghafi at

(212)637-4408. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents: I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion I. Introduction EPA Region 2 announces its intent to delete the Grand Street Mercury Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public comment on this action. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that present a significant risk to public health or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for thirty

(30)days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Section II below explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses how this Site meets NPL deletion criteria. II. NPL Deletion Criteria Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making this determination, EPA, in consultation with NJDEP, will consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:

(i)Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; or

(ii)All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

(iii)The remedial investigation has shown that the release of hazardous substances poses no significant threat to public health or to the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. III. Deletion Procedures The following procedures apply to the deletion of this Site:

(1)EPA issued a Record of Decision

(ROD)on September 30, 1997, which called for: Relocation of the residents of the former industrial building at the Site; gross mercury decontamination and demolition of two buildings; excavation and off-site disposal of mercury-contaminated soils; sampling and assessment of soils at adjacent properties; sampling of groundwater at the Site; and assessment of soil data from the adjacent properties and groundwater data to evaluate the need for future remedial action.

(2)All appropriate responses under CERCLA have been implemented as described in a Preliminary Close-Out Report dated September 2005.

(3)EPA has recorded a notice with the County Clerk's office for Hudson County advising future owners of the former facility property located at 720-732 Grand Street, Hoboken, New Jersey that the environmental data collected at the Site exceed the screening level for mercury developed pursuant to EPA's Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils, such that further evaluation and/or engineering controls may be necessary when and if structures are erected at the property.

(4)The NJDEP concurs with the proposed deletion.

(5)A notice has been published in the local newspaper and has been distributed to appropriate federal, state and local officials and other interested parties announcing a 30-day public comment period on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete.

(6)All relevant documents have been made available for public review at the local Site information repository and at EPA Region 2. Deletion of sites from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency management of Superfund sites. As mentioned in section II of this document, § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions. EPA's Regional Office will accept and evaluate public comments before making a final decision on deletion of this Site. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address significant public comments received during the public comment period. If after consideration of the comments received, EPA decides to proceed with the deletion, EPA will place a final Notice of Deletion in the **Federal Register** . Generally, the NPL will reflect deletions in the final update following the notice. Public notices and copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made available to local residents by the Regional Office. IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion The following summary provides the Agency's rationale for the proposal to delete this Site from the NPL. Background The Grand Street Mercury Site is located at 720 and 722-732 Grand Street, Hoboken, Hudson County, New Jersey. The Site included a former industrial building which was converted from 1993 to 1995 into 16 residential/studio spaces (722-732 Grand Street), a townhouse formerly used for various purposes which was also intended for residential conversion (720 Grand Street), and an adjacent asphalt-covered parking lot. Soils on five residential properties adjacent to the former industrial facility with mercury at levels greater than 23 mg/kg were also addressed as part of the remedial action. Mercury, believed to be associated with the use of vacuum pumps containing mercury and the manufacture of mercury vapor lamps and mercury-containing switches, was prevalent throughout the buildings, which have been demolished as part of the remedial action, and the parking lot. Mercury vapor lamps and numerous other types of lamps requiring lesser amounts of and/or no mercury in the manufacturing process were manufactured at the facility from 1910 to approximately 1965. Response Actions On January 2, 1996, EPA received a request from NJDEP to conduct an emergency removal action under CERCLA, and to assist the Hoboken Health Department

(HHD)in assessing the extent of mercury contamination at 720 and 722-732 Grand Street. EPA asked the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to evaluate the Site. On January 3, 1996, ATSDR issued a Public Health Consultation which concluded that an imminent health hazard existed at the Site, and that the residents should be dissociated from further exposure to this mercury hazard. On January 4, 1996, the HHD, based on advice from the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH), issued an “Order of Health Officer”, which ordered the residents to vacate the buildings by January 9, 1996. All occupants had vacated the buildings by 4 p.m. on January 11, 1996. On January 4, 1996, EPA authorized a Superfund removal action at the Site. The removal action included providing temporary relocation for residents of the Grand Street Site, providing for security and maintenance of the buildings, continued sampling and screening of the buildings as well as the personal possessions of the residents, and transportation, treatment, and/or disposal of contaminated materials generated during previous remediation efforts. The Site was officially added to the NPL on September 25, 1997. In February 1997, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order

(UAO)to Potentially Responsible Parties

(PRPs)General Electric Company

(GE)and John Pascale, ordering them to take over temporary relocation, site security, building maintenance, and other activities from EPA. EPA subsequently modified the UAO to remove temporary relocation activities. GE initiated work at the Site on August 4, 1997. In April 1997, EPA completed a Baseline Risk Assessment for the Site. A draft Focused Feasibility Study

(FFS)that analyzed remedial alternatives for the Site was completed in July 1997. EPA issued a ROD for the Site on September 30, 1997. Since the issuance of the ROD, EPA has acquired the former facility property located at 720-732 Grand Street and completed the permanent relocation of the residents. EPA issued a second UAO to GE on April 1, 1998 directing GE to perform the Remedial Design and Remedial Action described in the ROD, excluding relocation activities. GE prepared a Remedial Design

(RD)Report for demolition of the two buildings formerly used for manufacturing operations, as well as excavation and removal of contaminated soil from the parking lot and from under the building slab. The demolition phase of the remedial action began in November 2001 and was completed by July 2003. In March 2001, EPA approved GE's Supplemental Remedial Design Work Plan (SRDWP), concerning the soil sampling at adjacent residential properties required by the ROD. In May 2002, GE submitted to EPA the Supplemental Investigation Report, which describes the results of the SRDWP sampling as well as earlier soil sampling conducted at adjacent properties by EPA and GE. Cleanup Goals On April 17, 2003, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences

(ESD)setting forth its determination that soil in the backyards of the five residential properties must be addressed as part of the remedial action, requiring the excavation of soil from backyards even if only a single sample showed a concentration of mercury greater than 23 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), rather than using an average of all the samples collected at each depth. The basis for this determination is explained in the April 17, 2003 ESD. By summer 2003, the contaminated industrial building and the attached townhouse had been demolished. During the subsequent removal of the buildings' basement slabs, EPA's oversight personnel and the PRP's consultant observed visible mercury in the underlying soil. Sampling showed that the soil was more contaminated than had been expected, and the contamination was present at depths below the water table. The remediation goal for mercury in the surface soils, as described in the ROD, is 23 mg/kg and was developed to be protective of public health for both ingestion and inhalation exposure pathways for residential populations, including children. For subsurface soils, which at the Site are considered to be soils below the water table (located approximately 4.5 to 5.5 feet below ground surface), it is unlikely that residential populations would be exposed under typical, or reasonable, scenarios. The populations most likely to come into contact with these soils consist of utility workers and construction workers. Therefore, EPA determined that a distinct remediation goal for subsurface soils was needed to protect those specific populations. A remediation goal of 520 mg/kg of mercury was developed by EPA based on an assumed two-month duration of construction activity within subsurface soils. The addition of a remediation goal for subsurface soils was the subject of the second ESD for the Site issued on July 2, 2004. The work necessary to achieve this remediation goal was performed in accordance with the approved Soil Removal Work Plan for Former Building Footprint, dated September 2003, prepared by GE. The activities associated with this work were conducted from September through December, 2004. Approximately 2 feet of soil were excavated in most areas below the former building footprint, and 6.5 feet were removed in three grids in this area. In the parking lot area, excavation depth varied from 0.5 to 5 feet depending on levels of mercury contamination detected during the investigation phase of the work. Post-excavation samples were collected every 30 feet throughout the excavation prior to backfilling the areas to ensure that the remaining soils met remediation goals. An evaluation of the post-excavation sampling data shows that in only one grid in the subsurface soils there is an exceedence of the 520 mg/kg cleanup goal. The outlier data point is within a small grid (112.5 square feet in area) which was part of a larger grid (grid 1). That section was excavated down to 4.5-5 feet and the post-excavation sample was recorded at 676 mg/kg. The soil was further removed down to 6 feet where the meadow mat layer lies. This is a semi-confining layer which should not be punctured. Therefore, no further excavation or sampling at this layer was performed. Although the last data point in this grid has been recorded at 676 mg/kg, the number is not truly representative of what remains in that grid since more soil was removed after the sample was taken. Discounting this outlier data point from the data, the average mercury concentration in both saturated soils and unsaturated soils remaining at the site is 22.71 mg/kg. The backfill material was sampled and certified to have no unacceptable levels of contamination or radioactivity before use. The backfilled soils met the New Jersey cleanup standards for unrestricted use. The PRP completed all work associated with this phase of cleanup by December 2004. The soil removal work plan also included the installation of three additional groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of the former basement slabs. The new wells were sampled, in addition to the seven existing monitoring wells, in December 2004 to further evaluate groundwater conditions. Results showed that none of the monitoring wells contained mercury levels in the groundwater above 2 parts per billion (ppb), which is both the federal Maximum Contaminant Level

(MCL)established pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and the New Jersey MCL established pursuant to the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act, and is the designated cleanup level for the Site. During the soil removal activities, two of the groundwater monitoring wells located in the former parking lot had to be abandoned to enable the complete excavation of contaminated soils. It was determined that sufficient groundwater data would be obtained through the surrounding wells due to their close proximity. The remaining eight wells were sampled in a confirmatory round of groundwater sampling in June 2005. Results again showed that none of the of the monitoring wells contained mercury levels in the groundwater above 2 ppb, the applicable cleanup level for the Site. All related monitoring wells were sealed and abandoned in accordance with the state of New Jersey's “General Requirements for the Decommissioning of all Wells”, N.J.A.C. 7:9D-3.1 in October 2006. EPA issued a third ESD on September 16, 2005 relating to the groundwater at the Site. The ESD describes EPA and NJDEP's determination that no remedial action with respect to the groundwater is necessary. This is due to the findings of the groundwater sampling performed at the Site. Two rounds of groundwater sampling, performed in December 2004 and in June 2005 as well as groundwater sampling performed in 2000 showed that none of the monitoring wells contained mercury levels in the groundwater above 2 parts per billion (ppb), which is both the MCL established pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and the New Jersey MCL established pursuant to the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act, and is therefore the designated cleanup level for the Site. It should be noted that the site-specific mercury clean-up goals for soils established by EPA for the former facility property, which are protective of public health for both ingestion and inhalation exposure pathways, exceed the screening levels found in EPA's Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils. While this does not indicate that a vapor intrusion problem will occur if a building(s) is erected in the future at the now vacant property at 720-732 Grand Street, it does indicate that further evaluation or engineering controls may be necessary when and if structures are erected at the property. To ensure that future owners of 720-732 Grand Street are aware of the exceedence of the screening levels, EPA has recorded a notice with the County Clerk's office for Hudson County advising of this fact. The notice also advises of the final cleanup levels of mercury met at the Site. Operation and Maintenance There will be no operation and maintenance plan in place since all remedial actions have been completed at the Site. Five-Year Review Upon completion of the remedial activities, hazardous substances do not remain on-site above levels that would prevent unlimited use without restriction. It is the policy of EPA to conduct five year reviews when remedial activities, including monitoring, will continue for more than five years. All cleanup goals have been met for this Site, and there is no action warranted for the groundwater underlying the Site as documented in the September 16, 2005 ESD. However, because the property is vacant, EPA cannot rule out the possibility that the slight exceedences of screening levels established by EPA's Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils are indicative of the potential for vapor intrusion. The Site has been sold and title has been transferred to a private entity for redevelopment and reuse. The nature of the future use of the Site is unknown at this time and may eliminate any potential for vapor intrusion. Therefore, prior to the time that a five year review would be conducted (five years after the construction completion date of 2005), EPA will evaluate conditions at the Site, and if necessary and appropriate, will conduct a five year review. Community Involvement Public participation activities for the Grand Street Mercury Superfund Site have been satisfied as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. EPA published a Community Relations Plan in July 1997. The ROD was subject to a public review process; public comments were received and addressed in the Responsiveness Summary portion of the ROD. All other documents and information which EPA relied on or considered in recommending that the Site be deleted from the NPL are available for the public to review EPA Records Center. Applicable Deletion Criteria/Statute Concurrence All the completion requirements for this Site have been met as described in the Final Remedial Action Report dated August 2005, prepared by GE and approved by EPA on August 30, 2005, and EPA's Preliminary Close Out Report dated September 2005. The State of New Jersey, in its letter of August 30, 2006 concurred on the proposed deletion of this Site from the NPL. Consequently, EPA is proposing deletion of this Site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are available in the site files. The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if “all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.” 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New Jersey, through the Department of Environmental Protection, believes that this criterion for deletion has been met. Consequently, EPA is proposing deletion of this Site from the NPL. Dated: April 12, 2007. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. E7-12450 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 32 RIN 1018-AV36 2007-2008 Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) proposes to amend the regulations for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (refuge) that pertain to existing programs for migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing. These changes would take effect with the 2007-2008 season and would implement the recently completed Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP)for the refuge. This amendment would replace current refuge regulations found at 50 CFR 32.32 (Illinois), place the proposed regulations at 50 CFR 32.42 (Minnesota) to match the State listing with the location of the refuge headquarters, and cross reference those regulations in 50 CFR 32.34

(Iowa)and 32.69 (Wisconsin). DATES: We must receive your comments on or before July 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Refuge Manager, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, 51 East Fourth Street, Room 101, Winona, MN 55987. See “Request for Comments” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on electronic submission. You may also request information on the refuge's public use programs and the conditions that apply to them, or request copies of compatibility determinations or other information, at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Hultman,

(507)452-4232; Fax

(507)452-0851. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (refuge) encompasses 240,000 acres in a more-or-less continuous stretch of 261 miles of Mississippi River floodplain in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. The refuge was established by Congress in 1924 to provide a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds, fish, other wildlife, and plants. The refuge is perhaps the most important corridor of habitat in the central United States due to its species diversity and abundance and is the most visited refuge in the United States with 3.7 million annual visitors. Approximately 187,000 acres of the refuge is open to all hunting, and approximately 140,000 acres of surface water is open to year-round fishing. The development of an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)and CCP for the refuge began with a notice of intent to prepare the EIS, which we published in the **Federal Register** on May 30, 2002 (67 FR 37852). We followed with a notice of availability of our Draft EIS (April 28, 2005; 70 FR 22085), and we accepted public comments on the Draft EIS for 120 days. On October 7, 2005, we published a notice of intent to prepare a Supplement to the Draft EIS (70 FR 58738). We made the Supplement to the Draft EIS available on December 5, 2005 (70 FR 72462), and accepted public comments on that document for 60 days, extended to 90 days. We offered public involvement through 46 public meetings and workshops attended by 4,500 persons in 14 different communities in four States during the four-year planning process. In addition, we held or attended 80 other meetings with the States, other agencies, interest groups, and elected officials to discuss the Draft EIS, and mailed three different planning update newsletters to up to 4,900 persons or organizations on our planning mailing list. We also issued numerous news releases at various planning milestones, and held two press conferences. On July 11, 2006, we published a notice of availability of our Final EIS (71 FR 39125), and we accepted public comments on the Final EIS for 30 days. On August 24, 2006, the Regional Director of the Midwest Region of the Fish and Wildlife Service signed the Record of Decision that documented the selection of Alternative E, the Preferred Alternative presented in the Final EIS. We published a notice of availability of that Record of Decision on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64553). In accordance with the Record of Decision, we prepared a CCP based on Alternative E. The CCP was approved on October 24, 2006. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997), requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to manage each refuge in a manner consistent with a completed CCP. The Final EIS and CCP are available at *http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss.* This hunting and fishing regulation proposal implements the goals, objectives, and strategies spelled-out in the CCP pertaining to hunting and fishing and related uses. The proposal also reflects a fine-tuning of language in the current refuge-specific regulations for clarity and ease of enforcement, and other modest changes to modernize regulations and make them consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management. For example, this proposal includes the requirement for hunters to use nontoxic shot shells for turkey hunting, the only exemption in the previous nontoxic shot shell regulation (50 CFR 32.2(k)). When all changes in the CCP are implemented in 2009, there will be 23 closed areas or sanctuaries totaling 43,652 acres, compared with the current 15 areas totaling 44,544 acres. Another 1,406 acres will be open the first 30 days of the season, closing November 1. An effective system of strategically located waterfowl closed areas on the 261-mile-long refuge is critical to the Mississippi Flyway, and allows hunting to remain compatible. There is also a change to open water hunting regulations on 4,000 acres of Pool 11 in Grant County, Wisconsin, and a phase out of permanent hunting blinds on the only areas of the refuge they are still allowed. The Grant County area remains open to hunting, but restricts open water hunting from boats to protect large rafts of scaup and canvasback. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 authorizes the Secretary to allow uses of refuge areas including hunting and/or sport fishing, upon a determination that such uses are compatible with the purposes of the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission. The action also must be in accordance with provisions of all laws applicable to the areas, developed in coordination with the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency(ies), and consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration. These requirements ensure that we maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. The Secretary is required to prepare a CCP for each refuge and shall manage each refuge consistent with the CCP. Each CCP must identify and describe the refuge purposes; fish, wildlife, and plant populations; cultural resources; areas for administrative or visitor facilities; significant problems affecting resources and actions necessary; and opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Each CCP must also be developed through consultation with the other States, agencies, and the public, and be coordinated with applicable State conservation plans. Each CCP is guided by the overarching requirement that refuges are to be managed to fulfill their purposes for which established and the mission of the Refuge System. In addition, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act requires that the Refuge System be administered to provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats; and to ensure their biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. We developed the CCP for the refuge in accordance with all requirements and in accordance with the consultation and public involvement provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. This includes new compatibility determinations for hunting and fishing, which are referenced and listed in Appendix E of the Final EIS. We then developed this proposed rule to implement portions of the CCP. Plain Language Mandate In this proposed rule, we comply with a Presidential mandate to use plain language in regulations. As examples, we use “you” to refer to the reader and “we” to refer to the Service, the word “allow” instead of “permit” when we do not require the use of a permit for an activity, and we use active voice whenever possible ( *i.e.* , “We allow hunting of upland game on designated areas” vs. “Upland game hunting in designated areas is allowed”). Statutory Authority The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1977 [Improvement Act]) (Administration Act) and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation Act) govern the administration and public use of refuges. In addition, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C 703-711) grants authority for management of migratory birds and the closing of any areas to migratory bird hunting. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act

(MBTA)designates the protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility. The MBTA enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including the closing of areas, Federal and non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. You can find regulations stemming from the MBTA pertaining to migratory bird hunting in 50 CFR part 20. This document proposes to codify in the Code of Federal Regulations amended hunting and sport fishing regulations that are applicable to the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. We are proposing this to implement the refuge CCP, better inform the general public of the regulations at the refuge, increase understanding and compliance with these regulations, and make enforcement of these regulations more efficient. In addition to finding these regulations in 50 CFR part 32, visitors will find them reiterated in literature distributed by each refuge and posted on signs at major access points. Visitors will also find the boundaries of closed areas or other restricted-use areas referenced in this document marked by specific signs. This proposal includes cross-references to a number of existing regulations in 50 CFR parts 27 and 32 to assist hunting and sport fishing visitors with understanding safety and other legal requirements on refuges. This redundancy is deliberate, with the intention of improving safety and compliance in our hunting and sport fishing programs. Fish Advisory For health reasons, anglers should review and follow State-issued consumption advisories before enjoying recreational sport fishing opportunities on Service-managed waters. You can find information about current fish consumption advisories on the Internet at: *http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/.* Request for Comments You may comment on this proposed rule by any one of several methods: 1. *You may comment via e-mail to: uppermississippiriver@fws.gov.* Please include: “ *Attn:* Hunting/Fishing Regs.” and your full name and return mailing address in your e-mail message (See “Public Availability of Comments,” below). If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly at

(507)452-4232. 2. *You may mail or hand-deliver/courier your comments to:* Refuge Manager, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, 51 East Fourth Street, Room 101, Winona, MN 55987. 3. *You may fax comments to:* Refuge Manager, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, at

(507)452-0851. 4. You may submit comment online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments. Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Public Comment Department of the Interior policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public a meaningful opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. During preparation of the refuge CCP, we used an extensive public information, outreach, and comment process, including 46 public meetings or workshops attended by 4,500 persons and 80 other meetings with State department of natural resources agencies, other agencies, interest groups, elected officials, and other Service and Department of Interior offices. We received and responded to a total of 3,230 written comments in the Final EIS. This document, and its publication as a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** , will provide an additional opportunity for comment during the 30-day comment period. We believe that a 30-day comment period, through this broader publication following the earlier public involvement, gives the public sufficient time to comment before the upcoming seasons. In addition, in order to continue to provide for previously authorized hunting and fishing opportunities while at the same time providing for adequate resource and visitor protection, we must be timely in providing modifications to hunting and fishing programs on refuges. If adopted, we will incorporate these proposed regulations into 50 CFR 32.42 (Minnesota). Part 32 contains general provisions and part 32.42 contains refuge-specific regulations for hunting and sport fishing on refuges located or headquartered in Minnesota. Clarity of This Rule Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

(1)Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?

(2)Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?

(3)Does the format of the rule (e.g., grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) aid or reduce its clarity?

(4)Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections?

(5)Is the description of the rule in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble helpful in understanding the rule?

(6)What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments on how we could make this proposed rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to: *Execsec@ios.doi.gov.* Regulatory Planning and Review In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Service asserts that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)makes the final determination under E.O. 12866. a. This proposed rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government. A cost-benefit and full economic analysis is not required. However, a brief assessment follows to clarify the costs and benefits associated with this proposed rule. The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement amended hunting and sport fishing regulations on the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge beginning with the 2007-2008 seasons. These regulations are derived from and are consistent with the CCP approved October 24, 2006, and whose environmental and socioeconomic impacts are documented in the Final EIS (available at *http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss* ). Costs Incurred Costs incurred by this proposed regulation include signing of areas, leaflet preparation, and printing to provide information to the public, law enforcement, and monitoring. However, these are regular and reoccurring functions on the refuge with or without these proposed regulations and can be handled within normal budget and staffing levels. Therefore, we expect any costs to be minor in the short term and negligible in the long term. Benefits Accrued These proposed regulations would have several effects on current hunting opportunities on the refuge. Although some areas open to hunting would change, the quality of hunting could increase, especially for waterfowl, since the refuge would likely hold more birds in more areas for longer periods of time in the fall. In addition, improvement of habitat quality from ongoing habitat projects will likely result in an increase in some game populations and positively affect the hunting experience for many. Also, the CCP calls for an increase in land acquisition over time, opening several thousand acres to all forms of public hunting. For example, in 2005, an additional 2,000 acres was open to public hunting at the Lost Mound Unit, Savanna District, due to acquisition of the former Savanna Army Depot. We estimate that hunting visits will increase 10 percent over the 15-year life of the CCP due to overall long-term trends in hunter visits, expected improvements to the hunting experience, and a better distribution of waterfowl and, thus, hunting opportunity. We predict these regulations to have a corresponding increase in positive economic impact as reflected in Table 1 below. Table 1 shows the expected change by the end of the 15-year life of the CCP resulting from the implementation of the 2007-2008 hunting regulations compared with FY 2003 for the 19-county area on and adjacent to the refuge. We expect annual hunting visitation to increase by 10 percent resulting in 26,362 more hunter visits. Retail expenditures associated with this increased visitation total $520,399 with total economic output (based on an output multiplier of 1.23 for the 19-county region impacted by the refuge) of $642,526. An additional nine jobs with associated income of $145,343 occur along with an additional $68,909 in Federal and State tax revenue. Table 1.—Annual Economic Impacts of 2007-2008 Hunting and Fishing Regulations Compared With FY 2003 Impacts: Hunting Visitors [2003 dollars] Impacts FY 2003 2007-2008 Regulations (change from FY 2003 for 15-year span of CCP) Hunting Visitors 263,623 +26,362 Expenditures $5,203,988 +520,399 Economic Output $6,425,261 +$642,526 Jobs 87 9 Job Income $1,453,433 +$145,343 Federal and State Taxes $689,090 +$68,909 These proposed regulations would have several effects on current fishing opportunities on the refuge. A minimum of approximately 140,000 acres of water would remain open to year-round fishing, a decrease of about 500 acres from existing conditions. This decrease would be due to changes in waterfowl sanctuaries where we allow no entry during the respective State waterfowl hunting season. However, effects on fall fishing in approximately 31,000 acres of waterfowl hunting closed area included in voluntary avoidance guidelines would be variable since compliance is voluntary. In addition, the voluntary avoidance provision is only in effect from October 15 to the end of the respective State waterfowl hunting season when fishing pressure is much reduced. Overall fishing opportunities would remain abundant, and fishing would be welcome in closed areas during the peak spring, summer, early fall, and winter period. As called for in the CCP, the improvement of habitat quality from ongoing and planned habitat projects will likely result in an increase in some sport fish populations and positively affect the fishing experience for many. Increased efforts to improve water quality through work with private landowners in tributary watersheds, and more emphasis on control of aquatic invasive species, could also result in increases in sport fish populations and thus fishing success. Despite voluntary guidelines or motor restrictions that may limit fall fishing in waterfowl closed areas, we expect fishing visits to increase 5 percent based on long-term trends in angling visits, improvements in fish habitat, and additional fishing-related facilities. We predict the 2007-2008 regulations to have a corresponding increase in positive economic impact as reflected in Table 2. Table 2 shows the expected change by the end of the 15-year CCP lifespan resulting from the implementation of the 2007-2008 fishing regulations compared with FY 2003 in the 19-county area. We expect the annual number of fishing visitors to increase by 60,696, with associated retail expenditures of $1,478,817 and total economic output of $1,811,153. We associate these expenditures and output with 24 jobs and $405,965 in job-related income. Federal and State tax revenue would increase by $194,241. Table 2.—Annual Economic Impacts of 2007-2008 Hunting and Fishing Regulations Compared With FY 2003 Impacts: Fishing Visitors [2003 dollars] Impacts FY 2003 2007-2008 Regulations (change from FY 2003 for 15-year span of CCP) Fishing Visitors 1,213,916 +60,696 Expenditures $29,576,333 +$1,478,817 Economic Output $36,223,053 +$1,811,153 Jobs 483 24 Job Income $8,119,297 +$405,965 Federal and State Taxes $3,884,811 +$194,241 b. This proposed rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. This action pertains solely to the management of the Refuge System. The fishing and hunting activities located on national wildlife refuges account for approximately 1 percent of the available supply in the United States. Any small, incremental change in the supply of fishing and hunting opportunities will not measurably impact any other agency's existing programs. c. This proposed rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. This proposed rule does not affect entitlement programs. There are no grants or other Federal assistance programs associated with public use on national wildlife refuges. d. This proposed rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues that were not addressed in the Final EIS. This proposed rule continues the practice of allowing recreational public use of the refuge. Many refuges in the Refuge System currently have opportunities for the public to hunt and fish on refuge lands. Regulatory Flexibility Act Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for ”significant impact” and a threshold for a ”substantial number of small entities.” See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not increase the number of recreation types allowed on the refuge but amends hunting and fishing regulations on the refuge. As a result, opportunities for hunting and fishing recreation on the refuge will remain abundant and increase over time. Many small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels, gas stations, taxidermy shops, bait and tackle shops, etc.) may benefit from some increased refuge visitation. A large percentage of these retail trade establishments in the majority of affected counties qualify as small businesses (Table 3). We expect that the incremental recreational opportunities will be scattered, and so we do not expect that the rule will have a significant economic effect (benefit) on a substantial number of small entities in any given community or county. Using the estimate derived in the *Regulatory Planning and Review* section, we expect recreationists to spend an additional $2 million annually in total in the refuges' local economies. As shown in Table 3, this represents 0.02 percent of the total amount of retail expenditures in the 19-county area. For comparison purposes, the county with the smallest retail expenditure total, Buffalo County in Wisconsin, is shown. If the entire retail trade expenditures associated with the 2007-2008 hunting and fishing regulations occurred in Buffalo County, this would amount to 3.4 percent increase in annual retail expenditures. Table 3.—Comparative Expenditures for Retail Trade Associated With Additional Refuge Visitation From 2007-2008 Hunting and Fishing Regulations Retail trade in 2002 Change due to 2007-2008 hunting and fishing regulations (15-year span of CCP) Change as percent of total retail trade (percent) Total number of retail establishments Establishments with fewer than 10 employees 19 County Area $9.8 billion $1,999,216 0.02 24,878 17,957 Buffalo County WI $58.3 million 1,999,216 3.4 350 290 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. We anticipate no significant employment or small business effects. This rule: a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. By the end of the 15-year CCP lifespan, the additional fishing and hunting opportunities on the refuge would generate an additional $2 million in angler and hunter expenditures with an economic impact estimated at $2.5 million per year (2003 dollars). Consequently, the maximum benefit of this rule for businesses both small and large would not be sufficient to make this a major rule. The impact would be scattered across 19 counties and would most likely not be significant in any local area. b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. We do not expect this proposed rule to affect the supply or demand for fishing and hunting opportunities in the United States and, therefore, it should not affect prices for fishing and hunting equipment and supplies, or the retailers that sell equipment. Additional refuge hunting and fishing opportunities would account for less than 0.0001 percent of the available opportunities in the United States. c. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This proposed rule represents only a small proportion of recreational spending of a small number of affected anglers and hunters, approximately a maximum of $2.5 million annually in impact (economic output). Therefore, this rule would have no measurable economic effect on the wildlife-dependent industry, which has annual sales of equipment and travel expenditures of over $72 billion nationwide. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Since this proposed rule would apply to public use of federally owned and managed refuges, it would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule would not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) is not required. Takings (E.O. 12630) In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule would not have significant takings implications. This regulation would affect only visitors to the refuge and describe what they can do while they are on the refuge. Federalism (E.O. 13132) As discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act sections above, this proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment under E.O. 13132. In preparing the CCP for the refuge, we worked closely with the four States bordering the refuge, and this proposed rule reflects the CCP. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the proposed rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. This proposal would clarify established regulations and result in better understanding of the regulations by refuge visitors. Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211) On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this proposed rule is a modification of an existing hunting and fishing program on the refuge, it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and we do not expect it to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175) In accordance with E.O. 13175, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects. We coordinate recreational use on national wildlife refuges with Tribal governments having adjoining or overlapping jurisdiction before we propose changes to the regulations. During scoping and preparation of the Final EIS, we contacted 35 Indian tribes to inform them of the process and seek their comments. Paperwork Reduction Act This regulation does not contain any information collection requirements other than those already approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) (OMB Control Number is 1018-0102). See 50 CFR 25.23 for information concerning that approval. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation During preparation of the Final EIS, we completed a section 7 consultation and determined that the preferred alternative, which included hunting and fishing changes reflected in this proposed rule, is not likely to adversely effect individuals of listed or candidate species or designated critical habitat of such species. The Service's Ecological Services Office concurred with this determination. Listed species on the refuge are the Higgins eye mussel and bald eagle; candidate species are the Eastern massasauga and spectaclecase and sheepnose mussels. A copy of the section 7 evaluation and accompanying biological assessment is available from the refuge at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. National Environmental Policy Act Concerning the actions that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking, we have complied with NEPA through the preparation of a Final EIS and Record of Decision which include the major hunting and fishing changes reflected in this proposed rule. The NEPA documents are available on our Web site at *http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss.* Available Information for Specific Districts of the Refuge The refuge is divided into four districts for management, administrative, and public service effectiveness and efficiency. These districts correspond to two or more Mississippi River pools created by the series of locks and dams on the river. District offices are located in Winona, Minnesota (Pools 4-6), La Crosse, Wisconsin (Pools 7-8), McGregor, Iowa (Pools 9-11), and Savanna, Illinois (Pools 12-14). If you are interested in specific information pertaining to a particular closed area, no hunting zone, managed hunt, or other feature discussed in this proposed rule, you may contact the appropriate district office listed below: Winona District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 51 East Fourth Street, Room 203, Winona, MN 55987; Telephone

(507)454-7351. La Crosse District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 555 Lester Avenue, Onalaska, WI 54650; Telephone

(608)783-8405. McGregor District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 460, McGregor, IA 52157; Telephone

(563)873-3423. Savanna District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 7071 Riverview Road, Thomson, IL 61285; Telephone

(815)273-2732. Primary Author Don Hultman, Refuge Manager, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, is the primary author of this rulemaking document. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 32 Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife, Wildlife refuges. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend title 50, Chapter I, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 32—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 32 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd-668ee, and 715i. 2. Amend § 32.32 Illinois by revising Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge to read as follows: § 32.32 Illinois. Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Refer to § 32.42 Minnesota for regulations. 3. Amend § 32.34 Iowa by revising Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge to read as follows: § 32.34 Iowa. Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Refer to § 32.42 Minnesota for regulations. 4. Amend § 32.42 Minnesota by revising Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge to read as follows: § 32.42 Minnesota. Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge *A. Migratory Game Bird Hunting.* We allow hunting of migratory game birds on areas designated by the refuge manager and shown on maps available at refuge offices in accordance with State regulations subject to the following conditions: 1. You must possess a hunting license valid in the State in which you are hunting and be in compliance with all applicable State and Federal regulations and requirements (see § 32.2). You cannot reserve hunting areas, except at Potter's Marsh Managed Hunt Area, Pool 13, near Thomson, Illinois, in accordance with procedures established by the refuge manager. 2. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Entry—Sanctuary,” we prohibit migratory bird hunting at all times and all public entry except as specified. These areas are named and located as follows: i. Pool Slough, Pool 9, Minnesota/Iowa, 1,112 acres. ii. Bertom Island, Pool 11, Iowa, 31 acres. iii. Guttenberg Ponds, Pool 11, Iowa, 252 acres. iv. Spring Lake, Pool 13, Illinois, 3,686 acres. 3. In areas posted and shown on maps as “Area Closed” and “Area Closed—No Motors,” we prohibit migratory bird hunting at all times. We ask that you practice voluntary avoidance of these areas by any means or for any purpose from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. In areas also marked “no motors,” we prohibit the use of motors on watercraft from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. These “Area(s) Closed” are named and located as follows: i. Nelson-Trevino, Pool 4, Wisconsin, 3,773 acres (no voluntary avoidance provision). ii. Peterson Lake, Pool 4, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 3,111 acres (no voluntary avoidance provision). iii. Weaver Bottoms/Lost Island, Pool 5, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 3,508 acres. iv. Polander Lake, Pool 5A, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 1,907 acres. v. Lake Onalaska, Pool 7, Wisconsin, 7,369 acres (voluntary avoidance on 3,356 acres until mid-November). vi. Wisconsin Islands, Pool 8, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 6,510 acres. vii. Harpers Slough, Pool 9, Iowa/Wisconsin, 5,209 acres. viii. Wisconsin River Delta, Pool 10, Wisconsin, 1,406 acres (closed November 1 to end of duck season). ix. 12-Mile Island, Pool 11, Iowa, 1,145 acres. x. Bertom-McCartney, Pool 11, Wisconsin, 2,384 acres (no voluntary avoidance provision). xi. Pleasant Creek, Pool 13, Iowa, 2,067 acres. xii. Elk River, Pool 13, Iowa, 1,237 acres. The “Area(s) Closed—No Motors” are named and located as follows: xiii. Spring Lake, Pool 5, Wisconsin, 243 acres. xiv. Sturgeon Slough, Pool 10, Wisconsin, 340 acres. xv. 12-Mile Island, Pool 10, Iowa, 540 acres. xvi. John Deere Marsh, Pool 11, Iowa, 439 acres. xvii. Kehough Slough, Pool 12, Illinois, 343 acres. xviii. Beaver Island, Pool 14, Iowa, 717 acres. 4. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Hunting Zone” or “No Hunting or Trapping Zone,” we prohibit migratory bird hunting at all times. You must unload and encase firearms in these areas. These areas are named and located as follows: i. Upper Halfway Creek Marsh, Pool 7, Wisconsin, 141 acres. ii. Hunter's Point, Pool 8, Wisconsin, 82 acres. iii. Goose Island, Pool 8, Wisconsin, 986 acres (also no motors and voluntary avoidance as in condition A3). iv. Sturgeon Slough, Pool 10, Wisconsin, 66 acres. v. Goetz Island Trail, Pool 11, Iowa, 32 acres. vi. Crooked Slough Backwater, Pool 13, Illinois, 2,467 acres. vii. Crooked Slough Proper, Pool 13, Illinois, 192 acres. viii. Frog Pond, Pool 13, Illinois, 64 acres. ix. Ingersoll Learning Center, Pool 13, Illinois, 41 acres. 5. We prohibit hunting of migratory birds within 50 yards (45 m) of the Great River Trail at Thomson Prairie, within 150 yards (135 m) of the Great River Trail at Mesquaki Lake, and within 400 yards (360 m) of the Potter's Marsh Managed Hunt area, all in or near Pool 13, Illinois. 6. You may retrieve dead or wounded game from areas posted “Area Closed,” “No Hunting Zone,” and “No Hunting or Trapping Zone” provided you do not take a loaded gun into the area and do not attempt to chase birds from the area. You may not use a motor to aid in the retrieval of game in areas posted “Area Closed—No Motors.” You may not retrieve birds or other game from areas posted “No Entry—Sanctuary.” 7. You may not engage in open-water waterfowl hunting in Pool 11, approximate river miles 586-592, Grant County, Wisconsin as marked with signs and as shown on refuge maps. Open-water hunting regulations and definitions that apply for Wisconsin outside of Grant County will apply in this area. 8. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot shells while in the field (see § 32.2(k)). 9. We allow the use of dogs for hunting in accordance with State regulations. When dogs are not actively engaged in authorized hunting activities, the following conditions apply: i. We prohibit dogs disturbing or endangering wildlife or people while on the refuge. ii. All dogs while on the refuge must be under the control of their owners/handlers at all times or on a leash. iii. We prohibit allowing dogs to roam. iv. All dogs must be on a leash when on hiking trails, or other areas so posted. v. We allow working a dog in refuge waters by tossing a retrieval dummy or other object for out-and-back exercise. vi. Owners/handlers of dogs are responsible for disposal of dog droppings on refuge public use concentration areas such as trails, sandbars, and boat landings. vii. We prohibit field trials and commercial/professional dog training. 10. We prohibit the construction of permanent hunting blinds (see § 27.92 of this chapter). You may use natural material for seasonal blinds, with restrictions. You may gather grasses and marsh vegetation from the refuge for blind-building materials; however, Phragmites (giant cane) may not be cut or brought onto the refuge. You may not gather, bring onto the refuge, or use for blind building tree(s) or other plant parts, including dead wood on the ground, greater than 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter. We prohibit constructing hunting blinds from rocks placed for shoreline protection (rip rap). You may leave only seasonal blinds made entirely of natural vegetation and biodegradable twines on the refuge. We consider all such blinds public property and open to use by any person on a first-come-first-served basis. You may use manmade material for temporary blinds, with restrictions. You may not use lumber, pipe, posts, or timbers greater than 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter. At the end of each day's hunt, you must remove all manmade blind materials, including boat blinds. Any blinds containing manmade materials left on the refuge are subject to immediate removal and disposal. Manmade materials include, but are not limited to, wooden pallets, metal fence posts, wire, nails, staples, netting, or tarps (see §§ 27.93 and 27.94 of this chapter). 11. We will phase out the construction and use of permanent hunting blinds for waterfowl hunting within the Savanna District of the refuge. We will no longer allow permanent blinds on the refuge in Pool 12 beginning with the 2007-2008 waterfowl hunting season, Pool 14 after the 2007-2008 season, and Pool 13 after the 2008-2009 season. The following regulations apply for phase out of permanent hunting blinds: i. All permanent blinds must have the current name, address, and telephone number of the blind owner, posted no smaller than 3″ x 5″ (7.5 cm x 12.5 cm) inside the blind. ii. The blind's owner must remove from the refuge all blind materials, including old blind materials located within 100 yards (90 m) of the blind, within 30 days of the end of the waterfowl hunting season. iii. After the phase-out year of permanent blinds in each pool, refuge hunting blind regulations in Condition A10 will apply, except that we require a 200-yard (180-m) spacing distance between hunting parties on the Illinois portions of the refuge in Pools 12, 13, and 14. 12. You may set up hunting equipment the day of the hunt but must remove it at the end of each day. You may place and leave hunting equipment and decoys on the refuge only from 1 hour before the start of legal shooting hours until 1/2 hour after the close of legal shooting hours. You may not use nails, wire, screws, or bolts to attach a stand to a tree, or hunt from a tree into which a metal object has been driven or screwed for support (see § 32.2(i) and § 27.93 of this chapter). 13. We prohibit the cutting, removing, or damaging of any tree or other vegetation except as allowed for blinds in Condition A10 or by written permit. You may not clear vegetation for shooting lanes or limb trees for tree stands (see § 27.51 of this chapter). 14. We prohibit camping during waterfowl hunting seasons within areas posted “No Entry—Sanctuary,” “Area Closed,” “Area Closed—No Motors,” and “No Hunting Zone” or on any sites not clearly visible from the main commercial navigation channel of the Mississippi River. We define camping as erecting a tent or shelter of natural or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for use, parking of a motor vehicle, or mooring or anchoring of a vessel for the apparent purpose of overnight occupancy, or occupying or leaving personal property, including boats or other craft, at a site anytime between the hours of 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. on any given day. Where we allow camping, you must occupy claimed campsites each night. 15. We prohibit the building or use of warming fires while hunting (see § 27.95 of this chapter). We only allow campfires in conjunction with camping, day-use activities on beaches, or on the ice while ice fishing using only dead wood on the ground, or materials brought onto the refuge such as charcoal or firewood. You must remove any unused firewood brought onto the refuge upon departure due to threat of invasive insects. 16. We prohibit all vehicle use on or across refuge lands at any time except on designated routes of travel or on the ice over navigable waters accessed from boat landings. We prohibit parking beyond vehicle control barriers or on grass or other vegetation. You may not park or operate vehicles in a manner that obstructs or impedes any road, trail, fire lane, boat ramp, access gate, or other facility or in a manner that creates a safety hazard or endangers any person, property, or environmental feature. We may impound any vehicle left parked in violation at the owner's expense (see § 27.31 of this chapter). 17. We require that you keep all refuge lands clean during your period of use or occupancy. At all times you must keep all refuse, trash, and litter contained in bags or other suitable containers and not left scattered on the ground or in the water. You must remove all personal property, refuse, trash, and litter immediately upon vacating a site. We consider animal carcasses and spent shells to be litter (see § 27.94 of this chapter). *B. Upland Game Hunting.* We allow hunting of upland game on areas of the refuge designated by the refuge manager and shown on maps available at refuge offices in accordance with State regulations subject to the following conditions: 1. Condition A1 applies. 2. We prohibit the carrying, possessing, or discharging of firearms (including dog training pistols and dummy launchers), air guns, or any other weapons on the refuge, unless you are a licensed hunter or trapper engaged in authorized activities during established seasons, in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. We prohibit target practice on the refuge (see §§ 27.42 and 27.43 of this chapter). 3. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Entry—Sanctuary,” we prohibit entry and upland game hunting at all times. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Entry—Sanctuary October 1 to end of state duck hunting season,” we allow upland game hunting beginning the day after the respective State duck hunting season until upland game season closure or March 15, whichever comes first, except we allow spring turkey hunting during State seasons. We describe these areas more fully in Condition A2. 4. In areas posted and shown on maps as “Area Closed” and “Area Closed—No Motors,” we allow upland game hunting beginning the day after the respective State duck hunting season until upland game season closure or March 15, whichever comes first, except we allow spring turkey hunting during State seasons. We ask that you practice voluntary avoidance of these areas by any means or for any purpose from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. In areas also marked “Area Closed—No Motors,” we prohibit the use of motors on watercraft from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. We describe these areas more fully in Condition A3. 5. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Hunting Zone” or “No Hunting or Trapping Zone,” we prohibit upland game hunting at all times. You must unload and encase firearms in these areas. We describe these areas more fully in Condition A4. 6. We prohibit hunting of upland game within 50 yards (45 m) of the Great River Trail at Thomson Prairie, within 150 yards (135 m) of the Great River Trail at Mesquaki Lake, and within 400 yards (360 m) of the Potter's Marsh Managed Hunt area, all in or near Pool 13, Illinois. 7. You may only use or possess approved nontoxic shot shells while in the field, including shot shells used for hunting wild turkey (see § 32.2(k)). 8. We prohibit the shining of a light to locate any animal on the refuge except at the point of kill for species specified in respective State night or artificial light hunting regulations (see § 27.73 of this chapter). You may use lights to find your way. We prohibit the distribution of bait or feed, the hunting over bait or feed, and the use or possession of any drug on any arrow for bow hunting (see § 32.2(g) and (h)). You must comply with all other hunt method regulations of the respective State on the refuge. 9. Conditions A6, A9, A10, and A12 through A17 apply. *C. Big Game Hunting.* We allow hunting of big game on areas of the refuge designated by the refuge manager and shown on maps available at refuge offices in accordance with State regulations subject to the following conditions: 1. Conditions A1 and B2 apply. 2. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Entry—Sanctuary,” we prohibit entry and big game hunting at all times. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Entry—Sanctuary October 1 to end of state duck hunting season,” we allow big game hunting beginning the day after the respective State duck hunting season until big game season closure or March 15, whichever comes first. We describe these areas more fully in Condition A2. 3. In areas posted and shown on maps as “Area Closed” and “Area Closed—No Motors” we allow big game hunting beginning the day after the respective State duck hunting season until big game season closure or March 15, whichever comes first. We ask that you practice voluntary avoidance of these areas by any means or for any purpose from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. In areas also marked “Area Closed—No Motors,” we prohibit the use of motors on watercraft from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. These areas are described more fully in Condition A3. 4. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Hunting Zone” or “No Hunting or Trapping Zone,” we prohibit big game hunting at all times. You must unload and encase firearms in these areas. We describe these areas more fully in Condition A4. 5. We prohibit hunting of big game within 50 yards (45 m) of the Great River Trail at Thomson Prairie, within 150 yards (135 m) of the Great River Trail at Mesquaki Lake, and within 400 yards (360 m) of the Potter's Marsh Managed Hunt area, all in or near Pool 13, Illinois. 6. Conditions A6, A9, A10, A12 through A17, and B7 apply. *D. Sport Fishing.* We allow fishing on areas of the refuge designated by the refuge manager and shown on refuge maps available at refuge offices in accordance with State regulations subject to the following conditions: 1. In the Bertrom Island “No Entry—Sanctuary” area, Pool 11, Wisconsin we prohibit entry and fishing at all times. 2. In the Spring Lake “Area Closed” area, Pool 13, Illinois, we prohibit fishing from October 1 until the day after the close of the State duck hunting season. 3. In areas posted and shown on maps as “Area Closed” and “Area Closed—No Motors,” we allow fishing; however, we ask that you practice voluntary avoidance of these areas by any means or for any purpose from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. In areas also marked “Area Closed—No Motors,” we prohibit the use of motors on watercraft from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. We describe these areas more fully in Condition A3. 4. On Mertes Slough, Pool 5, Wisconsin, we allow only hand-powered boats or boats with electric motors. 5. For the purpose of determining length limits, slot limits, and daily creel limits, the impounded areas of Spring Lake, Duckfoot Marsh, and Pleasant Creek in Pool 13, Illinois, are part of the Mississippi River site-specific State regulations. 6. Conditions A10, and A13 through A17 apply. 5. Amend § 32.69 Wisconsin by revising Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge to read as follows: § 32.69 Wisconsin. Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Refer to § 32.42 Minnesota for regulations. Dated: June 19, 2007. David M. Verhey, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E7-12514 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 [Docket No. 070613193-7194-01; I.D. 121903C] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Finding on Whether to List Eastern Oyster as a Threatened or Endangered Species AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a listing determination and availability of a status review document. SUMMARY: The eastern oyster biological review team

(BRT)has prepared an Endangered Species Act

(ESA)status review report for the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and submitted it to NMFS. After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information, we

(NMFS)have determined that listing the eastern oyster as threatened or endangered under the ESA is not warranted at this time. DATES: This finding is effective on June 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: The eastern oyster status review report and list of references are available by submitting a request to the Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The status review report and other reference materials regarding this determination can also be obtained via the Internet at: *http://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/CandidateSpeciesProgram/index.html* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Damon-Randall, NMFS, Northeast Region

(978)281-9300 x6535 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources

(301)713-1401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 11, 2005, we received a petition from Mr. Wolf-Dieter Busch (the petitioner), Ecosystem Initiatives Advisory Services, to list eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) as threatened or endangered under the ESA. After reviewing the information contained in the petition and that which was readily available to us, we determined that there was sufficient information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. On May 18, 2005, we published a positive 90-day finding in the **Federal Register** , which initiated the status review process. On October 19, 2005, we received a letter from the petitioner dated October 13, 2005, requesting the recall of the eastern oyster petition. In his letter, the petitioner indicated that his request to withdraw the petition was due to the public and industry's confusion over the petition and listing process. He noted the significant concerns of some that the species may be listed as endangered and thereby, create severe restrictions and regulations for this resource. He also expressed concern that, given the timeline of the review, NMFS may not have enough information to determine if eastern oyster subspecies exist. He concluded that he hoped that we would continue with the review as he considers the status review report to be a comprehensive resource which will be of great value in focusing restoration activities for this resource. We accepted this request and as a result, ceased the evaluation of the petition. However, a considerable amount of effort had been expended by the BRT at the point at which the withdrawal of the petition occurred. Also, the completed status review report is the most timely and comprehensive resource document for this species. As such, we determined that because the report is a useful tool in guiding future management decisions, the BRT would complete its report. We also decided to complete our evaluation of the status of the species under the ESA as stated in the **Federal Register** notice announcing the 90-day finding on the petition (70 FR 28510). As part of the full evaluation of the status of the species under the ESA, we requested that the Center for Independent Experts provide three independent consultants to serve as peer reviewers. These reviewers were tasked with reading and reviewing the status review report and providing a written summary of their comments. Specifically, they were asked to address the following (at a minimum):

(1)Are species and/or subspecies delineations supported by the information presented?;

(2)Does the report include and cite the best scientific and commercial information available on the species and threats to it and its habitat?;

(3)Are the scientific conclusions sound and derived logically from the results?;

(4)Where available, are opposing scientific studies or theories acknowledged and discussed? The peer reviewers completed their task in October 2006 and specifically found that the status review report contained the best scientific and commercial information available. Biology and Life History of the Eastern Oyster The eastern oyster occurs naturally in a great diversity of habitats along the western Atlantic Ocean from the Canadian Maritime Provinces to the Gulf of Mexico, Panama, and the Caribbean Islands (Carlton and Mann, 1996; Abbott, 1974; MacKenzie, 1997a; Jenkins *et al.* , 1997; FAO, 1978). The eastern oyster has been transplanted outside of its natural range and now may be found in western Canada, western United States, western Mexico, Hawaii, Fiji, Tonga, Japan, Mauritius-Indian Ocean, and possibly England (Ruesink *et al.* , 2005). The eastern oyster is protandric, as individuals first mature as males then typically change to female later in life, and there is also evidence suggesting that the process is reversible later in life (Thompson *et al.* , 1996). Oysters may change sex in response to environmental, nutritional, and/or physiological stresses, or sex determination may be influenced by the sex and proximity of nearby oysters (Tranter, 1958, cited by Thompson *et al.* , 1996; Bahr and Hillman, 1967; Davis and Hillman, 1971; Ford *et al.* , 1990; Needler, 1932; Burkenroad, 1931; Smith, 1949; and Menzel, 1951, all cited by Thompson *et al.* , 1996). Estimates of fecundity range from 2 to 115 million eggs per female, depending on size and geographic location (Galtsoff, 1930, 1964; Davis and Chanley, 1956; Cox, 1988; Cox and Mann, 1992; all cited in Thompson *et al.* , 1996). Spawning is initiated by a combination of factors including water temperature, salinity, and physiochemical interactions (Galtsoff, 1964; and Loosanoff, 1953, cited by Berrigan *et al.* , 1991; Hayes and Menzel, 1981; Hofstetter, 1977, 1983). Spawning is seasonal (summer) throughout the mid- to northern Atlantic portions of the species' range. In southern waters, spawning occurs in all but the coldest months (Berrigan *et al.* , 1991). Conditions generally required for spawning include water temperatures at or above 20 C and salinity higher than 10 parts per thousand (ppt). After fertilization, oysters develop through several free-swimming larval stages before attaching to a hard substrate and becoming sessile. The mechanisms for larval dispersal and recruitment are still unclear (Epifanio, 1988). Larval dispersal is generally explained by “passive” transport induced by physical factors, by an “active” process involving larval swimming, or by a combination of both (Deskshenieks *et al.* , 1996). The first larval stage (trochophore) is formed 4 to 6 hours following fertilization and lasts approximately 1 to 2 days. The trochophore larva does not feed, but subsequent larval stages (veliger) are planktotrophic, feeding on small plants and animals (Kennedy, 1996). Veliger stages, lasting up to 2 months (Hopkins, 1931), include several morphological changes to the larvae resulting in fully developed larvae possessing a well-developed foot. As oyster larvae become competent to settle they must locate a suitable substrate upon which to attach. Larvae may exhibit exploratory behavior in locating a suitable substrate upon which to settle (Burke, 1983, as cited in Kennedy, 1996). Both environmental and internal cues are used in determining when and where veliger larvae will settle (Kennedy, 1996). Settlement is a behavioral response that can be repeated or reversed and is followed by metamorphosis, which results in morphological changes and is permanent (Kennedy, 1996). There is evidence that suggests metamorphosis is triggered by salinity and by chemicals given off by live oysters and bio-films on other suitable substrates (Hidu and Haskin, 1971; Keck *et al.* , 1971; Kennedy, 1996). Temperature, salinity, and food availability greatly influence oyster growth, and, therefore, growth rates vary seasonally, with maximum growth occurring during the summer and fall. Eastern oysters have been reported to survive freezing temperatures in shallow-water habitats and after being exposed to temperatures in excess of 45° C in intertidal areas (Galtsoff, 1964; Shumway, 1996). However, exposures to temperatures above approximately 35° C will adversely affect pumping rate and thereby, feeding (Loosanoff, 1958; and Galtsoff, 1928, as cited by Shumway, 1996). Oysters can tolerate salinities from 0 to 42 ppt, although growth rates are affected by lower salinities (Quast *et al.* , 1988; Shumway, 1996). Oysters are filter feeders, feeding primarily on phytoplankton and suspended detritus (Langdon and Newell, 1996). *Crassostrea virginica* are capable of adjusting feeding rates depending on the size, type, and composition of the available food source (Baldwin, 1995; Baldwin and Newell, 1995a, 1995b, as cited in Kennedy, 1996). The eastern oyster plays an important ecological role in the environment in which it inhabits. Self sustaining oyster populations form reefs that:

(1)contribute to trophic dynamics by promoting species diversity;

(2)provide structural integrity that supports community stability, enhances habitat values, and affects water circulation and flow patterns; and

(3)perform ecological services which improve water quality and recycle nutrients. Abundance Abundance of the eastern oyster is known to have varied or declined in many estuaries in which it was previously known to be abundant. In some estuaries, abundance has declined due to one or more of the stressors discussed below. Some populations have declined dramatically (e.g., the Hudson-Raritan Estuary). However, even in these locations, with effort, oysters can be found. The eastern oyster can be found as isolated individuals or clusters even in unlikely urbanized places, such as the Hackensack River, Arthur Kill, Harlem River, East River and the Bronx River (Steimle, 2005). However, these isolated survivors may currently exist at the thinnest of margins even though habitat quality has measurably improved and is currently suitable for good growth, as evidenced by oyster culturist results in this estuary complex. The persistence of oysters in isolated areas at low abundance for perhaps decades, is not uncommon. Some local populations are now too widely dispersed to support enough successful spawning-fertilization and recruitment for natural repopulation (Pers. Comm. Luckenbach, 2005). The low abundance situation of the Hudson-Raritan area may exist in other urbanized estuaries where oyster population surveys have not been done for decades. Some shellfish surveys were conducted without proper oyster sampling gear and focus because the oyster was not considered part of a useful or manageable fishery resource any more. Also, local management agencies may not want to publicize the existence of oysters in some areas to avoid potential public health consequences because of bacterially contaminated water. According to the BRT, the notable decline of the oyster abundance distributions from estimated historic abundance distribution levels seems to be most prevalent in the more urbanized northeast, e.g., Chesapeake Bay, the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, southern Long Island NY, and some New England estuaries. However, most of the data to document this decline comes from fishery-dependent sources, which is somewhat controlled by socio-economic, not ecological, factors (MacKenzie, 1996). This information base may not present an accurate picture of the abundance and status of oyster populations in many areas. Based upon numerous southern Atlantic/Gulf Coast state reports, the oyster distribution abundances south of Chesapeake Bay seem relatively stable, despite occasional major disturbances, such as hurricanes (Marsh, 2004; Perret, 2005). Consideration as a “Species” Under the ESA Under the ESA, the term “species” refers to “a species, subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” Distinct population segments of the eastern oyster cannot be listed under the ESA because it is an invertebrate. The term “subspecies,” while identified as a term in the ESA's definition of “species,” is not itself defined in the ESA. As a matter of science, however, subspecies delineations may rely on discernable morphological, behavioral, genetic, or physiological differences. Due to extreme morphological plasticity, *C. virginica* has not yet been examined with the goal of identifying morphological differences between populations. However, in 1951, Loosanoff and Nomejko recognized the existence of physiological races along the latitudinal range of *C. virginica* . Since that time, most physiological differences have been found to be related to differences in environmental conditions. Whether additional physiological or morphological studies would be informative is questionable, as any differences between Gulf and Atlantic populations are more likely to be due to local environmental conditions rather than genetic differences (Gaffney, 1996). Populations of *C. virginica* were initially found to be homogenous in allozyme frequencies across a large portion of the species range. An early allozyme study by Buroker

(1983)provided evidence of a uniform population from Cape Cod to Corpus Christi using 32 allozyme loci which exhibited estimated genetic similarities among populations of 99 percent. Several recent genetic studies have been undertaken to better understand the population structure of *C. virginica* , and these studies have found strong patterns of differentiation on the basis of different sequencing data. Studies indicate two separate populations, one within the Atlantic region and one within the Gulf of Mexico, with an intermediate zone between these populations found on the eastern coast of Florida in the general area of Cape Canaveral. *Crassostrea virginica* is not the only western Atlantic species with a notable genetic transition from the temperate Atlantic to subtropical Gulf regions. Similar genetic patterns of population subdivision between Atlantic and Gulf populations can be found in a wide variety of coastal and marine species (Avise, 1992; 2000). Also, a genetically distinct population of *C. virginica* was found in the Laguna Madre area of Texas by different studies that have included samples from this general area (Groue and Lester, 1982; Buroker, 1983; Hedgecock and Okazaki, 1984; King *et al.* , 1994). Genetic differentiation of the Laguna Madre eastern oyster population may be due to adaptation to hypersaline conditions (up to 35 ppt) created by low levels of precipitation and lack of river inflow, as well as selection or genetic drift due to isolation from oyster populations further north (King *et al.* , 1994). Although the aforementioned studies indicate Atlantic/Gulf population structure, other studies have agreed with Buroker's conclusion of a panmictic population. MacDonald *et al.*

(1996)found a lack of genetic structure among six anonymous nuclear DNA loci from oysters in Panacea, FL, and Charleston, SC. In 1998, Hare and Avise

(1992)looked at oysters from Massachusetts to Louisiana and found no population structure at three nuclear loci. Each peer reviewer was individually asked whether species/subspecies delineations existed for the eastern oyster as a matter of scientific fact. Two of the three felt that the existing information was not sufficient to definitively establish eastern oyster subspecies. The remaining reviewer felt that the available genetic information indicates that the Gulf and Atlantic populations of eastern oyster are “at a stage of incipient speciation and should probably be considered subspecies.” The peer reviewers and the members of the BRT all agree that it is difficult to define and delineate subspecies under normal scientific definitions of the terms. In summation, subspecies delineations often rely on discernable morphological, behavioral, or physiological differences. However, these differences are not readily apparent in an invertebrate species such as the eastern oyster. Thus, a subspecies delineation for the eastern oyster would have to rely predominantly on the available genetic data, which have provided mixed results. Because the data needed to support a subspecies delineation are inconclusive, we examined the listing potential for the eastern oyster both as a separate subspecies and as a single biological unit. Ultimately, we determined that in either case, the species/subspecies determination would not impact or alter the final listing determination. Accordingly, we note the genetic differences but do not make a subspecies delineation based on the present facts. Species/Subspecies Status The process for determining whether a species (as defined above) should be listed is based upon the best available scientific and commercial information. We must list a species if it is endangered or threatened because of any of the following ESA section 4(a)(1) factors:

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

(b)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(c)disease or predation;

(d)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

(e)other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the species. These factors are considered in the following sections. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range There are few data available regarding historic and current oyster reef acreage estimates, and available fisheries dependent and independent data are limited. In order to gather additional data to assess the status of the species, the BRT conducted a telephone survey of state resource managers and oyster experts. Respondents were asked to provide the following information for each estuary within their region/area: historic and current oyster acreage estimates; harvest rates and regulations; the sustainability of oyster populations with and without restoration; recruitment; and the primary stressors facing oyster populations. The survey indicated that the eastern oyster is widely distributed throughout its range and is currently present in all but one of the 71 estuaries represented. This wide distribution is beneficial in many ways in that it provides evidence of the species' resiliency and adaptability and makes the species less susceptible to extinction from a localized catastrophic event (e.g., a hurricane or oil spill). We, therefore, concluded that the one estuary without oysters, the upper Laguna Madre region, does not represent a large portion of the vast geographic range of the species/subspecies and is considered minor in terms of the biological significance to the species or hypothetical subspecies. The BRT reported that the eastern oyster displays a wide range of survival strategies as it is both a colonizer and an ecosystem engineer and has high reproductive potential. The species' ability to adapt to a wide range of environmental conditions (e.g., tolerance for low dissolved oxygen and wide ranges in salinity and temperature) makes it resilient. The eastern oyster inhabits a naturally-variable environment, and evidence suggests that past local extirpations and colonizations have been common over geological time. Crassostrea virginica is broadly distributed in the western North Atlantic, and its distribution has not changed as threats have increased over time. This is significant because range contraction is often used as an indicator of a problem in many widely distributed marine species. While separating the species into the two potential subspecies reduces the range of each of the subspecies (as compared to the full species), Atlantic and Gulf Coast oyster populations are still widespread, occupying areas from Maine to eastern Florida and western Florida to Texas, respectively. Based on the available data, we concluded that oyster abundance throughout these areas is sufficient to sustain these populations and prevent extinction. While the survey indicated some habitat within the range of the eastern oyster has been degraded or lost, we were able to conclude based upon the available information, including the survey, that the species' ability to adapt to various environmental conditions and its vast geographic range results in habitat degradation being a minimal threat that will not affect the species/subspecies' continued existence. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes Information from the survey indicated that oyster harvests are at or near recent record low levels along the majority of the U.S. Atlantic coast; however, responding resource managers and independent experts considered overutilization (overharvesting) to currently be a minor threat to oyster populations. According to the BRT, areas along the Atlantic coast south of Cape Lookout and through the Gulf of Mexico appear to have avoided some of the extremely heavy historic utilization experienced by the area from Pamlico Sound to Long Island Sound. Harvest parameters in the Gulf of Mexico are currently less restrictive than those in the mid-Atlantic area, but oyster populations there appear to be effectively managed and monitored so that harvest impacts are not substantial (Marsh, 2004). Eastern oyster resources from Pamlico Sound to Long Island Sound appear to have suffered from long-term overutilization. State managers in this region have attempted to protect public oyster stocks by conducting stock assessments, setting conservative harvest quotas, lowering daily catch limits, limiting harmful gear use, and reducing harvest seasons. Attempts to restore oyster populations and rebuild the resource through general cultch planting, reef rebuilding, and oyster sanctuaries/reserves are also becoming common management tools in this region. In the survey, overharvesting is listed as occurring only in seven estuaries out of the 71 estuaries assessed. These seven estuaries represent a limited portion of the large geographic range of the species/subspecies, and overutilization in these areas represents a localized issue. Recreational harvest and harvest for scientific purposes were not identified as significant stressors to the eastern oyster. Long-term overutilization in many areas of the eastern oyster's range was a significant contributing factor to the species' historical decline. However, survey respondents no longer consider this to be a significant threat to the eastern oyster in the majority of the species/subspecies' range. Thus, we conclude that overutilization is not a significant ongoing threat that affects the continued existence of the eastern oyster species/subspecies. Disease or Predation There are several predators on various life stages of the eastern oyster, including boring sponges and clams, mud worms, carnivorous gastropods, ctenophores, and a number of fish species. However, most of these predators exist as natural associations in the oyster reef community and, in general, most oysters in the population survive. Thus, these associations do not seem to be having an effect at the population level. The eastern oyster is affected primarily by two diseases - DERMO (a parasitic disease caused by the protozoan Perkinsus marinus) (Levine, 1978 = *Dermocystidium marinum* ; Mackin *et al.* , 1950 = *Layirinthomyxa marina* ; Quick and Mackin, 1971) and MSX (another parasitic disease caused by the protozoan *Haplosporidium nelsoni* )(Haskin *et al.* , 1966). The BRT reported that both of these diseases are capable of causing significant oyster mortalities. However, oysters infected by DERMO have the opportunity to spawn the first summer, and others may be able to spawn a second or third time before succumbing to an infection. With MSX, the salinity must be above 15 ppt to sustain an infection. Thus, infections during drought years are more prevalent. As drought conditions wane, survivors and their progeny may reproduce to re-establish oyster populations. During the wetter years that occurred during the 1970s, there was significant recovery of oyster populations that had been devastated during the 1950-1960 MSX epizootic in both Delaware and Chesapeake Bays. Oyster recovery management programs have concentrated on moderate to lower salinity areas that are less likely to support the development of oyster diseases. Research has been ongoing for several years to develop oysters that are disease tolerant. Also, resource managers help to control the spread of DERMO by controlling/preventing the transplantation of infected oysters to areas not currently infected by the disease. Based on the available information, we conclude that while both predation and disease may have effects on localized populations, impacts to the entire species/subspecies vary both spatially and temporally, allowing some affected populations to recover and sustain the species/subspecies. Thus, we conclude that neither disease nor predation are significant threats that affect the continued existence of the eastern oyster species/subspecies. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The BRT indicated that regulatory mechanisms for eastern oyster are most logically defined as habitat resource protection (preventative measures), fishery-specific, and conservation/replenishment based. The eastern oyster is not a federally managed species. As such, each state is responsible for controlling harvest, protecting habitat, and conserving or replenishing oyster populations. This results in many different types of regulations to protect oysters throughout their range. Habitat measures are those defined at the Federal, state, or local level designed to protect aquatic resources (including benthic reef habitat and water quality) from various direct or indirect development impacts (e.g., impacts of channel dredging, onshore development, point-source runoff, etc.). Harvest measures are those intended to control or regulate the commercial or recreational catch of the species, and may or may not be resource conservation based. Conservation/replenishment measures are those intended to ensure the continuance of the fishery or habitat resource through various measures including setting aside no-harvest areas, requiring culling of shell during harvest, setting up programs to return shells from harvested product back to reef areas, or natural seed movement programs intended to support either habitat or fishery restoration. State shellfish control agencies are responsible for managing shellfish harvesting areas for public health protection, which may result in permanent or temporary closures due to the presence of toxic algal blooms, elevated fecal coliforms and/or Vibrio spp., or chemical contamination. According to the Environmental Protection Agency ( *http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/es-condition.html* ), shellfishing was prohibited from 3 percent (3,660,000 acres, or 1,481,149 hectares) of the classified shellfish areas in the estuaries in the mid-Atlantic in 2006, restricted in 5 percent (179,000 acres, or 72,438 hectares), and conditionally closed in 2 percent (67,000 acres, or 27,113 hectares). Similar closures occur in the Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf of Mexico, varying spatially and temporally. These restrictions may have the ancillary benefit of protecting some populations in chronically contaminated areas from harvest. Restoration and enhancement efforts for fisheries and conservation are occurring throughout the species' range, but are more common in the north and mid-Atlantic. According to the survey responses, in estuaries where restoration and enhancement efforts are occurring they are considered necessary to sustain populations in roughly half the estuaries in the mid- and south Atlantic regions (presumably, to support commercially viable populations). In the North Atlantic (specifically, Connecticut and Rhode Island) and the Gulf of Mexico, restoration and enhancement efforts are not necessary to sustain biologically viable populations but are considered important to maintaining a fishery and conserving ecosystem services. Many restoration efforts throughout the species' range have been ongoing for many years and have proven successful in maintaining oyster populations. Due to the longevity and success of many of these efforts, they are expected to continue into the future. Consequently, measures to regulate the eastern oyster have been determined to be adequate. Thus, we conclude that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is not a significant threat that affects the continued existence of the eastern oyster species/subspecies. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence of the Species Finally, hurricanes, harmful algal blooms, and non-native introductions have been identified as other possible factors affecting the eastern oyster throughout its range. However, none of these stressors are thought to have a significant impact throughout all or a significant portion of the range of either the eastern oyster species or hypothetical subspecies. Thus, we conclude that there are no other natural or manmade factors considered to be significant threats that affect the continued existence of the eastern oyster species/subspecies. Summary and Synthesis of Analysis of the Factors Identified in ESA Section 4(a)(1) While eastern oyster abundance has declined from historic highs, especially in the northern portion of the species' range, the eastern oyster is still present in all areas throughout its historic distribution. According to the survey results, even at the low abundance levels in some areas, recruitment is sufficient to maintain the viability of eastern oyster populations throughout the species' range except in a portion of the mid-Atlantic (e.g., Long Island Sound, Peconic Bay, Hudson Raritan Estuary). This area represents a small portion of the large geographic range of the species and/or hypothetical subspecies and would not be expected to significantly impact or impede larval transport and exchange to and from more productive areas to the north or south. The area also represents a minor percentage of the overall potential oyster biomass and of the total spawning potential of the species/hypothetical subspecies. We conclude that recruitment in other portions of the range is more than sufficient to maintain the continued existence of the species and/or hypothetical subspecies. In all cases, the analysis of all five factors indicate that the continued existence of the species or hypothetical subspecies is not at risk now or in the foreseeable future. While threats that may be significant at a regional or local level to the species exist, we do not consider any to be overwhelmingly dominant or advancing at a significant rate which would result in the species or hypothetical subspecies becoming threatened or endangered. Listing Determination The ESA defines an endangered species as any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species as any species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the listing determination be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, that are being made to protect such species. After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information for the eastern oyster, we have determined that neither the species nor the potential subspecies warrants listing as threatened or endangered at this time. While listing the species or hypothetical subspecies under the ESA is not warranted at this time, the BRT and the peer reviewers identified specific research and/or monitoring needs that are considered very important to the long-term conservation and preservation of the eastern oyster. These include the following: fishery independent surveys (quantitative stock assessments for the entire range); effective population size estimates; monitoring of the effectiveness of conservation/restoration efforts; additional genetic analyses to determine population structure with a focus on local or regional adaptations; research on proximity-recruitment relationship; research on effects of combined and chronic stresses including changes due to climate change; continued research on disease susceptibility and development of selectively bred disease tolerant strains; emerging role of endocrine disrupting pollutants; delineation of oyster habitat; compatibility of existing information; continued ecological risk associated with other oyster or other alien species introductions; control and abatement of threats from all sources; development of a standard monitoring protocol on a local or regional level; and research on the effects of changes in coastal development and demographics. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: June 22, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-12564 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 229 [Docket No. 070417093-7109-01] RIN 0648-AV54 List of Fisheries for 2008 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)is publishing its proposed List of Fisheries

(LOF)for 2008, as required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The proposed LOF for 2008 reflects new information on interactions between commercial fisheries and marine mammals. NMFS must categorize each commercial fishery on the LOF into one of three categories under the MMPA based upon the level of serious injury and mortality of marine mammals that occurs incidental to each fishery. The categorization of a fishery in the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery are subject to certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan requirements. DATES: Comments must be received by August 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Attn: List of Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to *2008LOF.comments@noaa.gov* , via fax to 301-427-2522, or to the Federal eRulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* (follow instructions for submitting comments). Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates, or any other aspect of the collection of information requirements contained in this proposed rule, should be submitted in writing to Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or to David Rostker, OMB, by fax to 202-395-7285 or by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIO N for a listing of all Regional offices. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Andersen, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322; David Gouveia, Northeast Region, 978-281-9328; Nancy Young, Southeast Region, 727-551-5607; Elizabeth Petras, Southwest Region, 562-980-3238; Brent Norberg, Northwest Region, 206-526-6733; Bridget Mansfield, Alaska Region, 907-586-7642; Lisa Van Atta, Pacific Islands Region, 808-944-2257. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the hearing impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability of Published Materials Information regarding the LOF and the Marine Mammal Authorization Program, including registration procedures and forms, current and past LOFs, observer requirements, and marine mammal injury/mortality reporting forms and submittal procedures, may be obtained at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/mmap* , or from any NMFS Regional Office at the addresses listed below. Regional Offices NMFS, Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, Attn: Marcia Hobbs; NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13 th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: Teletha Mincey; NMFS, Southwest Region, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, Attn: Lyle Enriquez; NMFS, Northwest Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, Attn: Permits Office; NMFS, Alaska Region, Protected Resources, P.O. Box 22668, 709 West 9 th Street, Juneau, AK 99802; or NMFS, Pacific Islands Region, Protected Resources, 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1100, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700. What is the List of Fisheries? Section 118 of the MMPA requires NMFS to place all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the level of incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals occurring in each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(1)). The categorization of a fishery in the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery may be required to comply with certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan requirements. NMFS must reexamine the LOF annually, considering new information in the Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports

(SAR)and other relevant sources, and publish in the **Federal Register** any necessary changes to the LOF after notice and opportunity for public comment (16 U.S.C. 1387 (c)(1)(C)). How Does NMFS Determine in which Category a Fishery is Placed? The definitions for the fishery classification criteria can be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2). The criteria are also summarized here. Fishery Classification Criteria The fishery classification criteria consist of a two-tiered, stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock, and then addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each stock. This approach is based on consideration of the rate, in numbers of animals per year, of incidental mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals due to commercial fishing operations relative to the potential biological removal

(PBR)level for each marine mammal stock. The MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362 (20)) defines the PBR level as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. This definition can also be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2). *Tier 1:* If the total annual mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock, across all fisheries, is less than or equal to 10 percent of the PBR level of the stock, all fisheries interacting with the stock would be placed in Category III (unless those fisheries interact with other stock(s) in which total annual mortality and serious injury is greater than 10 percent of PBR). Otherwise, these fisheries are subject to the next tier (Tier 2) of analysis to determine their classification. *Tier 2, Category I:* Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the PBR level. *Tier 2, Category II:* Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent of the PBR level. *Tier 2, Category III:* Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent of the PBR level. While Tier 1 considers the cumulative fishery mortality and serious injury for a particular stock, Tier 2 considers fishery-specific mortality and serious injury for a particular stock. Additional details regarding how the categories were determined are provided in the preamble to the proposed rule implementing section 118 of the MMPA (60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995). Since fisheries are categorized on a per-stock basis, a fishery may qualify as one Category for one marine mammal stock and another Category for a different marine mammal stock. A fishery is typically categorized on the LOF at its highest level of classification (e.g., a fishery qualifying for Category III for one marine mammal stock and for Category II for another marine mammal stock will be listed under Category II). Other Criteria That May Be Considered In the absence of reliable information indicating the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals by a commercial fishery, NMFS will determine whether the incidental serious injury or mortality qualifies for Category II by evaluating other factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (50 CFR 229.2). How Does NMFS Determine which Species or Stocks are Included as Incidentally Killed or Seriously Injured in a Fishery? The LOF includes a list of marine mammal species or stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured in each commercial fishery, based on the level of serious injury or mortality in each fishery relative to the PBR level for each stock. To determine which species or stocks are included as incidentally killed or seriously injured in a fishery, NMFS annually reviews the information presented in the current SARs. The SARs are based upon the best available scientific information and provide the most current and inclusive information on each stock's PBR level and level of mortality or serious injury incidental to commercial fishing operations. NMFS also reviews other sources of new information, including observer data, stranding data and fisher self-reports. In the absence of reliable information on the level of mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal stock, or insufficient observer data, NMFS will determine whether a species or stock should be added to, or deleted from, the list by considering other factors such as: changes in gear types used, increases or decreases in fishing effort, increases or decreases in the level of observer coverage, and/or changes in fishery management that are expected to lead to decreases in interactions with a given marine mammal stock (such as a Fishery Management Plan or a Take Reduction Plan). NMFS will provide case specific justification in the LOF for changes to the list of species or stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured. How do I Determine the Level of Observer Coverage in a Fishery? Data obtained from observers and the level of observer coverage are important tools in estimating the level of marine mammal mortality and serious injury in commercial fishing operations. The best available information on the level of observer coverage, and the spatial and temporal distribution of observed marine mammal interactions, is presented in the SARs. Starting with the 2005 SARs, each SAR includes an appendix with detailed descriptions of each Category I and II fishery in the LOF. The SARs generally do not provide detailed information on observer coverage in Category III fisheries because under the MMPA Category III fisheries are not required to accommodate observers aboard vessels due to the remote likelihood of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Information presented in the SARs' appendices include: level of observer coverage, target species, levels of fishing effort, spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort, gear characteristics, management and regulations, and interactions with marine mammals. NMFS refers readers to the SARs for the most current information on the level of observer coverage for each fishery. Copies of the SARs are available on the NMFS Office of Protected Resource's Web site at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/* . Additional information on observer coverage in commercial fisheries can be found on the NMFS National Observer Program's Web site: *http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st4/nop/* . How Do I Find Out if a Specific Fishery is in Category I, II, or III? This proposed rule includes two tables that list all U.S. commercial fisheries by LOF Category. Table 1 lists all of the fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska). Table 2 lists all of the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. Are High Seas Fisheries Included in the LOF? Currently, high seas fisheries in which U.S. persons or vessels participate are not included in the LOF. However, NMFS is considering the inclusion of U.S.-authorized high seas fisheries (fisheries operating beyond 200 nmi of U.S. coasts) in future LOFs. At this time, NMFS is gathering available information on the number of vessels permitted and/or actively fishing in U.S.-authorized high seas fisheries, gear types used, and marine mammal-fishery interactions data included in documents published under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and MMPA, and from relevant Regional Fishery Management Organizations

(RFMO)and the International Whaling Commission (IWC). NMFS faces significant challenges in accurately categorizing high seas fisheries in the LOF. As discussed under “Fishery Classification Criteria”, fisheries are categorized in the LOF based on the level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammal stocks relevant to the stock's PBR level. PBR levels are calculated based on the stock's abundance using data presented in the SARs, required under section 117 of the MMPA. Section 117 requires NMFS to prepare SARs for marine mammal stocks occurring “in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States”. NMFS does not develop SARs, or PBR levels, for marine mammal stocks on the high seas. As a result, NMFS does not have sufficient information on marine mammal stock abundances or the level of marine mammal-fishery interactions on the high seas to classify high seas fisheries on the LOF at this time. NMFS will continue to explore options for the potential inclusion of high seas fisheries in a future LOF using available information. NMFS will also continue to gather available information on existing U.S.-authorized high seas fisheries, marine mammal stock abundances on the high seas, and levels of marine mammal-fishery interactions on the high seas in order to accurately categorize high seas fisheries for potential inclusion on future LOFs. Am I Required to Register Under the MMPA? Owners of vessels or gear engaging in a Category I or II fishery are required under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(2)), as described in 50 CFR 229.4, to register with NMFS and obtain a marine mammal authorization from NMFS in order to lawfully incidentally take a marine mammal in a commercial fishery. Owners of vessels or gear engaged in a Category III fishery are not required to register with NMFS or obtain a marine mammal authorization. How Do I Register? Vessel or gear owners must register with the Marine Mammal Authorization Program

(MMAP)by contacting the relevant NMFS Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ), unless they participate in a fishery that has an integrated registration program (described below). Upon receipt of a completed registration, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate. The authorization certificate, or a copy, must be on board the vessel while it is operating in a Category I or II fishery, or for non-vessel fisheries, in the possession of the person in charge of the fishing operation (50 CFR 229.4(e)). What is the Process for Registering in an Integrated Fishery? For some fisheries, NMFS has integrated the MMPA registration process with existing state and Federal fishery license, registration, or permit systems. Participants in these fisheries are automatically registered under the MMPA and are not required to submit registration or renewal materials or pay the $25 registration fee. The following section indicates which fisheries are integrated fisheries and has a summary of the integration process for each Region. Vessel or gear owners who operate in an integrated fishery and have not received an authorization certificate by January 1 of each new year or with renewed state fishing licenses (as in Washington and Oregon) must contact their NMFS Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). Although efforts are made to limit the issuance of authorization certificates to only those vessel or gear owners that participate in Category I or II fisheries, not all state and Federal permit systems distinguish between fisheries as classified by the LOF. Therefore, some vessel or gear owners in Category III fisheries may receive authorization certificates even though they are not required for Category III fisheries. Individuals fishing in Category I and II fisheries for which no state or Federal permit is required must register with NMFS by contacting their appropriate Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). Which Fisheries Have Integrated Registration Programs? The following fisheries have integrated registration programs under the MMPA: 1. All Alaska Category II fisheries; 2. All Washington and Oregon Category II fisheries; 3. Northeast Regional fisheries for which a state or Federal permit is required; 4. All Southeast Regional fisheries for which a Federal permit is required, as well as fisheries permitted by the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; and 5. The Hawaii Swordfish, Tuna, Billfish, Mahi Mahi, Wahoo, Oceanic Sharks Longline/Set line Fishery. How Do I Renew My Registration Under the MMPA? Vessel or gear owners that participate in fisheries that have integrated registration programs (described above) are automatically renewed and should receive an authorization certificate by January 1 of each new year, with the exception of Washington and Oregon Category II fisheries. Washington and Oregon fishers receive authorization with each renewed state fishing license, the timing of which varies based on target species. Vessel or gear owners who participate in an integrated fishery and have not received authorization certificates by January 1 or with renewed fishing licenses (Washington and Oregon) must contact the appropriate NMFS Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). Vessel or gear owners that participate in fisheries that do not have integrated registration programs and that have previously registered in a Category I or II fishery will receive a renewal packet from the appropriate NMFS Regional Office at least 30 days prior to January 1 of each new year. It is the responsibility of the vessel or gear owner in these fisheries to complete their renewal form and return it to the appropriate NMFS Regional Office at least 30 days in advance of fishing. Individuals who have not received a renewal packet by January 1 or are registering for the first time must request a registration form from the appropriate Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). Am I Required to Submit Reports When I Injure or Kill a Marine Mammal During the Course of Commercial Fishing Operations? In accordance with the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(e)) and 50 CFR 229.6, any vessel owner or operator, or gear owner or operator (in the case of non-vessel fisheries), participating in a Category I, II, or III fishery must report to NMFS all incidental injuries and mortalities of marine mammals that occur during commercial fishing operations. “Injury” is defined in 50 CFR 229.2 as a wound or other physical harm. In addition, any animal that ingests fishing gear or any animal that is released with fishing gear entangling, trailing, or perforating any part of the body is considered injured, regardless of the presence of any wound or other evidence of injury, and must be reported. Injury/mortality report forms and instructions for submitting forms to NMFS can be downloaded from: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/interactions/mmap_reporting_form.pdf* . Reporting requirements and procedures can be found in 50 CFR 229.6. Am I Required to Take an Observer Aboard My Vessel? Fishers participating in a Category I or II fishery are required to accommodate an observer aboard vessel(s) upon request. Observer requirements can be found in 50 CFR 229.7. Am I Required to Comply With Any Take Reduction Plan Regulations? Fishers participating in a Category I or II fishery are required to comply with any applicable take reduction plans. Take reduction plan requirements can be found at 50 CFR 229.30-34. Sources of Information Reviewed for the Proposed 2008 LOF NMFS reviewed the marine mammal incidental serious injury and mortality information presented in the SARs for all observed fisheries to determine whether changes in fishery classification were warranted. NMFS' SARs are based on the best scientific information available at the time of preparation, including the level of serious injury and mortality of marine mammals that occurs incidental to commercial fisheries and the PBR levels of marine mammal stocks. The information contained in the SARs is reviewed by regional Scientific Review Groups

(SRGs)representing Alaska, the Pacific (including Hawaii), and the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. The SRGs were created by the MMPA to review the science that informs the SARs, and to advise NMFS on population status and trends, stock structure, uncertainties in the science, research needs, and other issues. NMFS also reviewed other sources of new information, including marine mammal stranding data, observer program data, fisher self-reports, and other information that may not be included in the SARs. The proposed LOF for 2008 was based, among other things, on information provided in the final SARs for 1996 (63 FR 60, January 2, 1998), the final SARs for 2001 (67 FR 10671, March 8, 2002), the final SARs for 2002 (68 FR 17920, April 14, 2003), the final SARs for 2003 (69 FR 54262, September 8, 2004), the final SARs for 2004 (70 FR 35397, June 20, 2005), the final SARs for 2005 (71 FR 26340, May 4, 2006), the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 19, 2007), and the draft SARs for 2007. All the SARs are available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/* . Fishery Descriptions Many fisheries on the LOF only partially been described in the LOF, or not at all. While detailed information describing each fishery in the LOF is included in the SARs, within a Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)or Take Reduction Plan (TRP), or by state agencies, general descriptive information is important to include in the LOF for improved clarity. Below, NMFS briefly describes each Category I and II fishery in the proposed LOF for 2008. Fisheries are defined based on the gear and fishing methods, target species, temporal and spatial distribution, and management and regulatory schemes. NMFS refers readers to the SARs for more additional information on Category I and II fisheries. Category I and II Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean HI Swordfish, Tuna, Billfish, Mahi Mahi, Wahoo, Oceanic Sharks Longline/Set Line Fishery The Category I HI longline fishery targets swordfish, tuna, billfish, mahi mahi, wahoo, and oceanic sharks. The basic unit of gear is a 30-40 mi (48-64 km) long mainline made of 0.13-0.16 in (3.2-4.0 mm) diameter monofilament line, with 800-1,000 hooks attached to the mainline. Deployment and retrieval of gear must occur at night. Shallow swordfish sets are required to use size 18/0 circle hooks with a 10-degree offset and mackerel bait. Using squid bait is prohibited. For deep sets, all float lines must be at least 20 m (65.6 ft) long with a minimum of 15 branch lines attached to the mainline between any 2 floats, except for basket-style longline gear that may have as few as 10 branch lines. The use of any light emitting device is prohibited and vessels may not land or possess more than 10 swordfish at any time. The fishery operates over a huge geographic range extending north-south from 40°N. lat. to the equator and east-west from Kure Atoll to as far as 135°W. long. Fishing for swordfish generally occurs north of Hawaii (as much as 2,000 mi (3,219 km) from Honolulu), whereas fishing for tunas occurs primarily around the main Hawaiian Islands and south of the Hawaiian Islands. The fishery operates year-round, with effort generally lower in the third quarter of the year. The HI longline fishery is managed in part under the FMP for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. The shallow-set swordfish component has annual fleetwide limits on interactions with leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles, an annual fleetwide limit of 2,120 shallow sets north of the equator per year, and a requirement for operators to annually participate in a protected species workshop and get a valid protected species certification. Also, regulations mandate 100 percent observer coverage in the shallow-set component of the fishery and at least 20 percent observer coverage in the deep-set component. CA/OR Thresher Shark/Swordfish Drift Gillnet Fishery (≥14 in Mesh) The Category I CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet fishery primarily targets common and pelagic thresher sharks, swordfish, and mako shark using a 1000-fathom (6,000 ft; 1,829 m) gillnet with stretched mesh size from 18-22 in (46-56 cm) with a 14-in (35.6 cm) minimum. Other species caught include: pelagic thresher, bigeye thresher, shortfin mako, blue shark, albacore, other tunas, dorado, groundfish, coastal pelagics, and crab. One end of the net is typically attached to the vessel and is set at dusk and allowed to drift during the night, typically for 12-14 hours. Fishing effort extends from the U.S.-Mexico border north to waters off of Oregon, with the majority of effort occurring from October to December. Oregon restricts landings to swordfish only. This fishery is a limited entry fishery managed under the Pacific Highly Migratory Species

(HMS)FMP and by regulations under the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (POCTRP), including multiple area-season closures and gear restrictions, a requirement for pingers on drift gillnets, a requirement that extenders (buoy lines) be at least 36 ft (11 m) long, and a requirement for vessel captains to attend skipper education workshops. CA Angel Shark/Halibut and Other Species Set Gillnet Fishery (<3.5 in mesh) The Category I CA angel shark/halibut and other species set gillnet fishery targets angel shark and halibut from the U.S.-Mexico border north to Monterey Bay using 200 fathom (1,200 ft; 366 m) gillnet with a stretch mesh size of 8.5 in (31.6 cm). Net soak duration is typically 8-10, 19-24, or 44-49 hours at a depth ranging from 15-50 fathoms (90-300 ft; 27-91 m) with most sets from 15-35 fathoms (90-210 ft; 27-64 m). No more than 1500 fathoms (9,000 ft; 2,743 m) of gill or trammel net may be fished in combination for CA halibut and angel shark. Fishing occurs year-round, with effort generally increasing during summer months and declining during last the 3 months of the year. The central CA portion of the fishery from Point Arguello to Point Reyes has been closed since September, 2002, following a ban on gillnets inshore of 60 fathoms (360 ft; 110 m). Set gill nets have been prohibited in state waters south of Point Arguello and within 70 fathoms (420 ft; 128 m) or one mile (1.6 km), whichever is less, around the Channel Islands since 1990. The California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG)manages the fishery as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions and area closures. CA Yellowtail, Barracuda, and White Seabass Drift Gillnet Fishery (mesh size >3.5 in. and <14 in.) The Category II CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet fishery targets primarily yellowtail and white seabass, and secondarily barracuda, with target species typically determined by market demand on a short-term basis. Drift gillnets are up to 6,000 ft (1,829 m) long and are set at the surface. The mesh size depends on target species and is typically 6.0-6.5 in (15-16.5 cm). When targeting yellowtail and barracuda, the mesh size must be ≥3.5 in (9 cm); when targeting white seabass, the mesh size must be ≥6 in (15.2 cm). From June 16 to March 14 not more than 20 percent, by number, of a load of fish may be white seabass with a total length of 28 in (71 cm). A maximum of ten white seabass per load may be taken, if taken in gillnet or trammel nets with meshes from 3.5-6.0 in (9-15 cm) in length. The fishery operates year-round, primarily south of Point Conception with some effort around San Clemente Island and San Nicolas Island. This fishery is a limited entry fishery with various gear restrictions and area closures managed by the CDFG. Targeting tuna with this type of gear was effectively prohibited in April, 2004, under the Pacific HMS FMP. CA Anchovy, Mackerel, Sardine Purse Seine Fishery The Category II CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine fishery targets wetfish (anchovy, mackerel, and sardine), with the target species primarily driven by availability and market demand. The fishery uses purse seines, drum seines, and lampara nets using standard seining techniques. A typical purse seine net is 185 fathoms (1,110 ft; 338 m) long, 22 fathoms (132 ft; 40 m) deep, and 1,600 meshes deep with each mesh measures 1.25 in (3 cm). The fishery operates year-round predominantly in southern CA (including the Channel Islands) from San Pedro, San Diego, Oceanside, and Dana Point, then north to San Francisco. This fishery is a limited entry fishery, and the mackerel and sardine fisheries are quota fisheries. The fishery is managed in accordance with the Coastal Pelagic Species

(CPS)FMP. CA Tuna Purse Seine Fishery The Category II CA tuna purse seine fishery targets yellowfin, skipjack, and bluefin tuna using purse seine nets similar to those used to target Coastal Pelagic Species (see the description under “CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine fishery”). The fishery operates from May to October south of Point Conception to the U.S.-Mexico border and in the Southern California Bight. The fishery is managed under the Pacific HMS FMP. This fishery is considered an opportunist fishery, meaning that fishers only target tuna when certain oceanographic and market conditions exist to make the fishery viable. Effort in the fishery is highly variable, ranging from zero to ten participants annually over the past several years. CA Squid Purse Seine Fishery The Category II CA squid purse seine fishery targets market squid using several gear types. From 1997-2001, 98 percent of fishermen used purse (77 percent) or drum (21 percent) seine nets. Other types used were lampara, dip, and brail nets. The fishery uses lights (shielded and oriented downward, with a maximum of 30,000 watts) to aggregate spawning squid. The fishery operates year-round with the effort focusing north of Point Conception from April to September and south of Point Conception from October to March. El Nino events cause northern landings to increase, while La Nina events cause southern landings to increase. The fishery is managed by the CDFG and is monitored under the CPS FMP and the Market Squid FMP. Commercial squid purse seine fishing is prohibited year-round from noon on Friday until noon on Sunday to allow a 2-day consecutive uninterrupted period of spawning. All vessels must be permitted and comply with a mandatory logbook program for fishing and lighting. Since 2001, a seasonal harvest guideline is set to limit further expansion of the fishery. CA Pelagic Longline Fishery The Category II CA pelagic longline fishery includes both shallow-set and deep-set gear targeting swordfish and bigeye, albacore, and yellowfin tuna. The fishery operates in waters outside of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)because the Pacific HMS FMP prohibits targeting swordfish with longlines within 200 nmi of shore. In 2004, the CA-based shallow-set longline fishery was closed due to anticipated levels of sea turtle interactions. The following is a general description of the shallow-set fishery as it operated prior to 2004 and the current deep-set longline fishery. Prior to 2004, shallow-set longlines operated year-round primarily targeting swordfish with 15-45 mi (24-72 km) of mainline rigged with 72-ft (22-m) gangions at approximately 197 ft (60 m) intervals. A shallow-set typically has 800-1,300 hooks with large squid or mackerel for bait. Most shallow-set fishing took place at night when swordfish are at the surface, using various colored lightsticks. A shallow-set mainline is deployed for 4-7 hours and left to drift unattached for 7-10 hours. At this time there is no CA-based shallow-set longline fishing due to anticipated levels of sea turtle interactions. Deep-set longlines operate year-round primarily targeting tuna with 4-46.6 mi (7-75 km) mainline rigged with 25.6-36 ft (7.8-10.9 m) gangions with 15-16 branchlines set between floats. Deep-set longlines are set at dawn with an average 12 hour soak time. The deep-set sag of the mainline is between 328-1,050 ft (100-320 m) below the water's surface. A deep-set typically contains 270-1,900 hooks with double weighted leaders and sardine for bait. Deep-sets use a variety of hooks including size 38 tuna hooks, size 9 J-hooks, and size 16/0 circle hooks. A small scale deep-set longline fishery began in January 2005 and continues currently. One hundred percent observer coverage is required in the deep-set longline fishery. OR Swordfish Floating Longline Fishery The Category II OR swordfish floating (i.e., surface or pelagic) longline fishery targets swordfish using a buoyed mainline fitted with leaders and baited hooks. The mainline is fished near the surface and is suspended from buoys. Swordfish longlines may not exceed 1,000 fathoms (6,000 ft; 1,829 m) in length and must be attached at one end to the vessel when fishing. The gear is typically set in the evening and retrieved in the morning. Fishing could occur year-round; however, effort generally terminates by late fall. This fishery, like the “CA pelagic longline” fishery discussed above, is managed under the Pacific HMS FMP, which prohibits targeting swordfish with longlines within the EEZ. Shallow-set methods used for swordfish are also prohibited east of 150°W. long. While this fishery can operate outside the U.S. EEZ, it is a developmental fishery with virtually no participants. There were no active permit holders in this fishery from 2000-2005. As a result, NMFS is proposing to remove this fishery from the 2008 LOF. Please see “Summary of Changes to the LOF for 2008” for more information. OR Blue Shark Floating Longline Fishery The Category II OR blue shark floating (i.e., surface or pelagic) longline fishery targets blue sharks off the coast of OR using a buoyed mainline fitted with leaders and baited hooks. The mainline is fished near the surface and is suspended from buoys. Shark longlines must be marked at each terminal surface end with a pole and flag, an operating light, a radar reflector, and a buoy showing clear identification and gear owner. The gear is typically set in the evening and retrieved in the morning. The fishery occurs year-round, however, effort generally terminates in the fall. This fishery is managed under the Pacific HMS FMP, which prohibits targeting highly migratory species such as blue shark with longlines within the U.S. EEZ. While this fishery can operate outside the U.S. EEZ, the number of Oregon Developmental Fishery Permits for fishing blue shark using a floating longline is limited to 10. From 2000-2005, there were fewer than 5 permits issued annually for this fishery. As a result, NMFS is proposing to remove this fishery from the 2008 LOF. Please see “Summary of Changes to the LOF for 2008” for more information. WA Puget Sound Regional Salmon Drift Gillnet The Category II WA Puget Sound regional salmon drift gillnet fishery targets coho, pink, sockeye, chinook, and chum salmon in inland marine waters (state waters) south of the U.S.-Canada border and east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line at the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Drift gillnet gear consists of single web construction, not exceeding 300 fathoms (1,800; 549 m) in length, attached at one end of the vessel. The minimum mesh size varies from 5-7 in (13-18 cm) depending on the target species. While the depths fished vary, fishermen strive to keep the net off of the bottom. The drift times vary depending on the fishing area, tidal condition, and catch. This fishery is a limited entry fishery with seasonal openings, area closures, and gear restrictions. Regulations governing incidental take of marine mammals do not apply to tribal members exercising fishing treaty rights within this fishery. AK Prince William Sound Salmon Drift Gillnet Fishery The Category II AK Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet fishery targets salmon using drift gillnet gear with soak times of 15 minutes to 3 hours. The gear is set both during the day and night, with 10-14 sets per day. The fishery operates from mid-May to the end of September in the Prince William Sound Fisheries Management Area, the Copper River, and the Bering Sea. The Prince William Sound Fisheries Management Area consists of 11 districts with six hatcheries contributing to the salmon fisheries. This drift gillnet fishery is managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game

(ADFG)as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands Salmon Drift Gillnet Fishery The Category II AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon drift gillnet fishery targets salmon using drift gillnet gear with soak times of 2-5 hours. The gear is set during the day and night, with 3-8 sets per day. The fishery operates from mid-June to mid-September in two districts north of the Alaska Peninsula (Northern and Northwestern), and four districts south of the AK Peninsula (Unimake, Southwestern, Southcentral, and Southeastern). This drift gillnet fishery is managed by ADFG as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands Salmon Set Gillnet Fishery The Category II AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon set gillnet fishery targets salmon using set gillnet with the gear set every 2 hours during the day and night. The gear is set with continuous soak times during the opener. Salmon may only be fished commercially during periods known as openers established by ADFG in-season. During some periods of the season fishing may be continuous with openers lasting days or even many weeks at a time. The ADFG posts weekly notices of fishing openers and announces the openers on regular radio channels a few days or a few hours before each opener. Fishing periods are often extended by Emergency Order during the last 24 hours of the opener. This fishery generally operates from June 18 to mid-August in two districts north of the AK Peninsula (Northern and Northwestern), and four districts south of the AK Peninsula (Unimake, Southwestern, Southcentral, and Southeastern). Set gillnet fishing effort also occurs off Atka and Amelia Islands. This set gillnet fishery is managed by ADFG as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. AK Southeast Salmon Drift Gillnet Fishery The Category II AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet fishery targets salmon using drift gillnet gear with soak times of 20 minutes to 3 hours. The gear is set during the day and night, with 6-20 sets set per day. This fishery generally operates from June 18 to early October in five main fishing areas off Southeast AK, as well as at Annette Island, in terminal harvest areas

(THA)adjacent to hatchery facilities, and for hatchery cost recovery. The majority of salmon are caught by drift gillnets in the five main fishing areas (81 percent in 2003) and the THAs (13 percent in 2003), with small contributions from Annette Island (4 percent in 2003), and for hatchery cost recovery (1.8 percent in 2003). This drift gillnet fishery is managed by ADFG as a limited entry fishery, with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. AK Cook Inlet Salmon Drift Gillnet Fishery The Category II AK Cook Inlet salmon drift gillnet fishery targets salmon using drift gillnet gear with soak times of 15 minutes to 3 hours, or continuously. The gear is set during the day, with 6-18 sets per day. This fishery generally operates from June 25 to end of August in the Central District of the Upper Cook Inlet. Drift gillnet fishing effort for sockeye salmon peaks in mid to late July. Currently, drift gillnet fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet occurs in the Central District area only for the two regular 12-hour openers on Mondays and Thursdays. This drift gillnet fishery is managed by ADFG as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. AK Cook Inlet Salmon Set Gillnet Fishery The Category II AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet fishery targets salmon using set gillnet gear with continuous soak times during the opener. Fishing effort occurs during the day and night in the Upper Cook Inlet; while fishing effort occurs only during the day in the Lower Cook Inlet, except during fishery extensions. In the Upper Cook Inlet, the catch is picked from the net (i.e., the net is tended) each day during a slack tide; while the catch is picked from the net every 2-6 hours in the Lower Cook Inlet. The net becomes dry with low tide. The fishery generally operates from June 2 to mid-September in Cook Inlet. This set gillnet fishery is managed by ADFG as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. AK Yakutat Salmon Set Gillnet Fishery The Category II AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet fishery targets salmon using set gillnet gear with continuous soak times during the opener, during the day and night. The catch is picked from the net every 2-4 hours each day or continuously during peak fishing times. The fishery generally operates from June 4 to the end of August. The Yakutat salmon set gillnet fishery consists of multiple set gillnet fisheries occurring in two fishing districts, the Yakutat District and the Yakataga District. As many as 25 different areas in the Yakutat and Yakataga Districts are open to commercial fishing each year. The Yakutat District fisheries primarily target sockeye and coho salmon, although all species of salmon are harvested. The Yakataga District fisheries target coho salmon. With a few exceptions, set gillnetting is confined to the intertidal area inside the mouths of rivers and streams, and to the ocean waters immediately adjacent to each. Due to the terminal nature of these fisheries, ADFG has been able to develop salmon escapement goals for most of the major, and several of the minor, fisheries. This set gillnet fishery is managed by ADFG as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. AK Kodiak Salmon Set Gillnet Fishery The Category II AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet fishery targets salmon using set gillnet gear with continuous soak times during the opener. Fishing effort occurs during the day, with the catch is picked from the net 2 or more times each day. The majority of set gillnets are attached to a shore lead up to 80 fathoms (480 ft; 146 m) long in a straight line to a king buoy offshore, with numerous anchor lines and buoys holding the net in place. The last 25 fathoms (150 ft; 46 m) of the gillnet is usually formed into a fish trap, also called a hook. The fishery generally operates from June 9 to the end of September or early October. Many areas are open until early October, but most fishermen remove the nets by early September. As the runs progress in late July and change from sockeye to pink salmon, the ADFG often reduces the length of openers if escapement goals have not been met. Fishing effort begins to reduce in mid to late August as salmon runs begin to decline. This fishery consists of 2 Districts, the Northwest District from Spruce Island to the south side of Uyak Bay, and the Alitak Bay District located on the southwestern corner of Kodiak island. In most years, the Northwest District is fished by approximately 100 permit holders and constitutes approximately 70 percent of the annual fishing effort, while the Alitak Bay District is fished by approximately 70 permit holders and constitutes approximately 30 percent of the annual fishing effort. Traditionally, the Northwest District is open for the majority of June and July, while effort in the Alitak Bay District typically occurs 5 to 7 days out of every 10 days during the fishing season. This set gillnet fishery is managed by ADFG as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. AK Bristol Bay Salmon Drift Gillnet Fishery The Category II AK Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet fishery targets salmon using drift gillnet gear with continuous soak times for part of the net, while other parts of the net are tended. Fishing effort occurs during the day and night, with a continuous number of sets per day. This fishery generally operates from June 17 to the end of August in Bristol Bay. Approximately 80 percent of the salmon catch in Bristol Bay is caught with drift gillnets. The Bristol Bay management area consists of five management districts including all coastal and inland waters from Cape Newenham to Cape Menshikof. There are eight major river systems in the area, and these form the largest commercial sockeye salmon fishery in the world. Although sockeye salmon is the most abundant salmon species that returns to Bristol Bay each year, chinook, chum, coho, and pink salmon returns are also important to the fishery. This drift gillnet fishery is managed by ADFG as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. AK Bristol Bay Salmon Set Gillnet Fishery The Category II AK Bristol Bay salmon set gillnet fishery targets salmon using set gillnet gear with continuous soak times during the opener, but the net is dry during low tide. Fishing effort occurs during the day and night, with 2 or more continuous sets per day. This fishery generally operates from June 17 to the end of August or mid-September in the same areas in Bristol Bay as the AK Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet fishery discussed above. Approximately 20 percent of the salmon catch in Bristol Bay is caught with set gillnets. This set gillnet fishery is managed by ADFG as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. AK Metlakatla/Annette Island Salmon Drift Gillnet Fishery The Category II AK Metlakatla/Annette Island salmon drift gillnet fishery targets salmon using drift gillnet gear off Annette Island in Southeast AK. This drift gillnet fishery is managed by ADFG as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. The tribal portion of this fishery is separate from the AK Southeast drift gillnet fishery only for regulation purposes. The fisheries are considered the same for LOF categorization purposes. AK Southeast Salmon Purse Seine Fishery The Category II AK Southeast salmon purse seine fishery targets salmon using purse seine gear with soak times of 20-45 minutes. Fishing effort occurs mostly in daylight hours, except at the peak of the season, with 6-20 sets per day. The fishery generally operates from the end of June to September. In 2003, purse seine fishing ran through November 12 in THAs. Regulations allow purse seine fishing to occur in certain fishing districts, and also in certain THAs, hatchery cost recovery areas, and the Annette Island Fishery Reserve. This purse seine fishery accounts for approximately 80 percent of the total salmon harvest in Southeast AK, and approximately 87 percent of the fish caught are pink salmon. This purse seine fishery is managed by ADFG as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. AK Cook Inlet Salmon Purse Seine Fishery The Category II AK Cook Inlet salmon purse seine fishery targets salmon using purse seine gear in Cook Inlet from June 1 to October 31. Purse seines must be between 90 fathoms (540 ft; 165 m) and 250 fathoms (1,500 ft; 457 m) long, and 100 meshes and 325 meshes deep. Detachable or loose leads are not permitted. In Cook Inlet, purse seines may be used in the Southern District, Kamishak Bay District, Outer District, Eastern District, and Chinitna Bay Subdistrict east of a line from the crane on the south shore to the largest boulder on the landward end of Glacier Spit. This purse seine fishery is managed by ADFG as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. AK Kodiak Salmon Purse Seine Fishery The Category II AK Kodiak salmon purse seine fishery targets salmon using purse seine gear from June 1 to October 31, with fishing periods open by regulation and emergency orders. Purse seine gear must have a mesh size of less than 7 in (18 cm). Purse seine gear must be between 100 fathoms (600 ft; 183 m) and 200 fathoms (1,200 ft; 366 m) long, and between 100 meshes and 325 meshes deep. At least 50 fathoms (300 ft; 91 m) of a purse seine must be 150 meshes in depth. One lead, no more than 100 fathoms (600 ft; 183 m) in length, may be used with each purse seine. The aggregate length of a seine and lead may not exceed 250 fathoms (1,500 ft; 457 m). Leads must be removed from the water within two hours after a season or fishing period closure. Overlapping panels of net web may not be used in seine leads. This fishery occurs in the Kodiak Area, including all waters of AK south of Cape Douglas (58° 51.10'N. lat.), west of 150°W. long., north of 55° 30'N. lat., and north and east of the southern entrance of Imuya Bay. This purse seine fishery is managed by ADFG as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions (mesh and net size) and area closures. AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

(BSAI)Flatfish Trawl Fishery The Category II AK BSAI flatfish trawl fishery targets flatfish using trawl gear in the U.S. EEZ of the eastern Bering Sea and the portion of the North Pacific Ocean adjacent to the Aleutian Islands, which is west of 170°W. long. up to the U.S.-Russian Convention Line of 1867. Management measures for the BSAI groundfish fisheries constrain fishing both temporally and spatially. This fishery is federally managed under the BSAI FMP. The authorized gear, fishing season, criteria for determining fishing seasons, and area restrictions by gear type are defined in the regulations implementing the BSAI FMP (50 CFR part 679). AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

(BSAI)Pollock Trawl Fishery The Category II AK BSAI pollock trawl fishery targets flatfish using trawl gear in the same location as the AK BSAI flatfish trawl fishery described above. The use of non-pelagic trawl gear in the directed fishery for pollock is prohibited. This fishery is federally managed under the BSAI FMP. Management measures for the BSAI groundfish fisheries constrain fishing both temporally and spatially. The gear authorized, fishing year, criteria for determining fishing seasons, and area restrictions by gear type are defined in the regulations implementing the BSAI FMP (50 CFR part 679). AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

(BSAI)Pacific Cod Longline Fishery The Category II AK BSAI Pacific cod longline fishery targets Pacific cod using longline gear in the same location as the AK BSAI flatfish trawl fishery described above. This fishery is federally managed under the BSAI FMP. Management measures for the BSAI groundfish fisheries constrain fishing both temporally and spatially. The gear authorized, fishing year, criteria for determining fishing seasons, and area restrictions by gear type are defined in the regulations implementing the BSAI FMP (50 CFR part 679). AK Bering Sea Sablefish Pot Fishery The Category II AK Bering Sea sablefish pot fishery targets sablefish using pot gear in the same location as the AK BSAI flatfish trawl fishery described above. This fishery is Federally managed under the BSAI FMP and is operated under Individual Fishing Quotas. Management measures for the BSAI groundfish fisheries constrain fishing both temporally and spatially. The gear authorized, fishing year, criteria for determining fishing seasons, and area restrictions by gear type are defined in the regulations implementing the BSAI FMP (50 CFR part 679). Category I and II Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Northeast Sink Gillnet Fishery The Category I Northeast sink gillnet fishery targets Atlantic cod, haddock, pollock, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, witch flounder, American plaice, windowpane flounder, spiny dogfish, monkfish, silver hake, red hake, white hake, ocean pout, skate spp, mackerel, redfish, and shad. This fishery uses sink gillnet gear, which is anchored gillnet (bottom-tending net) fished in the lower one-third of the water column. The dominant material is monofilament twine with stretched mesh sizes from 6-12 in (15-30.5 cm) and string lengths from 600-10,500 ft (183-3,200 m), depending on the target species. Large mesh (10-14 in [25-35.6 cm]) sink gillnets, either tied down or set upright without floats using a polyfoam core floatline, are used when targeting monkfish. The fishery operates from the U.S.-Canada border to Long Island, NY, at 72° 30′W. long. south to 36° 33.03′N. lat. (corresponding with the Virginia/North Carolina border) and east to the eastern edge of the EEZ, including the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and Southern New England, and excluding Long Island Sound or other waters where gillnet fisheries are listed as Category III. Fishing effort occurs year-round, peaking from May to July primarily on continental shelf regions in depths from 30-750 ft (9-228.6 m), with some nets deeper than 800 ft (244 m). This fishery is managed by the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) FMP. This fishery is also managed by the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) and the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP) to reduce the risk of entanglement of right, humpback, and fin whales, and harbor porpoises, respectively. The fishery is primarily managed by Total Allowable Catch

(TAC)limits; individual trip limits (quotas); effort caps (limited number of days at sea per vessel); time and area closures; and gear restrictions. Mid-Atlantic Gillnet Fishery The Category I mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery targets monkfish, spiny dogfish, smooth dogfish, bluefish, weakfish, menhaden, spot, croaker, striped bass, large and small coastal sharks, Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, American shad, black drum, skate spp., yellow perch, white perch, herring, scup, kingfish, spotted seatrout, and butterfish. The fishery uses drift and sink gillnets, including nets set in a sink, stab, set, strike, or drift fashion, with some unanchored drift or sink nets used to target specific species. The dominant material is monofilament twine with stretched mesh sizes from 2.5-12 in (6.4-30.5 cm), and string lengths from 150-8,400 ft. (46-2,560 m). This fishery operates year-round west of a line drawn at 72° 30'W. long. south to 36° 33.03'N. lat. and east to the eastern edge of the EEZ and north of the North Carolina/South Carolina border, not including waters where Category II and Category III inshore gillnet fisheries operate in bays, estuaries, and rivers. At this time, these Category II and Category III fisheries include: the Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet; North Carolina inshore gillnet; Delaware River inshore gillnet; Long Island Sound inshore gillnet; and Rhode Island, southern Massachusetts (to Monomy Island), and New York Bight (Raritan and Lower New York Bays) inshore gillnet. This fishery includes any residual large pelagic driftnet effort in the mid-Atlantic and any shark and dogfish gillnet effort in the mid-Atlantic zone described. The fishing effort is prosecuted right off the beach (6 ft [1.8 m]) or in nearshore coastal waters to offshore waters (250 ft [76 m]). Gear in this fishery is managed by several Federal FMPs and Inter-State FMPs managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), the ALWTRP, the HPTRP, and the Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team (BDTRT). Fisheries are primarily managed by TACs; individual trip limits (quotas); effort caps (limited number of days at sea per vessel); time and area closures; and gear restrictions and modifications. Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico Large Pelagics Longline Fishery The Category I Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline fishery targets swordfish, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, bluefin tuna, albacore tuna, dolphin fish, wahoo, shortfin mako shark, and a variety of other shark species. The fishery uses a mainline of >700 lb (317.5 kg) test monofilament typically ranging from 10-45 mi (16-72 km) long. Bullet-shaped floats are suspended at regular intervals along the mainline and long sections of gear are marked by radio beacons. Long gangion lines of 200-400 lb (91-181 kg) test monofilament of typically 100-200 ft (30.5-61 m) are suspended from the mainline. Only certain sized hooks and baits are allowed based on fishing location. Hooks are typically fished at depths between 40-120 ft (12-36.6 m). Longlines targeting tuna are typically set at dawn are hauled near dusk, while longlines targeting swordfish are typically set at night and hauled in the morning. Gear remains in the water typically for 10-14 hours. Fishermen generally modify only select sections of longline gear to target dolphin or wahoo, with the remaining gear configured to target swordfish, tuna, and/or sharks. This fishery operates year-round and occurs within and outside the U.S. EEZ throughout Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico waters. The fishery has historically been composed of five relatively distinct segments with different fishing practices and strategies, including: Gulf of Mexico yellowfin tuna fishery; South Atlantic-Florida east coast to Cape Hatteras swordfish fishery; Mid-Atlantic and New England swordfish and bigeye tuna fishery; U.S. distant water swordfish fishery; and Caribbean Islands tuna and swordfish fishery. In addition to geographical area, these segments have historically differed by percentage of various target and non-target species, gear characteristics, and deployment techniques. This fishery is managed under the Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP. The dolphin and wahoo portions of the fishery are managed under the South Atlantic FMP for Dolphin and Wahoo. Regulations under the MSA address the target fish species, as well as bycatch species protected under the ESA and/or the MMPA. A portion of this fishery is the subject of the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Team (PLTRT), convened in 2005. NMFS is currently developing regulations to implement the Take Reduction Plan. Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American Lobster Trap/Pot Fishery The Category I Northeast/mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot fishery targets American lobster primarily with traps, while 2-3 percent of the target species is taken by mobile gear (trawls and dredges). The fishery operates in inshore and offshore waters from Maine to New Jersey and may extend as far south as Cape Hatteras. Approximately 80 percent of American lobster are harvested from state waters; therefore, the ASMFC has a primary regulatory role. The EEZ portion of the fishery operates under regulations from the Federal American Lobster FMP. Both the EEZ and state fishery are operating under Federal regulations from the ALWTRP. Northeast Anchored Float Gillnet Fishery The Category II Northeast anchored float gillnet fishery targets mackerel, herring (particularly for bait), shad, and menhaden using gillnet gear of any size anchored and fished in the upper two-thirds of the water column. The fishery operates from the U.S.-Canada border to Long Island, NY, at 72° 30′W. long south to 36° 33.03′N. lat. and east to the eastern edge of the EEZ, not including Long Island Sound or other waters where gillnet fisheries are listed as Category III. The fishery is managed under the Interstate FMPs for Atlantic Menhaden and Shad. A total closure of the American shad ocean intercept fishery was fully implemented in January, 2005. Northeast Drift Gillnet Fishery The Category II Northeast drift gillnet fishery targets species other than large pelagics, including shad, herring, mackerel, and menhaden. This fishery uses drift gillnet gear, which is gillnet gear not anchored to the bottom and is free-floating on both ends or free-flowing at one end and attached to the vessel at the other end. Mesh sizes are likely less than those used to target large pelagics. The fishery includes any residual large pelagic driftnet effort in New England and occurs at any depth in the water column from the U.S.-Canada border to Long Island, NY, at 72° 30'W. long. south to 36° 33.03 N. lat. and east to the eastern edge of the EEZ. The fishery is managed under the Interstate FMPs for Atlantic Menhaden and Shad. A total closure of the American shad ocean intercept fishery was fully implemented in January, 2005. Chesapeake Bay Inshore Gillnet Fishery The Category II Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet fishery targets menhaden and croaker using gillnet gear with mesh sizes ranging from 2.75-5 in (7-12.7 cm), depending on the target species. The fishery operates between the Chesapeake Bay/Bridge Tunnel and the mainland. The fishery is managed under the Interstate FMPs for Atlantic Menhaden and Atlantic Croaker. Northeast Mid-Water Trawl (Including Pair Trawl) Fishery The Category II Northeast mid-water trawl fisher targets Atlantic herring with bycatch of several finfish species, predominantly mackerel, spiny dogfish, and silver hake. This fishery uses primarily mid-water (pelagic) trawls (single and paired), which is trawl gear designed, capable, or used to fish for pelagic species with no portion designed to be operated in contact with the bottom. The fishery occurs primarily in Maine State waters, Jeffrey's Ledge, southern New England, and Georges Bank during the winter months when the target species continues its southerly migration from the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank, into mid-Atlantic waters. The fishery is managed jointly by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the ASMFC as a migratory stock complex. Mid-Atlantic Flynet Fishery The following definition is proposed in the 2008 LOF. For the existing 2007 definition, see “Fishery Name and Organization Changes and Clarifications” for Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean fisheries below. The Category II mid-Atlantic flynet fishery is a multispecies fishery composed of nearshore and offshore components that operate along the eastern coast of the mid-Atlantic United States. Flynets are high profile trawls similar to bottom otter trawls. These nets typically range from 80-120 ft (24-36.6 m) in headrope length, with wing mesh sizes of 16-64 in (41-163 cm), following a slow 3:1 taper to smaller mesh sizes in the body, extension, and codend sections of the net. The nearshore fishery operates from October to April inside of 30 fathoms (180 ft; 55 m) from North Carolina to New Jersey. This nearshore fishery targets Atlantic croaker, weakfish, butterfish, harvestfish, bluefish, menhaden, striped bass, kingfishes, and other finfish species. Flynet fishing is no longer permitted south of Cape Hatteras in order to protect weakfish stocks. The offshore component operates from November to April outside of 30 fathoms (180 ft; 55 m) from the Hudson Canyon off New York, south to Hatteras Canyon off North Carolina. These deeper water fisheries target bluefish, Atlantic mackerel, Loligo squid, black sea bass, and scup (72 FR 7382, February 15, 2007). Illex Squid are also targeted offshore (70-200 fathoms [420-1,200 ft; 128-366 m]) during summer months from May to September. Northeast Bottom Trawl Fishery The Category II Northeast bottom trawl fishery uses bottom trawl gear to target species included in the NE Multispecies FMP, Summer Flounder FMP, and Scup and Seabass FMP, including, but not limited to: Atlantic cod, haddock, pollock, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, witch flounder, American plaice, Atlantic halibut, redfish, windowpane flounder, summer flounder, spiny dogfish, monkfish, silver hake, red hake, white hake, ocean pout, and skate spp. The fishery operates year-round, with a peak from May to July, from the Maine-Canada border through waters east of 72° 30′W. long., primarily on the continental shelf and throughout the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and Southern New England. The fishery is primarily managed by TACs, individual trip limits (quotas), effort caps (limited number of days at sea per vessel), time and area closures, and gear restrictions. Virginia Pound Net Fishery The Category II Virginia pound net fishery targets weakfish, spot, and croaker using stationary gear in nearshore coastal and estuarine waters off Virginia. Pound net gear includes a large mesh lead posted perpendicular to the shoreline and extending outward to the corral, or “heart,” where the catch accumulates. This fishery includes all pound net effort in Virginia State waters, including waters inside the Chesapeake Bay. The fishery is managed under Interstate FMPs for Atlantic Croaker and Spot, and is subject to BDTRP implementing regulations. Atlantic Mixed Species Trap/Pot Fishery The Category II Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery's targets species including, but not limited to, hagfish, shrimp, conch/whelk, red crab, Jonah crab, rock crab, black sea bass, scup, tautog, cod, haddock, Pollock, redfish (ocean perch) white hake, spot, skate, catfish, stone crab, and American eel. The fishery includes all trap/pot operations for species other than American lobster and blue crab from the Maine-Canada border south through the waters east of the fishery management demarcation line between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico (50 CFR 600.105), but does not include the following Category I, II, and III trap/pot fisheries: Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot; Atlantic blue crab trap/pot; Florida spiny lobster trap/ pot; Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico stone crab trap/pot; U.S. Mid-Atlantic eel trap/pot fisheries; and the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico golden crab fishery (68 FR 1421, January 10, 2003). The fishery is managed under various Interstate FMPs. Atlantic Blue Crab Trap/Pot Fishery The Category II Atlantic blue crab trap/pot fishery targets blue crab using pots baited with fish or poultry typically set in rows in shallow water. The pot position is marked by either a floating or sinking buoy line attached to a surface buoy. The fishery occurs year-round from the south shore of Long Island at 72° 30′W. long. in the Atlantic and east of the fishery management demarcation line between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico (50 CFR 600.105), including state waters. The fishery is managed under state FMPs, and is subject to BDTRP and ALWTRP implementing regulations. Mid-Atlantic Bottom Trawl Fishery The Category II mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fishery uses bottom trawl gear to target species including, but not limited to, bluefish, croaker, monkfish, summer flounder (fluke), winter flounder, silver hake (whiting), spiny dogfish, smooth dogfish, scup, and black sea bass. The fishery occurs year-round from Cape Cod, MA, to Cape Hatteras, NC, in waters west of 72° 30′W. long. and north of a line extending due east from the North Carolina/South Carolina border. The gear is managed by several state and Federal FMPs that range from Massachusetts to North Carolina. Mid-Atlantic Mid-Water Trawl (Including Pair Trawl) Fishery The Category II mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery targets Atlantic mackerel, *Loligo* squid, *Illex* squid, and Atlantic butterfish using mainly mid-trawl gear, with some bottom trawls. The fishery is dominated by small-mesh otter trawls, but *Loligo* squid are also taken by inshore pound nets and fish traps in spring and summer. The fishery for *Illex* occurs offshore, mainly in continental shelf and slope waters during summer months (June to September), from southern New England to Cape Hatteras, NC. The fishery for *Loligo* occurs mostly offshore near the edge of the continental shelf during fall and winter months (October to March), and inshore during spring and summer (April to September) in southern New England and mid-Atlantic waters. The fishery for Atlantic mackerel occurs primarily in southern New England and the mid-Atlantic from January to March, and in the Gulf of Maine during summer and fall (May to December). Atlantic butterfish are mainly caught as bycatch in the directed squid and mackerel fisheries due to their northerly inshore migration in summer months and southerly offshore migration in winter months. The fishery is managed by the Federal Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish FMP. The *Illex* and *Loligo* fisheries are managed by moratorium permits, gear and area restrictions, quotas, and trip limits. The Atlantic mackerel and Atlantic butterfish fisheries are managed by an annual quota system. Mid-Atlantic Haul/Beach Seine Fishery The Category II mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine fishery targets striped bass, mullet, spot, weakfish, sea trout, bluefish, kingfish, and harvestfish using seines with one end secured (e.g., swipe nets and long seines) and seines secured at both ends or those anchored to the beach and hauled up on the beach. The beach seine system also uses a bunt and a wash net that are attached to the beach and extend into the surf. The beach seines soak for less than 2 hours. The fishery occurs in waters west of 72° 30′W. long. and north of a line extending due east from the North Carolina-South Carolina border. Fishing on the Outer Banks, NC, occurs primarily in the spring (April to June) and fall (October to December). The fishery is managed under the Interstate FMPs for Bluefish and for Atlantic Striped Bass of the Atlantic Coast from Maine through North Carolina, and is subject to BDTRP implementing regulations. Mid-Atlantic Menhaden Purse Seine Fishery The Category II mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine fishery targets menhaden and thread herring using purse seine gear. Most sets occur within 3 mi (4.8 km) of shore with the majority of the effort occurring off North Carolina from November to January, and moving northward during warmer months to southern New England. The fishery is managed under the Interstate FMP for Atlantic Menhaden. Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Shark Gillnet Fishery The Category II Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery targets large and small coastal sharks (blacktip, blacknose, finetooth, bonnethead, and sharpnose) using gillnets set in a sink, stab, set, strike, or drift fashion. Mesh size is typically greater than 5 in (13 cm), but may be as small as 2.87 in (7.3 cm) when targeting small coastal sharks. Drift gillnets most commonly use a mesh size of 5 in (13 cm) and average 10.2 hours from setting the gear through completion of haulback; sink gillnets most frequently use a mesh size of 7 in (18 cm) soaking for approximately 2.7 hours; and strike gillnets use the largest mesh size of 9 in (23 cm) soaking for approximately 0.8 hours. This fishery has traditionally operated in coastal waters off Florida and Georgia. This fishery is managed under the Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP, the ALWTRP, and the BDTRP, and is subject to ESA biological opinion requirements. Regulations implemented under the MSA address managed target species, as well as bycatch species, including some protected under the ESA and MMPA (e.g., sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and right whales). Under the ALWTRP, various restrictions are in place during right whale calving season from November 15 through April 15. Southeast Atlantic Gillnet Fishery The Category II Southeast Atlantic gillnet fishery targets finfish including, but not limited to, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, whiting, bluefish, pompano, spot, croaker, little tunny, bonita, jack crevalle, cobia, and striped mullet. This fishery does not include gillnet effort targeting sharks as part of the “Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet” fishery. This fishery uses gillnets set in sink, stab, set, or strike fashion. The fishery operates in waters south of a line extending due east from the North Carolina-South Carolina border and south and east of the fishery management council demarcation line between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. The majority of fishing effort occurs in Federal waters since South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida prohibit the use of gillnets, with limited exceptions, in state waters. Fishing for king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cobia, cero, and little tunny in Federal waters is managed under the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources

(CMPR)FMP. None of the other target species are Federally managed under the MSA. In state waters, state and ASMFC Interstate FMPs apply. The fishery is also subject to BDTRP implementing regulations. North Carolina Inshore Gillnet Fishery The Category II North Carolina inshore gillnet fishery targets species including, but not limited to, southern flounder, weakfish, bluefish, Atlantic croaker, striped mullet, spotted seatrout, Spanish mackerel, striped bass, spot, red drum, black drum, and shad. This fishery includes any fishing effort using any type of gillnet gear, including set (float and sink), drift, and runaround gillnet for any target species inshore of the COLREGS lines in North Carolina. This fishery is managed under state and ASMFC interstate FMPs, applying net and mesh size regulations, and seasonal area closures in the Pamlico Sound Gillnet Restricted Area (PSGNRA). This fishery is subject to BDTRP implementing regulations. Gulf of Mexico Gillnet Fishery The Category II Gulf of Mexico gillnet fishery targets a wide variety of target species, including, but not limited to: black drum, sheepshead, weakfish, mullet, spot, croaker, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, Florida pompano, flounder shark, menhaden, bluefish, blue runner, ladyfish, spotted seatrout, croaker, kingfish, and red drum. This fishery operates year-round using any type of gillnet, including strike and straight gillnets, in waters north of the U.S.-Mexico border and west of the fishery management council demarcation line between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. Gillnet gear is prohibited in Texas and Florida State waters, but fixed and runaround gillnets are currently used in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, with highly variable fishing effort. Fishing for king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cobia, cero, little tunny, dolphin, and bluefish are managed under the CMPR FMP. In the Gulf of Mexico, CMPR FMP species are the only Federally managed species for which gillnet gear is authorized, and only run-around gillnetting for these species is allowed. In state waters, state and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC) Interstate FMPs apply. North Carolina Long Haul Seine Fishery The Category II North Carolina long haul seine fishery targets species including, but not limited to, weakfish, spot, croaker, menhaden, bluefish, spotted seatrout, and hogfish using multi-filament seines consisting of a 1,000-2,000 yard (3,000-6,000 ft) net pulled by two boats for 1-2 nmi (2-4 km). Fish are encircled and concentrated by pulling the net around a fixed stake. The fishery includes fishing with long haul seine gear to target any species in waters off North Carolina, including estuarine waters in Pamlico and Core Sounds and their tributaries. The fishery occurs from February to November, with peak effort occurring from June to October. The fishery is managed under ASMFC interstate FMPs and the BDTRP. North Carolina Roe Mullet Stop Net Fishery The Category II North Carolina roe mullet stop net fishery targets striped mullet from October to November using a stationary, multi-filament anchored net extended perpendicular to the beach. Once the catch accumulates near the end of the stop net, a beach haul seine is used to capture fish and bring them ashore. The stop net is traditionally left in the water for 1-5 days, but can be left as long as 15 days. This fishery is unique to Bogue Banks, NC. This fishery is managed under the NC Striped Mullet FMP and the BDTRP. Gulf of Mexico Menhaden Purse Seine Fishery The Category II Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine fishery targets menhaden and thread herring using purse seine gear in bays, sounds, and nearshore coastal waters along the Gulf of Mexico coast. The majority of the fishing effort is concentrated off Louisiana and Mississippi, with lesser effort in Alabama and Texas State waters. Florida prohibits the use of purse seines in state waters. The fishery is managed under the GSMFC Interstate Gulf Menhaden FMP. Summary of Changes to the LOF for 2008 The following summarizes changes to the LOF for 2008 in fishery classification, fisheries listed in the LOF, the number of participants in a particular fishery, and the species and/or stocks that are incidentally killed or seriously injured in a particular fishery. The classifications and definitions of U.S. commercial fisheries for 2008 are identical to those provided in the LOF for 2007 with the following exceptions. Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean Fishery Classification NMFS proposes to elevate the “CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet (mesh size >3.5 inches and <14 inches)” fishery (proposed to be changed to “CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet (mesh size ≥3.5 inches and <14 inches)” fishery in this proposed rule) from a Category II fishery to a Category I fishery based upon observer documented interactions with the CA stock of long-beaked common dolphins in 2003 and 2004. The estimated annual mortality of long-beaked common dolphins in this fishery is 9 dolphins. The PBR for the CA stock of long-beaked common dolphin is 11 animals (draft U.S. Pacific SAR for 2007). Therefore, the estimated annual serious injury and mortality in this fishery is approximately 82 percent of the stock's PBR. Category I classification is necessary because the mean serious injury and mortality of the CA stock of long-beaked common dolphins in this fishery exceeds 50 percent of its PBR. NMFS also proposes to remove the superscript “ 2 ” (i.e., a Category II fishery classification based on analogy with another fishery) from this fishery and add a superscript “ 1 ” (which represents which stocks are driving a fishery's classification) after long-beaked common dolphin in Table 1, as bycatch of the CA stock of long-beaked common dolphin is driving the proposed reclassification to Category I. Removal of Fisheries from the LOF NMFS proposes to remove the Category II “OR blue shark floating longline” fishery and the Category II “OR swordfish floating longline” fishery from the LOF. The Pacific HMS FMP regulations (50 CFR 660.712(a)) and ESA regulations (50 CFR 223.206(d)(9)) prohibit the use of longline gear to target HMS species in the U.S. Pacific EEZ and prohibit the use of shallow-set longline gear outside the U.S. Pacific EEZ. As a result, the State of Oregon is no longer issuing developmental permits for these fisheries. Fishery Name and Organizational Changes and Clarifications NMFS proposes to modify the name of the Category III “CA set and drift gillnet fisheries that use a stretched mesh size of 3.5 in or less” to the “CA set gillnet fishery (mesh size <3.5 inches)”. This definition better describes the fishery and is consistent with the California Fish and Game Code regulating state commercial fisheries in marine waters. NMFS proposes to modify the name of the Category II (proposed for elevation to a Category I in this proposed rule) “CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet (mesh size >3.5 inches and <14 inches)” fishery to “CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet (mesh size ≥3.5 inches and <14 inches)” fishery. This change is consistent with the minimum mesh size allowed in this fishery, 3.5 in (8.9 cm), as defined in California's Fish and Game Code. NMFS received comments on the 2007 LOF regarding take of humpback and gray whales in Category III trap/pot fisheries on the Pacific Coast, which prompted NMFS to review the various west coast pot and trap fisheries. Reports to the Marine Mammal Stranding Network in the Pacific Northwest (OR and WA) indicate that gray whale entanglements in commercial crab gear occurs in both states; however, no takes of humpback whales in crab gear have been reported in the Northwest Region from 2001 to present. The 2005 Alaska SAR for the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale estimated the total fisheries incidental serious injury and mortality for this stock at less than 10 percent of the stock's PBR level. The crab fisheries in Oregon and Washington are both state regulated limited entry fisheries and both states have recently enacted regulations to reduce and limit the number of pots used by fishery participants. NMFS anticipates that incidental serious injury and mortality of gray and humpback whales in OR and WA crab fisheries is unlikely to increase; therefore, NMFS is not recommending reclassification of the crab pot fishery at this time. NMFS will continue to analyze information from the remaining pot fisheries along the west coast for potential recategorization of certain west coast trap/pot fisheries in future LOFs. Number of Vessels/Persons NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of vessels or persons in the Category III “CA abalone” fishery from 111 to zero. The State of California closed the commercial abalone fishery in 1997 due to declines in all five species of abalone. The State of California is currently involved in a fishery development process that may allow a limited red abalone fishery at San Miguel Island, CA. NMFS will continue to monitor this fishery and update the LOF as appropriate. NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of vessels or persons in the Category III “CA set and drift gillnet fisheries that use a stretched mesh size of 3.5 in or less” (proposed to be changed to the “CA set gillnet (mesh size <3.5 inches)” fishery in this proposed rule) from 341 to 304, based upon the number of permits issued in the herring fishery and the number of vessels that use this gear to target other fish species. The number of active vessels in this fishery varies yearly. NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of vessels or persons in the Category II “CA anchovy, mackerel, and sardine purse seine” fishery from 100 to 63. NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of vessels or persons in the Category II “CA squid purse seine” fishery from 65 to 71. NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of vessels or persons in the Category III “Hawaii inshore gillnet” fishery from 35 to 5. List of Species That are Incidentally Injured or Killed NMFS proposes to add the Hawaiian stocks of striped dolphin and Bryde's whale to the list of marine mammal species and stocks incidentally injured or killed in the “Hawaii swordfish, tuna, billfish, mahi mahi, wahoo, oceanic sharks longline/set line” fishery based on observed serious injury and mortalities in the HI-based longline fishery. A Bryde's whale was observed injured in 2005 and a striped dolphin was observed killed in 2006. NMFS proposes to remove the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock of killer whales from the Category II “AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Pacific cod longline” fishery and the Category III “AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot longline” fishery. Genetic analyses of tissue samples collected by observers over the past few years have indicated that the mortalities incidental to these two fisheries were resident killer whales (2006 Final SARs [72 FR 12774, March 19, 2007]). Genetic analyses indicated that the mortalities incidental to the “Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands pollack trawl” fishery were transient killer whales (2006 Final SARs [72 FR 12774, March 19, 2007]). Therefore, the transient stock of killer whales remains on the list of species or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the pollack trawl fishery. Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Addition of Fisheries to the LOF NMFS proposes to add the “Georgia cannonball jellyfish trawl” fishery as a Category III fishery. This is an experimental mid-water trawl fishery targeting cannonball jellyfish and operating in state and Federal waters off of Georgia between February and April. Participation in this fishery requires a permit and the use of a turtle excluder device (TED). Eight vessels were issued permits each year between 2004-2006. However, the number of active vessels decreased from 8 in 2004 to 1 in 2006, and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources

(DNR)expects participation in this experimental fishery to remain low. The Georgia DNR conducts bycatch assessments in experimental fisheries permitted by the state. Less than 5 percent of the fishery has been assessed for the last several years combined. No marine mammal species or stocks have been observed incidentally seriously injured or killed in this fishery (Pers. Comm., Julie Califf, Georgia DNR; Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2006). Removal of Fisheries from the LOF NMFS proposes to remove the Category III “U.S.-mid Atlantic hand seine” fishery from the LOF. This fishery was added to the LOF in 1996 based on historical information and was placed in Category III by analogy to other hand seine fisheries (60 FR 31681, June 16, 1995). No marine mammal stocks have been documented as seriously injured or killed in this fishery. No new information on this fishery has been identified since its addition in 1996, and therefore NMFS proposed to remove it from the LOF. Fishery Name and Organizational Changes and Clarifications Southeast Atlantic Gillnet Fishery NMFS proposes to remove shad from the list of target species associated with the Category II “Southeast Atlantic gillnet” fishery. A total closure of the ocean intercept fishery for American shad was implemented January 1, 2005, under Amendment 1 to the Interstate FMP for Shad and River Herring. Remaining gillnet effort targeting shad and river herring in inshore rivers and bays is included in the Category III “Southeast Atlantic inshore gillnet” fishery. Mid-Atlantic Gillnet Fishery NMFS proposes to clarify the boundaries and excluded fisheries in the Category I “mid-Atlantic gillnet” fishery. Currently, the boundaries for the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery are defined as including “fishing for any target species using any type of gillnet gear west of a line drawn at 72° 30'W. long. south to 36° 33.03'N. lat. and east to the eastern edge of the EEZ and north of the North Carolina-South Carolina border” (71 FR 70346, December 4, 2006). NMFS proposes to clarify this boundary definition through the addition of the following language, “North Carolina-South Carolina border, but not including waters where gillnet fisheries are listed as Category II and Category III. At this time, these Category II and Category III fisheries include: the Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet; North Carolina inshore gillnet; Delaware River inshore gillnet; Long Island Sound inshore gillnet; and Rhode Island, southern Massachusetts (to Monomy Island), and New York Bight (Raritan and Lower New York Bays) inshore gillnet”. Atlantic Mixed Species Trap/Pot Fishery NMFS proposes to clarify the boundaries and excluded fisheries in the Category II “Atlantic mixed species trap/pot” fishery. Currently, the boundaries are defined as extending throughout the U.S. Atlantic waters from Maine to Florida (68 FR 1420, January 10, 2003). NMFS proposes to clarify this boundary definition, as well as those fisheries not included in the definition, by adding the following, “The Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery (Category II) includes all trap/pot operations for species from the Maine-Canada border down through the waters east of the fishery management demarcation line between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico (50 CFR 600.105), but does not include the following Category I, II, and III trap/pot fisheries: Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot; Atlantic blue crab trap/pot; Florida spiny lobster trap/ pot; Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico stone crab trap/pot; U.S. Mid-Atlantic eel trap/pot fisheries; and the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico golden crab fishery (68 FR 1421, January 10, 2003)”. NMFS also proposes to expand the list of fish species targeted by the Category II “Atlantic mixed species trap/pot” fishery. NMFS added this Category II fishery to the 2003 LOF to encompass the “Northeast trap/pot”, the “mid-Atlantic mixed species trap/pot”, the “U.S. mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. Atlantic black sea bass trap/pot” fisheries and any other trap/pot fisheries otherwise not identified in the LOF, based on the use of similar gear and the potential for marine mammal entanglements. In the final 2007 LOF (72 FR 14474, March 28, 2007), NMFS expanded the target fish species in the Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery to include, but not be limited to: hagfish, shrimp, conch/whelk, red crab, Jonah crab, rock crab, black sea bass, scup, tautog, cod, haddock, pollock, redfish (ocean perch), white hake, spot, skate, catfish and American eel (not included in the LOF's “U.S. Mid-Atlantic eel trap/pot” fishery description). NMFS has recently become aware that this fishery is targeting an additional species, cunner. Therefore, NMFS proposes to expand the list of species associated with this fishery to also include cunner. Mid-Atlantic Flynet Fishery NMFS believes that at this time, changes to the current Category II “mid-Atlantic flynet” fishery definition are warranted for maintaining consistency with the North Carolina definitions of the “flynet fishery” and other Federal definitions for this fishery (CFR 50 CFR 697.2; 72 FR 7382, February 15, 2007). NMFS proposes to clarify this fishery definition by replacing the current definition provided in the LOF in 2007 (71 FR 70345, December 4, 2006) with the following language: “The flynet fishery is a multispecies fishery composed of nearshore and offshore components that operate along the eastern coast of the mid-Atlantic United States. Flynets are high profile trawls similar to bottom otter trawls. These nets typically range from 80-120 ft (24-36.6 m) in headrope length, with wing mesh sizes of 16-64 in (41-163 cm), following a slow 3:1 taper to smaller mesh sizes in the body, extension, and codend sections of the net. The nearshore fishery operates from October to April inside of 30 fathoms (180 ft-55 m) from North Carolina to New Jersey. This nearshore fishery targets Atlantic croaker, weakfish, butterfish, harvestfish, bluefish, menhaden, striped bass, kingfishes, and other finfish species. Flynet fishing is no longer permitted south of Cape Hatteras in order to protect weakfish stocks. The offshore component operates from November to April outside of 30 fathoms (180 ft; 55 m) from the Hudson Canyon off New York, south to Hatteras Canyon off North Carolina. These deeper water fisheries target bluefish, Atlantic mackerel, *Loligo* squid, black sea bass, and scup (72 FR 7382, February 15, 2007). *Illex* squid are also targeted offshore (70-200 fathoms [420-1,200 ft; 128-366 m]) during summer months from May to September.” NMFS acknowledges that concerns have been raised over the possible colloquial nature of this fishery and will continue working with mid-Atlantic states and NMFS regional Fisheries Science Centers to resolve these concerns. Through this proposed 2008 LOF, NMFS also solicits additional public comments, or information, concerning characteristics associated with the “Flynet Fishery” from New Jersey to North Carolina. List of Species That are Incidentally Seriously Injured or Killed NMFS proposes to add the Northern Gulf of Mexico continental shelf and Eastern Gulf of Mexico coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphins to the list of marine mammal species and stocks incidentally injured or killed in the “Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, shark bottom longline/hook-and-line” fishery. Three interactions with bottlenose dolphins have been documented through the Commercial Shark Fishery Observer Program, which monitored the fishery between 1994 and 2004. Two of the interactions involved “hooked” dolphins released alive (1999 and 2002), and one interaction resulted in a mortality

(2003)[Pers. Comm., G. Burgess and A. Morgan; Burgess and Morgan, 2003A; Burgess and Morgan, 2003B). Based on the spatial information provided by the observer program, NMFS determined that the dolphins were likely part of the Gulf of Mexico coastal and continental shelf stocks. Although bycatch estimates for the shark bottom longline fishery have not been extrapolated for marine mammal stocks, NMFS believes that interactions with bottlenose dolphins are rare. This fishery is currently observed with an annual target of 3.9 percent coverage. No bottlenose dolphins have been observed injured or killed within the last five years. However, the fishery still operates in the same general areas and uses the same type of gear; therefore, NMFS believes the fishery continues to present a low level of risk for interactions. NMFS proposes to change the name of the bottlenose dolphin stocks incidentally seriously injured or killed in the “Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline” and “Gulf of Mexico butterfish trawl” fisheries from “Bottlenose dolphin, Northern Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf” to “Bottlenose dolphin, Northern Gulf of Mexico oceanic”, and from “Bottlenose dolphin, Northern Gulf of Mexico continental shelf edge and slope” to “Bottlenose dolphin, Northern Gulf of Mexico continental shelf”. The names of these stocks were changed in the 2003 and 2005 SARs and the LOF should have also been updated at that time. This proposal corrects that oversight. NMFS proposes to change the name of the humpback whale stock incidentally killed/injured from “Western North Atlantic (WNA)” to “Gulf of Maine” for the “Northeast sink gillnet” (Category I), “Northeast/mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot” (Category I), “Northeast anchored float gillnet” (Category II), and “Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid-Atlantic tuna, shark, swordfish hook-and-line/harpoon” (Category III) fisheries to reflect the interactions taking place between these fisheries and humpback whales from the Gulf of Maine feeding stock. During 2002, the Gulf of Maine stock was classified as a separate feeding stock based on research conducted along the Nova Scotian Shelf that showed a strong fidelity by individual whales to this region. The reclassification was based on the assumption that, were this subpopulation wiped out, repopulation by immigration from adjacent areas would not occur on any reasonable timescale (U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Stock Assessments, 2005; 71 FR 26340, May 4, 2006). Subsequent support included genetic analyses conducted by Pasb l et al. in 1995. During the Comprehensive Assessment of North Atlantic Humpback Whales, the International Whaling Commission also acknowledged that evidence existed for treating the Gulf of Maine as a separate stock for the purpose of management (IWC 2002). List of Fisheries The following two tables list U.S. commercial fisheries according to their assigned categories under section 118 of the MMPA. The estimated number of vessels/participants is expressed in terms of the number of active participants in the fishery, when possible. If this information is not available, the estimated number of vessels or persons licensed for a particular fishery is provided. If no recent information is available on the number of participants in a fishery, the number from the most recent LOF is used. The tables also list the marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or injured in each fishery based on observer data, logbook data, stranding reports, and fisher reports. This list includes all species or stocks known to experience mortality or injury in a given fishery, but also includes species or stocks for which there are anecdotal records of interaction. Additionally, species identified by logbook entries may not be verified. Bycatch of species or stocks identified is not necessarily driving a fishery's classification in a given Category. NMFS has designated those stocks driving a fishery's classification (i.e., the fishery is classified based on serious injuries and mortalities of a marine mammal stock greater than 50 percent [Category I], or greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent [Category II], of a stock's PBR) by a “1” after the stock's name. There are several fisheries classified in Category II that have no recently documented interactions with marine mammals, or interactions that did not result in a serious injury or mortality. Justification for classifying these fisheries, which are greater than 1 percent of a stock's PBR level, is by analogy to other gear types that are known to cause mortality or serious injury of marine mammals, as discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063, December 28, 1995), and according to factors listed in the definition of a “Category II fishery” in 50 CFR 229.2. NMFS has designated those fisheries originally listed by analogy in Tables 1 and 2 by a “2” after the fishery's name. Table 1 lists commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska); Table 2 lists commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. Table 1 - List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean Fishery Description Estimated # of vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured Category I GILLNET FISHERIES: CA angel shark/halibut and other species set gillnet (>3.5 in. mesh) 58 California sea lion, U.S. Harbor seal, CA Harbor porpoise, Central CA 1 Long-beaked common dolphin, CA Northern elephant seal, CA breeding Sea otter, CA Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet fishery (mesh size ≥3.5 inches and <14 inches) 24 California sea lion, U.S. Long-beaked common dolphin, CA 1 Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in. mesh) 85 California sea lion, U.S. Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA Fin whale, CA/OR/WA Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific Humpback whale, Eastern North Pacific Long-beaked common dolphin, CA Northern elephant seal, CA breeding Northern right-whale dolphin, CA/OR/WA Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA Risso's dolphin, CA/OR/WA Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA Short-finned pilot whale, CA/OR/WA 1 Sperm whale, CA/OR/WA LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: HI swordfish, tuna, billfish, mahi mahi, wahoo, oceanic sharks longline/set line 140 Blainville's beaked whale, HI Bottlenose dolphin, HI False killer whale, HI 1 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific Pantropical spotted dolphin, HI Risso's dolphin, HI Short-finned pilot whale, HI Spinner dolphin, HI Sperm whale, HI Category II GILLNET FISHERIES: AK Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet 2 1,903 Beluga whale, Bristol Bay Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific Harbor seal, Bering Sea Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific Spotted seal, AK Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 1 AK Bristol Bay salmon set gillnet 2 1,014 Beluga whale, Bristol Bay Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific Harbor seal, Bering Sea Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific Spotted seal, AK AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet 745 Beluga whale, Cook Inlet Dall's porpoise, AK Harbor porpoise, GOA Harbor seal, GOA Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 1 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Cook Inlet salmon drift gillnet 576 Beluga whale, Cook Inlet Dall's porpoise, AK Harbor porpoise, GOA 1 Harbor seal, GOA Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet 188 Harbor porpoise, GOA 1 Harbor seal, GOA Sea otter, Southwest AK Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Metlakatla/Annette Island salmon drift gillnet 2 60 None documented AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon drift gillnet 2 164 Dall's porpoise, AK Harbor porpoise, GOA Harbor seal, GOA Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon set gillnet 2 116 Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet 541 Dall's porpoise, AK Harbor porpoise, GOA 1 Harbor seal, GOA Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific Sea Otter, South Central AK Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 1 AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet 481 Dall's porpoise, AK Harbor porpoise, Southeast AK Harbor seal, Southeast AK Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 1 Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet 2 170 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific Harbor seal, Southeast AK Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK) WA Puget Sound Region salmon drift gillnet (includes all inland waters south of US-Canada border and eastward of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line-Treaty Indian fishing is excluded) 210 Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA Harbor porpoise, inland WA 1 Harbor seal, WA inland PURSE SEINE FISHERIES: AK Southeast salmon purse seine 416 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 1 AK Cook Inlet salmon purse seine 82 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 1 AK Kodiak salmon purse seine 370 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 1 CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine 63 Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore 1 California sea lion, U.S. Harbor seal, CA CA squid purse seine 71 Common dolphin, unknown Short-finned pilot whale, CA/OR/WA 1 CA tuna purse seine2 10 None documented TRAWL FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl 26 Bearded seal, AK Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea Harbor seal, Bering Sea Killer whale, AK resident 1 Northern fur seal, Eastern North Pacific Spotted seal, AK Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 1 Walrus, AK AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl 120 Dall's porpoise, AK Harbor seal, AK Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 1 Humpback whale, Western North Pacific 1 Killer whale, Eastern North Pacific, GOA, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient 1 Minke whale, AK Ribbon seal, AK Spotted seal, AK Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 1 LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod longline 114 Killer whale, AK resident 1 Ribbon seal, AK Steller sea lion, Western U.S. CA pelagic longline 2 6 California sea lion, U.S. Risso's dolphin, CA/OR/WA POT, RING NET, AND TRAP FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea sablefish pot 6 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 1 Humpback whale, Western North Pacific 1 Category III GILLNET FISHERIES: AK Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, Kotzebue salmon gillnet 1,922 Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea AK miscellaneous finfish set gillnet 3 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Prince William Sound salmon set gillnet 30 Harbor seal, GOA Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK roe herring and food/bait herring gillnet 2,034 None documented CA set gillnet (mesh size <3.5 inches) 304 None documented Hawaii inshore gillnet 5 Bottlenose dolphin, HI Spinner dolphin, HI WA Grays Harbor salmon drift gillnet (excluding treaty Tribal fishing) 24 Harbor seal, OR/WA coast WA, OR herring, smelt, shad, sturgeon, bottom fish, mullet, perch, rockfish gillnet 913 None documented WA, OR lower Columbia River (includes tributaries) drift gillnet 110 California sea lion, U.S. Harbor seal, OR/WA coast WA Willapa Bay drift gillnet 82 Harbor seal, OR/WA coast Northern elephant seal, CA breeding PURSE SEINE, BEACH SEINE, ROUND HAUL AND THROW NET FISHERIES: AK Metlakatla salmon purse seine 10 None documented AK miscellaneous finfish beach seine 1 None documented AK miscellaneous finfish purse seine 3 None documented AK octopus/squid purse seine 2 None documented AK roe herring and food/bait herring beach seine 8 None documented AK roe herring and food/bait herring purse seine 624 None documented AK salmon beach seine 34 None documented AK salmon purse seine (except Southeast Alaska, which is in Category II 953 Harbor seal, GOA WA, OR sardine purse seine 42 None documented HI Kona crab loop net 42 None documented HI opelu/akule net 12 None documented HI inshore purse seine 23 None documented HI throw net, cast net 14 None documented WA (all species) beach seine or drag seine 235 None documented WA, OR herring, smelt, squid purse seine or lampara 130 None documented WA salmon purse seine 440 None documented WA salmon reef net 53 None documented DIP NET FISHERIES: CA squid dip net 115 None documented WA, OR smelt, herring dip net 119 None documented MARINE AQUACULTURE FISHERIES: CA marine shellfish aquaculture unknown None documented CA salmon enhancement rearing pen >1 None documented CA white seabass enhancement net pens 13 California sea lion, U.S. HI offshore pen culture 2 None documented OR salmon ranch 1 None documented WA, OR salmon net pens 14 California sea lion, U.S. Harbor seal, WA inland waters TROLL FISHERIES: AK North Pacific halibut, AK bottom fish, WA, OR, CA albacore, groundfish, bottom fish, CA halibut non-salmonid troll fisheries 1,530 (330 AK) None documented AK salmon troll 2,335 Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. American Samoa tuna troll < 50 None documented CA/OR/WA salmon troll 4,300 None documented Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands tuna troll 88 None documented Guam tuna troll 401 None documented HI trolling, rod and reel 1,321 None documented LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot longline 12 Killer whale, AK resident AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish longline 17 None documented AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands sablefish longline 63 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska halibut longline 1,302 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod longline 440 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish longline 421 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline 412 Sperm whale, North Pacific Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. AK halibut longline/set line (State and Federal waters) 3,079 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK octopus/squid longline 7 None documented AK state-managed waters groundfish longline/setline (including sablefish, rockfish, and miscellaneous finfish) 731 None documented American Samoa longline 60 None documented WA, OR, CA groundfish, bottomfish longline/set line 367 None documented WA, OR North Pacific halibut longline/set line 350 None documented TRAWL FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel trawl 8 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod trawl 87 Harbor seal, Bering Sea Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish trawl 9 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl 52 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod trawl 101 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl 83 Fin whale, Northeast Pacific Northern elephant seal, North Pacific Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish trawl 45 None documented AK food/bait herring trawl 3 None documented AK miscellaneous finfish otter or beam trawl 6 None documented AK shrimp otter trawl and beam trawl (statewide and Cook Inlet) 58 None documented AK state-managed waters of Cook Inlet, Kachemak Bay, Prince William Sound, Southeast AK groundfish trawl 2 None documented CA halibut bottom trawl 53 None documented WA, OR, CA groundfish trawl 585 California sea lion, U.S. Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA Harbor seal, OR/WA coast Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. WA, OR, CA shrimp trawl 300 None documented POT, RING NET, AND TRAP FISHERIES: AK Aleutian Islands sablefish pot 8 None documented AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod pot 76 None documented AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands crab pot 329 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska crab pot unknown None documented AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod pot 154 Harbor seal, GOA AK Southeast Alaska crab pot unknown Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK) AK Southeast Alaska shrimp pot unknown Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK) AK octopus/squid pot 72 None documented AK snail pot 2 None documented CA lobster, prawn, shrimp, rock crab, fish pot 608 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific Harbor seal, CA Humpback whale, Eastern North Pacific Sea otter, CA OR, CA hagfish pot or trap 25 None documented WA, OR, CA crab pot 1,478 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific Humpback whale, Eastern North Pacific WA, OR, CA sablefish pot 176 None documented WA, OR shrimp pot/trap 254 None documented HI crab trap 22 None documented HI fish trap 19 None documented HI lobster trap 0 Hawaiian monk seal HI shrimp trap 5 None documented HANDLINE AND JIG FISHERIES: AK miscellaneous finfish handline and mechanical jig 100 None documented AK North Pacific halibut handline and mechanical jig 93 None documented AK octopus/squid handline 2 None documented American Samoa bottomfish <50 None documented Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands bottomfish <50 None documented Guam bottomfish 200 None documented HI aku boat, pole and line 4 None documented HI Main Hawaiian Islands, Northwest Hawaiian Islands deep sea bottomfish 300 Hawaiian monk seal HI inshore handline 307 None documented HI tuna handline 298 Hawaiian monk seal WA groundfish, bottomfish jig 679 None documented Western Pacific squid jig 6 None documented HARPOON FISHERIES: CA swordfish harpoon 30 None documented POUND NET/WEIR FISHERIES: AK herring spawn on kelp pound net 452 None documented AK Southeast herring roe/food/bait pound net 3 None documented WA herring brush weir 1 None documented BAIT PENS: WA/OR/CA bait pens 13 California sea lion, U.S. DREDGE FISHERIES: Coastwide scallop dredge 108 (12 AK) None documented DIVE, HAND/MECHANICAL COLLECTION FISHERIES: AK abalone 1 None documented AK clam 156 None documented WA herring spawn on kelp 4 None documented AK dungeness crab 3 None documented AK herring spawn on kelp 363 None documented AK urchin and other fish/shellfish 471 None documented CA abalone 0 None documented CA sea urchin 583 None documented HI black coral diving 1 None documented HI fish pond N/A None documented HI handpick 37 None documented HI lobster diving 19 None documented HI squiding, spear 91 None documented WA, CA kelp 4 None documented WA/OR sea urchin, other clam, octopus, oyster, sea cucumber, scallop, ghost shrimp hand, dive, or mechanical collection 637 None documented WA shellfish aquaculture 684 None documented COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSEL (CHARTER BOAT) FISHERIES: AK, WA, OR, CA commercial passenger fishing vessel >7,000 (1,107 AK) Killer whale, stock unknown Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. HI charter vessel 114 None documented LIVE FINFISH/SHELLFISH FISHERIES: CA finfish and shellfish live trap/hook-and-line 93 None documented List of Abbreviations and Symbols Used in Table 1: AK - Alaska; CA - California; GOA - Gulf of Alaska; HI - Hawaii; OR - Oregon; WA - Washington 1 Fishery classified based on serious injuries and mortalities of this stock, which are greater than 1 percent of the stock's PBR. 2 Fishery classified by analogy. Table 2 - List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Description Estimated # of vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured Category I GILLNET FISHERIES: Mid-Atlantic gillnet >670 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore Common dolphin, WNA Gray seal, WNA Harbor porpoise, GME/BF 1 Harbor seal, WNA Harp seal, WNA Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine 1 Long-finned pilot whale, WNA Minke whale, Canadian east coast Short-finned pilot whale, WNA White-sided dolphin, WNA Northeast sink gillnet 341 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore Common dolphin, WNA Fin whale, WNA Gray seal, WNA Harbor porpoise, GME/BF 1 Harbor seal, WNA Harp seal, WNA Hooded seal, WNA Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine 1 Minke whale, Canadian east coast 1 North Atlantic right whale, WNA 1 Risso's dolphin, WNA White-sided dolphin, WNA LONGLINE FISHERIES: Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline 94 Atlantic spotted dolphin, Northern GMX Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX oceanic Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX continental shelf Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore Common dolphin, WNA Cuvier's beaked whale, WNA Long-finned pilot whale, WNA 1 Mesoplodon beaked whale, WNA Northern bottlenose whale, WNA Pantropical spotted dolphin, Northern GMX Pantropical spotted dolphin, WNA Pygmy sperm whale, WNA 1 Risso's dolphin, Northern GMX Risso's dolphin, WNA Short-finned pilot whale, Northern GMX Short-finned pilot whale, WNA 1 TRAP/POT FISHERIES: Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot 13,000 Fin whale, WNA Harbor seal, WNA Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine 1 Minke whale, Canadian east coast 1 North Atlantic right whale, WNA 1 Category II GILLNET FISHERIES: Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet 2 45 None documented Gulf of Mexico gillnet 2 724 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, and estuarine Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal North Carolina inshore gillnet 94 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 Northeast anchored float gillnet 2 133 Harbor seal, WNA Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine White-sided dolphin, WNA Northeast drift gillnet 2 unknown None documented Southeast Atlantic gillnet 2 779 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet 30 Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 North Atlantic right whale, WNA TRAWL FISHERIES: Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) 620 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore Common dolphin, WNA Long-finned pilot whale, WNA Risso's dolphin, WNA Short-finned pilot whale, WNA White-sided dolphin, WNA 1 Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl >1,000 Common dolphin, WNA 1 Long-finned pilot whale, WNA 1 Short-finned pilot whale, WNA 1 Mid-Atlantic flynet 2 21 None documented Northeast mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) 17 Harbor seal, WNA Long-finned pilot whale, WNA 1 Short-finned pilot whale, WNA 1 White-sided dolphin, WNA Northeast bottom trawl 1,052 Common dolphin, WNA Harbor porpoise, GME/BF Harp seal, WNA Long-finned pilot whale, WNA Short-finned pilot whale, WNA White-sided dolphin, WNA 1 TRAP/POT FISHERIES: Atlantic blue crab trap/pot >16,000 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 West Indian manatee, FL 1 Atlantic mixed species trap/pot 2 unknown Fin whale, WNA Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine PURSE SEINE FISHERIES: Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine 50 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, estuarine Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal 1 Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine 2 22 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal HAUL/BEACH SEINE FISHERIES: Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine 25 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 North Carolina long haul seine 33 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 STOP NET FISHERIES: North Carolina roe mullet stop net 13 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 POUND NET FISHERIES: Virginia pound net 187 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 Category III GILLNET FISHERIES: Caribbean gillnet >991 Dwarf sperm whale, WNA West Indian manatee, Antillean Delaware River inshore gillnet 60 None documented Long Island Sound inshore gillnet 20 None documented Rhode Island, southern Massachusetts (to Monomoy Island), and New York Bight (Raritan and Lower New York Bays) inshore gillnet 32 None documented Southeast Atlantic inshore gillnet unknown None documented TRAWL FISHERIES: Atlantic shellfish bottom trawl 972 None documented Gulf of Mexico butterfish trawl 2 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX oceanic Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX continental shelf Gulf of Mexico mixed species trawl 20 None documented Georgia cannonball jellyfish trawl 1 None documented Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl >18,000 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, estuarine West Indian Manatee, FL MARINE AQUACULTURE FISHERIES: Finfish aquaculture 48 Harbor seal, WNA Shellfish aquaculture unknown None documented PURSE SEINE FISHERIES: Gulf of Maine Atlantic herring purse seine 30 Harbor seal, WNA Gray seal, WNA Gulf of Maine menhaden purse seine 50 None documented Florida west coast sardine purse seine 10 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal U.S. Atlantic tuna purse seine 5 Long-finned pilot whale, WNA Short-finned pilot whale, WNA LONGLINE/HOOK-AND-LINE FISHERIES: Northeast/Mid-Atlantic bottom longline/hook-and-line 46 None documented Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic tuna, shark swordfish hook-and-line/harpoon 26,223 Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean snapper-grouper and other reef fish bottom longline/hook-and-line >5,000 None documented Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shark bottom longline/hook-and-line <125 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX continental shelf Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean pelagic hook-and-line/harpoon 1,446 None documented TRAP/POT FISHERIES Caribbean mixed species trap/pot >501 None documented Caribbean spiny lobster trap/pot >197 None documented Florida spiny lobster trap/pot 2,145 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal Gulf of Mexico blue crab trap/pot 4,113 Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, estuarine West Indian manatee, FL Gulf of Mexico mixed species trap/pot unknown None documented Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico golden crab trap/pot 10 None documented Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico stone crab trap/pot 4,453 None documented U.S. Mid-Atlantic eel trap/pot >700 None documented STOP SEINE/WEIR/POUND NET FISHERIES: Gulf of Maine herring and Atlantic mackerel stop seine/weir 50 Gray seal, Northwest North Atlantic Harbor porpoise, GME/BF Harbor seal, WNA Minke whale, Canadian east coast White-sided dolphin, WNA U.S. Mid-Atlantic crab stop seine/weir 2,600 None documented U.S. Mid-Atlantic mixed species stop seine/weir/pound net (except the North Carolina roe mullet stop net) 751 None documented DREDGE FISHERIES: Gulf of Maine mussel >50 None documented Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic sea scallop dredge 233 None documented U.S. Mid-Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico oyster 7,000 None documented U.S. Mid-Atlantic offshore surf clam and quahog dredge 100 None documented HAUL/BEACH SEINE FISHERIES: Caribbean haul/beach seine 15 West Indian manatee, Antillean Gulf of Mexico haul/beach seine unknown None documented Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, haul/beach seine 25 None documented DIVE, HAND/MECHANICAL COLLECTION FISHERIES: Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean shellfish dive, hand/mechanical collection 20,000 None documented Gulf of Maine urchin dive, hand/mechanical collection >50 None documented Gulf of Mexico, Southeast Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and Caribbean cast net unknown None documented COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSEL (CHARTER BOAT) FISHERIES: Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean commercial passenger fishing vessel 4,000 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal List of Abbreviations and Symbols Used in Table 2: FL - Florida; GA - Georgia; GME/BF - Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy; GMX - Gulf of Mexico; NC - North Carolina; SC - South Carolina; TX - Texas; WNA - Western North Atlantic 1 - Fishery classified based on serious injuries and mortalities of this stock, which are greater than 1 percent of the stock's PBR. 2 - Fishery classified by analogy. Classification The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis leading to the certification is repeated below. Under existing regulations, all fishers participating in Category I or II fisheries must register under the MMPA, obtain an Authorization Certificate, and pay a fee of $25 (with the exception of those in regions with a registration process integrated with existing state and Federal permitting processes). Additionally, fishers may be subject to a Take Reduction Plan

(TRP)and requested to carry an observer. The Authorization Certificate authorizes the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. NMFS has estimated that approximately 42,000 fishing vessels, most of which are small entities, operate in Category I or II fisheries, and therefore, are required to register. However, registration has been integrated with existing state or Federal registration programs for the majority of these fisheries so these fishers do not need to register separately under the MMPA. Currently, approximately 350 fishers register directly with NMFS under the MMPA authorization program. Though this proposed rule will affect approximately 350 small entities, the $25 registration fee, with respect to anticipated revenues, is not considered a significant economic impact. If a vessel is requested to carry an observer, fishers will not incur any direct economic costs associated with carrying that observer. Potential indirect costs to individual fishers required to take observers may include: lost space on deck for catch, lost bunk space, and lost fishing time due to time needed to process bycatch data. However, effective monitoring will rotate observers among a limited number of vessels in a fishery at any given time and each vessel within an observed fishery has an equal probability of being requested to accommodate an observer. Therefore, the potential indirect costs to individual fishers are expected to be minimal since observer coverage would only be required for a small percentage of an individual's total annual fishing time. In addition, section 118 of the MMPA states that an observer will not be placed on a vessel if the facilities for quartering an observer or performing observer functions are inadequate or unsafe, thereby exempting vessels too small to accommodate an observer from this requirement. As a result of this certification, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and was not prepared. In the event that reclassification of a fishery to Category I or II results in a TRP, economic analyses of the effects of that plan will be summarized in subsequent rulemaking actions. This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collection of information for the registration of fishers under the MMPA has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under OMB control number 0648-0293 (0.15 hours per report for new registrants and 0.09 hours per report for renewals). The requirement for reporting marine mammal injuries or mortalities has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0648-0292 (0.15 hours per report). These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these reporting burden estimates or any other aspect of the collections of information, including suggestions for reducing burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. An environmental assessment

(EA)was prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)for regulations to implement section 118 of the MMPA in June 1995. NMFS revised that EA relative to classifying U.S. commercial fisheries on the LOF in December 2005. Both the 1995 EA and the 2005 EA concluded that implementation of MMPA section 118 regulations would not have a significant impact on the human environment. This proposed rule would not make any significant change in the management of reclassified fisheries, and therefore, this proposed rule is not expected to change the analysis or conclusion of the 2005 EA. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the development of a TRP, NMFS will first prepare an environmental document, as required under NEPA, specific to that action. This proposed rule will not affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)or their associated critical habitat. The impacts of numerous fisheries have been analyzed in various biological opinions, and this proposed rule will not affect the conclusions of those opinions. The classification of fisheries on the LOF is not considered to be a management action that would adversely affect threatened or endangered species. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the development of a TRP, NMFS would conduct consultation under ESA section 7 for that action. This proposed rule will have no adverse impacts on marine mammals and may have a positive impact on marine mammals by improving knowledge of marine mammals and the fisheries interacting with marine mammals through information collected from observer programs, stranding and sighting data, or take reduction teams. This proposed rule will not affect the land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone, as specified under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. References Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2006. Draft Report. Characterization of Georgia Commercial and Recreational Fisheries by Gear Type: The Potential for Interaction with Sea Turtles. Burgess, G. and A. Morgan. 2003A. Final Report NA97FF0041. Renewal of an observer program to monitor the directed commercial shark fishery in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. Burgess, G. and A. Morgan. 2003B. Final Report NA16FM1598, National Marine Fisheries Service Award. Renewal of an observer program to monitor the directed commercial shark fishery in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic: 2002(2) and 2003(1) fishing seasons. Burgess, G. and A. Morgan. 2007. Personal Communication. Califf, J. 2007. Personal Communication. Dated: June 21, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-12556 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 070607119-7119-01] RIN 0648-AV11 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a regulation to implement the annual harvest guideline for Pacific sardine in the U.S. exclusive economic zone

(EEZ)off the Pacific coast for the fishing season of January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. This harvest guideline has been calculated according to the regulations implementing the Coastal Pelagic Species

(CPS)Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)and establishes allowable harvest levels for Pacific sardine off the Pacific coast. DATES: Comments must be received by July 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by 0648-AV11, by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *0648-AV11.SWR@noaa.gov* . Include the identifier “0648-AV11” in the subject line of the message. • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Following the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. • Fax:

(562)980-4047. Copies of the report *Assessment of Pacific Sardine Stock for U.S. Management in 2007* may be obtained from the Southwest Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Lindsay, Southwest Region, NMFS,

(562)980-4034. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CPS FMP, which was implemented by publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** on December 15, 1999 (64 FR 69888), divides management unit species into two categories: actively managed and monitored. Harvest guidelines for actively managed species (Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel) are based on formulas applied to current biomass estimates. Biomass estimates are not calculated for species that are only monitored (jack mackerel, northern anchovy, and market squid).,/P> During public meetings each year, the biomass for each actively managed species within the CPS FMP is presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) CPS Management Team

(Team)and the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel). At that time, the biomass, the harvest guideline (HG), and the status of the fisheries are reviewed and discussed. This information is then presented to the Council along with recommendations and comments from the Team and Subpanel. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comments, the Council makes its recommendation to NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The annual HG is published in the **Federal Register** as close as practicable to the start of the fishing season. Public meetings of the Team, Subpanel and CPS Subcommitee of the Scientific and Statistical Committee

(SSC)were held in October 2006. During these meetings the current stock assessment update for Pacific sardine, which included a preliminary biomass estimate and HG, was presented and reviewed in accordance with the procedures of the FMP. In November, the Council held a public meeting in San Diego, California (71 FR 62998) during which time the Council reviewed the current stock assessment, biomass numbers and proposed harvest guideline. Following the Team and Subpanel reports and hearing public comments, the Council adopted the Team's recommended harvest guideline for the 2007 Pacific sardine fishing season (January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007) of 152,564 metric tons (mt). Although this HG is 28 percent higher than the HG for 2006, it is over 50,000 mt greater than the largest recent harvest by U.S. west coast fisheries. The Council also adopted the Subpanel recommendation of an incidental catch allowance for Pacific sardine of up to 45 percent by weight in other CPS fisheries in the event that the coastwide harvest of Pacific sardine exceeds a seasonal allocation prior to the next scheduled reallocation. The size of the sardine population was estimated using the Age-Structured-Assessment-Program

(ASAP)stock assessment model. ASAP was recommended as the most appropriate framework for conducting future Pacific sardine assessments by the stock assessment review

(STAR)panel which met in June of 2004 at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla, California. The ASAP model uses a forward-projection that evaluates the relationship between the species' population dynamics and associated fishery operations. Information on the fishery and the stock assessment are found in the report *Assessment of Pacific Sardine Stock for U.S. Management in 2007* (see ADDRESSES ). The formula in the FMP uses the following factors to determine the harvest guideline: 1. *Biomass.* The estimated July 1, 2006, stock biomass of Pacific sardine age one and above 1,319,072 metric tons (mt). 2. *Cutoff.* This is the biomass level below which no commercial fishery is allowed. The FMP established this level at 150,000 mt. 3. *Distribution.* The portion of the Pacific sardine biomass estimated in the EEZ off the Pacific coast is 87 percent and is based on the average historical larval distribution obtained from scientific cruises and the distribution of the resource according to the logbooks of aerial fish-spotters. 4. *Fraction.* The harvest fraction is the percentage of the biomass above 150,000 mt that may be harvested. The fraction used varies (5-15 percent) with current ocean temperatures; a higher fraction for warmer ocean temperatures and a lower fraction for cooler temperatures. Warmer ocean temperatures favor the production of Pacific sardine. For 2007, the fraction used was 15 percent, based on three seasons of sea surface temperature at Scripps Pier, California. Based on the estimated biomass of 1,319,072 mt and the formula in the FMP, a harvest guideline of 152,564 mt was determined. The Pacific sardine HG is apportioned based on the following allocation scheme established by Amendment 11 (71 FR 36999) to the CPS FMP: 35 percent (53,397 mt) is allocated coastwide on January 1; 40 percent (61,025 mt), plus any portion not harvested from the initial allocation is reallocated coastwide on July 1; and on September 15 the remaining 25 percent (38,141 mt), plus any portion not harvested from earlier allocations is released. If the total harvest guideline or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, the Pacific sardine fishery shall be closed until either it re-opens per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. The Regional Administrator shall publish in the **Federal Register** , through appropriate rulemaking procedures, the date of the closure of the directed fishery for Pacific sardine. Classification These proposed specifications are issued under the authority of, and NMFS has preliminarily determined that it is in accordance with, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and the regulations implementing the FMP. These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows: The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement the 2007 harvest guideline for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set an annual harvest guideline for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the formula in the FMP. The harvest guideline is derived by a formula applied to the current biomass estimate. The HG is apportioned based on the following allocation scheme: 35% of the harvest guideline is allocated coastwide on January 1; 40% of the harvest guideline, plus any portion not harvested from the initial allocation is then reallocated coastwide on July 1; and on September 15 the remaining 25%, plus any portion not harvested from earlier allocations will be released. If the total harvest guideline or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, the Pacific sardine fishery is closed until either it re-opens per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. There is no limit on the amount of catch that any single vessel can take during an allocation period or the year; the harvest guideline and seasonal allocations are available until fully utilized by the entire CPS fleet. The harvest guideline would apply to approximately 86 small fishing vessels (105 permits) coastwide that fish for Pacific sardine within U.S. waters; 61 permits in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California (south of 39 N. lat.), and a combined 44 permits in Oregon and Washington's state Pacific sardine fisheries. This proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities and therefore will impact a substantial number of these small entities in the same manner. These vessels are considered small business entities by the U.S. Small Business Administration since the vessels do not have annual receipts in excess of $4.0 million. Therefore, there would be no economic impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large business entities under the proposed action. The profitability of these vessels as a result of this proposed rule is based on the average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt. NMFS used average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt to conduct a profitability analysis because cost data for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels was unavailable. For the 2006 fishing year, the harvest guideline was set at 118,937 mt with an estimated ex-vessel value of approximately $15 million. Around 90,000 mt (49,000 in California and 41,000 in Oregon and Washington) of this harvest guideline was actually harvested during the 2006 fishing season valued at an estimated $10 million. The proposed harvest guideline for the 2007 Pacific sardine fishing season (January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007) is 152,564 metric tons (mt). This HG is 28 percent higher than the HG for 2006, but is over 50,000 mt greater than the largest recent harvest by U.S. west coast fisheries. If the fleet were to take the entire 2007 harvest guideline, and assuming no change in the coastwide average ex-vessel price per mt of $116, the potential revenue to the fleet would be approximately $18 million. Whether this occurs depends greatly on market forces within the fishery and on the regional availability of the resource to the fleets and the fleets ability to find pure schools of Pacific sardine. A change in the market and/or the potential lack of availability of the resource to the fleets could cause a reduction in the amount of Pacific sardine that is harvested, in turn, reducing the total revenue to the fleet. NMFS does not anticipate a drop in profitability based on this rule due to the fact that it allows fishermen to harvest more than last year. Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, this rule if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none has been prepared. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: June 22, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-12566 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 124 Thursday, June 28, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0062] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Transportation of Animals on Foreign Air Carriers AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with provisions of the Animal Welfare Act regulations for the humane transportation of animals in commerce. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0062 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0062, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0062. Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on an information collection associated with regulations for the humane transportation of animals in commerce, contact Dr. Jerry DePoyster, Senior Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234;

(301)734-7586. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Transportation of Animals on Foreign Air Carriers. *OMB Number:* 0579-0247. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* The regulations contained in 9 CFR chapter I, subchapter A, part 3, provide standards for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation, by regulated entities, of animals covered by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA, 7 U.S.C. 2131 *et seq.* ). The regulations in part 3 are divided into six subparts, each of which contains facility and operating standards, animal health and husbandry standards, and transportation standards for a specific category of animals and consist of the following: Subpart A-dogs and cats; subpart B-guinea pigs and hamsters; subpart C-rabbits; subpart D-nonhuman primates; subpart E-marine mammals; and subpart F-warmblooded animals other than dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, nonhuman primates, and marine mammals. Transportation standards for dogs and cats are contained in §§ 3.13 through 3.19; for guinea pigs and hamsters, in §§ 3.35 through 3.41; for rabbits, in §§ 3.60 through 3.66; for nonhuman primates, in §§ 3.86 through 3.92; for marine mammals, in §§ 3.112 through 3.118; and for all other warmblooded animals, in §§ 3.136 through 3.142. Foreign air carriers, as well as domestic carriers, transporting animals covered under the AWA to or from any point within the United States, its territories, possessions, or the District of Columbia must comply with the transportation standards and are required to register as a carrier with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and keep and maintain records pertaining to animal transport. These records may include a copy of the consignor's written guarantee of payment for transportation for C.O.D. shipments, a shipping document, an animal health certificate executed and issued by a licensed veterinarian, and, if needed, an acclimation statement indicating that the animal being transported can withstand temperatures colder or warmer than the minimums or maximums specified in the regulations. In addition, depending on the species, the standards may require that instructions for the administration of drugs, medication, other special care, food, and water, as well as other shipping documents, be attached to the outside of the animal's primary enclosure. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1)Evaluate 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;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.162037 hours per response. *Respondents:* Foreign air carriers transporting animals covered under the Animal Welfare Act. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 20. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 54. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 1,080. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 175 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of June 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-12547 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Farm Service Agency Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCIES: Rural Housing Service, Farm Service Agency, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the subject agencies' intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the programs for 7 CFR part 1806, subpart A, “Real Property Insurance.” This renewal does not involve any revisions to the program regulations. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before August 27, 2007 to be assured of consideration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Quayle, Senior Loan Officer, USDA, FSA, Farm Loan Programs, Loan Making Division, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0522, Washington, DC 20250-0522, telephone

(202)690-4018. Electronic mail: *Cathy.Quayle@wdc.usda.go* v. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* 7 CFR, Part 1806-A—Real Property Insurance. *OMB Number:* 0575-0087. *Expiration Date of Approval:* November 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* This regulation governs the servicing of property insurance on buildings and land securing the interest of the Farm Service Agency

(FSA)in connection with an FSA Farm Loan Program Loan and the Multi-Family Housing Program of the Rural Housing Service (RHS). The information collections pertain primarily to the verification of insurance on property securing Agency loans. This information collection is submitted by FSA or RHS borrowers to Agency offices. It is necessary to protect the government from losses due to weather, natural disasters, or fire and ensure that loan applicants meet hazard insurance requirements: *Estimate of Respondent Burden:* Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average .47 minutes per response. *Respondents:* Individuals or households, businesses or other for profit organizations and farms. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 4,550. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1.17. *Estimate Number of Responses:* 5,330. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 2,275. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from: Renita Bolden, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at

(202)692-0035. *Comments:* Comments are invited on:

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

(b)the accuracy of agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(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. Comments may be sent to Renita Bolden, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Dated: June 20, 2007. Russell T. Davis, Administrator, Rural Housing Service. Dated: June 14, 2007. Teresa C. Lasseter, Administrator, Farm Service Agency. [FR Doc. 07-3164 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 38

Traces to 38 documents

CFR