Rules and Regulations. Final rule

12,930 words·~59 min read·/register/2007/10/23/07-5228

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

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 157 [Docket No. RM07-17-000; Order No. 700] Revisions to Landowner Notification and Blanket Certificate Regulations Issued October 18, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending its regulations to modify landowner notification requirements and to require a noise survey following the completion of projects involving compressor facilities undertaken pursuant to blanket certificate authority.

The proposed regulatory revisions are intended to enhance public participation in the Commission's consideration of proposed projects and ensure that compressor projects completed under blanket certificate authority will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. DATES: The regulatory revisions made in this Final Rule will become effective November 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon Wagner, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, *gordon.wagner@ferc.gov* ,

(202)502-8947. Michael McGehee, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, *michael.mcgehee@ferc.gov* ,

(202)502-8962. Lonnie Lister, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, *lonnie.lister@ferc.gov* , 202-502-8587. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff. I. Introduction 1. On June 22, 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NOPR)to amend its regulations to modify landowner notification requirements and require a noise survey following the completion of projects involving compressor facilities undertaken pursuant to blanket certificate authority. 1 These regulatory revisions are intended to enhance public participation in the Commission's consideration of proposed projects and ensure that compressor projects completed under blanket certificate authority will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. Comments on the NOPR were submitted by the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA). This Final Rule responds to the comments and adopts, with minor modifications, the regulatory revisions described in the NOPR. 1 72 FR 35669 (June 29, 2007), FERC Stats. and Regs.¶ 32,616 (2007). The NOPR followed an expansion of the blanket certificate program, *see Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Regulations and Clarification Regarding Rates* , Order No. 686, 71 FR 63680 (Oct. 31, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,231 (2006), *order on reh'g and clarification* , Order No. 686-A, 72 FR 37431 (July 10, 2007), FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,249 (2007), *order on reh'g* , Order No. 686-B, FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,255 (2007). II. Regulatory Revisions 2. The NOPR discusses proposed changes to the existing regulations regarding landowner notification and compressor noise restrictions. Comments submitted address the latter. A. Landowner Notification 3. The NOPR discusses expanding the § 157.6(d)(2)(iii) landowner notification requirement. Currently, this requirement directs natural gas companies planning to construct compressor or liquefied natural gas

(LNG)facilities to notify all landowners whose property contains a residence within one-half mile of the project site before beginning any construction. 2 This will be revised to remove the residence qualification, and will instead direct companies to notify all landowners within one-half mile of the site of a planned compressor or LNG project regardless of whether the property contains a residence. This revision should ensure all landowners within one-half mile of a proposed project site will receive notice that will allow them to raise land use issues, including existing non-residential uses as well as planned future uses of undeveloped land. 2 *See* the landowner notification requirements, 18 CFR 157.203(d)(1) and (2), and the definition of affected landowners, 18 CFR 157.6(d)(2)(iii). B. Noise Survey 4. To ensure that compressor facilities installed under blanket certificate authority will not have significant adverse environmental impacts, compressor facilities must be designed to meet the noise level limits described below. To verify blanket certificate compressor facilities meet these noise level limits, this order will revise § 157.206(b)(5) to require that companies completing a blanket certificate compressor project file a noise survey with the Commission. If this post-project survey shows the facility is emitting excessive noise, the company will have up to one year from the project's in-service date to meet the noise limits. After completing its noise mitigation measures, the company will submit a subsequent noise survey to verify compliance with the noise limits. This same noise survey requirement is routinely applied to compressor facilities installed under case-specific certificate authority. 5. A company may rely on blanket certificate authority to undertake qualifying projects provided:

(1)Noise-generating equipment installed under blanket certificate authority, whether an entire new compressor station or an addition or modification to an existing station, does not exceed an average day-night sound level (L dn ) of 55 decibels

(dBA)at a noise sensitive area

(NSA)when operating at full load;

(2)an addition or modification to an existing compressor station, which is currently emitting noise at an L dn of 55 dBA or less at NSAs, does not cause noise at NSAs to exceed an L dn of 55 dBA; and

(3)an addition or modification to an existing compressor station, which is currently emitting noise in excess of an L dn of 55 dBA at NSAs, does not cause noise to increase at NSAs. III. Comments and Commission Response 6. Comments by Interior question whether an L dn of 55 dBA might adversely impact certain wildlife resources. Comments by INGAA seek clarification on how compressor noise is to be measured. A. Department of the Interior's Comments 7. Interior points out that 55 dBA was designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)as a noise level adequate to protect against speech interference and sleep disturbance for residential, education, and healthcare NSAs. 3 Given that the 55 dBA level is based on human activity, Interior is concerned that this level fails to account for impacts on species that may be more sensitive to noise. Interior urges that screening for such species be required for blanket certificate projects and asks the Commission to direct blanket project applicants to contact Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, along with the appropriate state fish and wildlife agency or state Natural Heritage Database, to identify the presence of threatened or endangered species and noise-sensitive species or habitats in the project vicinity. If there are such species or habitats, Interior would then require the project applicant to seek case-specific certificate authorization. 3 The Commission relied on this EPA designation in conducting its Environmental Assessment

(EA)of the blanket certificate program, finding that compressors should not increase ambient noise levels at nearby NSAs above an L dn of 55 dBA, since 55 dBA is “the maximum level which will not affect public health and welfare by interfering with speech or other activities in outdoor areas * * * [and consequently] should also ensure adequate protection for the indoor noise environment.” *Blanket Certification of Routine Gas Pipeline Transactions* , EA at 25 (July 1981), *citing* EPA's *Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety* (Washington, DC 1974). 8. While appropriate to most circumstances, the Commission recognizes that 55 dBA ought not be applied inflexibly or universally. 4 That said, the Commission finds that potential adverse impacts on species and habitat due to noise are adequately taken into account by the requirement that all blanket certificate projects comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). 5 Compliance with the ESA effectively compels a blanket certificate holder to engage in the same screening and consultation that Interior requests for threatened and endangered species. Accordingly, the Commission expects the ESA compliance process will continue to provide the most appropriate means for assessing whether a proposed blanket certificate project's permitted noise level of 55 dBA might have significant adverse impacts on wildlife resources. In addition, the Commission notes that the expanded landowner notification requirement implemented herein should promote consideration of noise impacts on the use of land for non-residential purposes, such as the cultivation of a domesticated noise-sensitive species. 4 The EA reviewing the blanket certificate program noted the possibility that “compressor facilities constructed in some rural areas could degrade a quiet environment because a blanket authorization would require little or no noise abatement in remote or unpopulated areas.” *Id.* at 33. 5 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* B. INGAA's Comments 9. The NOPR proposed that § 157.206(b)(5)(ii) direct a blanket certificate project sponsor to measure “noise attributable to the operation of the facility at full load.” INGAA seeks clarification on conducting a post-project noise survey, asking whether “the facility” is intended to refer to the particular equipment added or modified under blanket certificate authorization, or whether “the facility” is intended to include all the facilities, i.e., both existing facilities as well as new or modified facilities located at a particular compressor site. In response to INGAA's request, we will revise § 157.206(b)(5)(ii) as described below. 10. As a threshold measure, for a compressor facility to qualify for blanket certificate authorization, the facility must be designed to meet an L dn of 55 dBA at NSAs when operating at full load. Requiring that a facility added or modified under blanket certificate authority meet this maximum noise limit is intended to ensure that there will not be a significant adverse environmental noise impact. 6 6 *See* note 3. 11. With respect to noise impacts, the Commission will also consider the composite noise level of a compressor station's new and existing facilities. This is because a facility that meets an L dn of 55 dBA, when added to a station currently operating an L dn of 55 dBA, can cause the overall noise of the station to exceed an L dn of 55 dBA. Thus, the Commission will require that an addition or modification to an existing compressor station that is operating at or below an L dn of 55 dBA at NSAs must not cause overall noise attributable to the station to exceed an L dn of 55 dBA at NSAs. Further, an addition or modification to an existing compressor station that is operating above an L dn of 55 dBA at NSAs must not cause overall noise attributable to the station to increase at NSAs. 12. To ensure adherence to these noise level limits, the Commission will require a company that relies on its blanket certificate to construct a new compressor station facility, or to add or modify a facility at an existing station, to submit a noise survey within 60 days of placing the new or modified facility in service. The company must measure noise attributable to its new or modified facility operating at full load at NSAs. When a new or modified facility is placed in service at an existing compressor station, the company must also measure the overall post-project noise of the station operating at full load. If the measured noise exceeds the specified limits at NSAs, the company must bring its station into compliance within a year of the blanket certificate facility's in-service date. Within 60 days of completing its noise-mitigation measures, e.g., making modifications to noise-generating equipment or erecting a barrier between the station and NSAs, the company must submit a subsequent noise survey to the Commission demonstrating its compliance with the noise level limits. IV. Information Collection Statement 13. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting, record keeping, and public disclosure requirements (collections of information) imposed by an agency. 7 Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. The only entities affected by this rule would be the natural gas companies under the Commission's jurisdiction. 7 5 CFR 1320.11. 14. The information collection requirements in this Final Rule are identified as FERC-537, “Gas Pipeline Certificates: Construction, Acquisition and Abandonment,” which identifies the Commission's information collections relating to Part 157 of its regulations, which apply to natural gas facilities for which authorization under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act

(NGA)is required, and includes all blanket certificate projects, and FERC-577, “Gas Pipeline Certificates: Environmental Impact Statements,” which identifies the Commission's information collections relating to the requirements set forth in National Environmental Policy Act and Parts 2, 157, 284, and 380 of the Commission's regulations, and requires applicants to conduct appropriate studies necessary to determine the impact of the construction and operation of proposed jurisdictional facilities on human and natural resources, and the measures which may be necessary to protect the values of the affected area. These information collection requirements are mandatory. 15. The revised regulations require that companies seeking to construct or alter compressor or LNG facilities notify all landowners within one-half mile of the boundary of the project site. This should necessitate only a nominal additional effort, since companies are already required to identify all landowners of record within one-half mile of the project site, and then notify the subset of those landowners that have a residence on their property. In practice, companies routinely give notice to all identified landowners, rather than take the extra step of segregating properties with residences from those without so as to give notice only to the former. In view of this practice, the Commission expects the time and cost to notify non-residential landowners will prove to be de minimis. 16. The Noise Control Act of 1972 established the requirement that all federal agencies administer their programs to promote an environment free of noise that jeopardizes public health and welfare. 8 In 1974, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, acting to execute its responsibility to coordinate federal research and activities related to noise control, identified an L dn of 55 dBA as necessary to protect against speech interference and sleep disturbance for residential, educational, and healthcare activities. The revised regulations state that a company adding or altering compressor facilities under blanket certificate authority must submit a noise survey within 60 days of placing new facilities in service to demonstrate that noise attributable to the operation of the company's compressors does not exceed an L dn of 55 dBA at nearby NSAs or increase noise at NSAs already in excess of an L dn of 55 dBA. The Commission does not view this as substantially modifying natural gas companies' existing obligations, since the proposed submission of a noise survey simply provides verification of compliance with the existing noise requirement. The same noise survey requirement is routinely applied to compressor projects subject to case-specific NGA section 7 certificate authority. 9 8 42 U.S.C. 4901, *et seq.* 9 The potential cost savings to the industry that may be realized by enabling projects previously permitted only under case-specific authority to proceed under the expanded blanket certificate program were discussed in the Final Rule in Order No. 686. With respect to the proposed noise survey, the Commission notes that case-specific projects require a noise survey both before and after construction. Thus, the relatively minor cost of conducting a post-construction noise survey for a blanket certificate project is expected to be offset by the benefit of not having to also conduct a noise survey before construction, as would be necessary for a case-specific certificate project. 17. The Commission is submitting these reporting requirements to OMB for its review and approval under § 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 10 The Commission solicited comments on the need for these regulatory revisions and the accuracy of estimated burden estimates, as well as how the quality, quantity, and clarity of the information to be collected might be enhanced, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden. The comments submitted did not specifically address the new reporting requirements; accordingly, the Commission will use the same estimates here as in the NOPR. 10 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 18. The Commission estimates it will require 32 hours to complete a noise survey, and expects the additional burden to be modest, given that in 2006 only two compressor projects went forward under blanket certificate authority. For the purpose of estimating burden hours, the Commission anticipates five such projects in the future. Data collection Number of respondents Number of responses/ Filings Number of hours per response Total annual hours FERC-537 (Part 157) 5 5 32 160 *Information Collection Costs:* The above reflects the total reporting burden associated with the proposed broadening of the landowner notification requirement. Because of the regional differences and the various staffing levels that will be involved in preparing the documentation (legal, technical, and support) the Commission is using an hourly rate of $150 to estimate the costs for filing and other administrative processes (reviewing instructions, searching data sources, completing and transmitting the collection of information). The estimated cost per project is $4,800, with an estimated annual total of $24,000. *Title:* FERC-537. *Action:* Proposed Data Collection. *OMB Control Nos.:* 1902-0060 and 1902-0128. *Respondents:* Natural gas pipeline companies. *Frequency of Responses:* On occasion. *Necessity of Information:* Submission of the information is necessary for the Commission to carry out its NGA statutory responsibilities and meet the Commission's objectives of expediting appropriate infrastructure development to ensure sufficient energy supplies while addressing landowner and environmental concerns fairly. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director]. Phone:

(202)502-8415, fax:

(202)273-0873, e-mail: michael.miller@ferc.gov or the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. V. Environmental Analysis 19. The Commission is required to prepare an EA or an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 11 In promulgating the blanket certificate program in 1982, the Commission prepared an EA in which it determined that, subject to compliance with the standard environmental conditions, projects under the blanket program would not have a significant adverse environmental impact. In particular, the EA concluded that an L dn of 55 dBA at NSAs would be adequate to avoid interfering with speech or other activities in outdoor areas and ensure adequate protection for the indoor noise environment. As discussed herein, the Commission is expanding landowner notification and requiring the submission of a post-project noise survey for blanket certificate activities involving compressor facilities. Because these actions serve to better inform the public of proposed projects and to further ensure and verify that no blanket certificate project has a significant adverse environmental impact, these regulatory revisions do not constitute a major federal action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 11 Order No. 486, *Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act* , 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 20. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA)12 generally requires a description and analysis of regulations that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission is not required to make such an analysis if regulations would not have such an effect. 13 Under the industry standards used for purposes of the RFA, a natural gas pipeline company qualifies as “a small entity” if it has annual revenues of $6.5 million or less. Most companies regulated by the Commission do not fall within the RFA's definition of a small entity. 14 12 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 13 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (2000). 14 5 U.S.C. 601(3), citing to section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 623 (2000). Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines a “small-business concern” as a business which is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation. 21. This order's regulatory revisions will have no significant economic impact on those entities—be they large or small—subject to the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction under NGA section 3 or 7, and no significant economic impact on state agencies. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that these regulatory revisions will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. VII. Document Availability 22. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the **Federal Register** , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. User assistance is available for FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC's Online Support at 202-502-6652, toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or by e-mail at *ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov* , and from the Public Reference Room at 202-502-8371, TTY at 202-502-8659, or by e-mail at *public.referenceroom@ferc.gov* . VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification 23. This Final Rule will take effect November 23, 2007. The Commission has determined with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, that this rule is not a major rule within the meaning of section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 15 The Commission will submit this Final Rule to both houses of Congress and the Government Accountability Office. 16 15 *See* 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 16 *See* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 157 Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. By the Commission. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Acting Deputy Secretary. In consideration of the foregoing, part 157, Chapter I, Title 18, *Code of Federal Regulations* , is amended as follows: PART 157—APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT 1. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w. 2. In § 157.6, paragraph (d)(2)(iii) is revised to read as follows: § 157.6 Applications; general requirements.

(d)* * *

(2)* * *

(iii)Is within one-half mile of proposed compressors or their enclosures or LNG facilities; or 3. In § 157.206, paragraph (b)(5)(ii) is redesignated as paragraph (b)(5)(iii) and a new paragraph (b)(5)(ii) is added, to read as follows: § 157.206 Standard conditions.

(b)* * *

(5)* * *

(ii)A compressor facility installed under this section must be designed to meet the following noise emissions criteria. For each new compressor station facility, and for each addition or modification to an existing compression station, the blanket certificate holder must file a noise survey with the Secretary within 60 days of placing the facility in service.

(A)If noise emitted from a new compressor facility operating at full load exceeds an L dn of 55 dBA at any noise-sensitive area (NSA), or if an addition or modification to an existing compressor station operating at full load at or below an L dn of 55 dBA at NSAs causes overall noise attributable to the station to exceed an L dn of 55 dBA at an NSA, the blanket certificate holder must come into compliance with an L dn of 55 dBA at NSAs within 1 year of placing the facility in service.

(B)If an addition or modification to an existing compressor station operating at full load above an L dn of 55 dBA at NSAs causes overall noise attributable to the station to increase at an NSA, the blanket certificate holder must act within 1 year of placing the added or modified facility in service to reduce noise at NSAs to the level that existed prior to the addition or modification.

(C)If the initial noise survey demonstrates a need to take action to mitigate noise, within 60 days of completing such action, the blanket certificate holder must file a subsequent noise survey with the Secretary demonstrating that each new compressor station facility, and each addition or modification to an existing compressor station, complies with the noise level limits. [FR Doc. E7-20804 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 19 CFR Part 122 [CBP Dec. 07-83] Technical Amendments to List of User Fee Airports AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendments. SUMMARY: This document amends the Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)Regulations by revising the list of user fee airports to reflect those that have been currently designated by the Commissioner. User fee airports are those airports which, while not qualifying for designation as international or landing rights airports, have been approved by the Commissioner of CBP to receive, for a fee, the services of CBP officers for the processing of aircraft entering the United States, and the passengers and cargo of those aircraft. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Captain, Office of Field Operations, 703-261-8516. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sets forth at Part 122 regulations relating to the entry and clearance of aircraft in international commerce and the transportation of persons and cargo by aircraft in international commerce. Generally, a civil aircraft arriving from a place outside of the United States is required to land at an airport designated as an international airport. Alternatively, the pilot of a civil aircraft may request permission to land at a specific airport, and, if landing rights are granted, the civil aircraft may land at that landing rights airport. Section 236 of Pub. L. 98-573 (the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984), codified at 19 U.S.C. 58b, created an option for civil aircraft desiring to land at an airport other than an international airport or a landing rights airport. A civil aircraft arriving from a place outside of the United States may ask for permission to land at an airport designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security 1 as a user fee airport. 1 Sections 403(1) and 411 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (“the Act,” Pub. L. 107-296) transferred the United States Customs Service and its functions from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security; pursuant to section 1502 of the Act, the President renamed the “Customs Service” as the “Bureau of Customs and Border Protection,” also referred to as “CBP.” Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b, an airport may be designated as a user fee airport if the Commissioner of CBP as delegated by the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the volume of business at the airport is insufficient to justify customs services at the airport and the governor of the state in which the airport is located approves the designation. Generally, the type of airport that would seek designation as a user fee airport would be one at which a company, such as an air courier service, has a specialized interest in regularly landing. As the volume of business anticipated at this type of airport is insufficient to justify its designation as an international or landing rights airport, the availability of customs services is not paid for out of appropriations from the general treasury of the United States. Instead, customs services are provided on a fully reimbursable basis to be paid for by the user fee airport on behalf of the recipients of the services. The fees which are to be charged at user fee airports, according to the statute, shall be paid by each person using the customs services at the airport and shall be in the amount equal to the expenses incurred by the Commissioner of CBP in providing customs services which are rendered to such person at such airport, including the salary and expenses of those employed by the Commissioner of CBP to provide the customs services. To implement this provision, generally, the airport seeking the designation as a user fee airport or that airport's authority agrees to pay a flat fee for which the users of the airport are to reimburse the airport/airport authority. The airport/airport authority agrees to set and periodically review the charges to ensure that they are in accord with the airport's expenses. The Commissioner of CBP designates airports as user fee airports pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b. *See* 19 CFR 122.15. If the Commissioner decides that the conditions for designation as a user fee airport are satisfied, a Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA)is executed between the Commissioner of CBP and the local responsible official signing on behalf of the state, city or municipality in which the airport is located. In this manner, user fee airports are designated on a case-by-case basis. Section 19 CFR 122.15 sets forth the grounds for withdrawal of a user fee designation and sets forth the list of designated user fee airports. Periodically, CBP updates the list of user fee airports at 19 CFR 122.15(b) to reflect those that have been currently designated by the Commissioner. This document updates that list of user fee airports by adding new airports, deleting certain former airports, and reflecting changes that have occurred in the names of certain existing user fee airports. Inapplicability of Public Notice and Delayed Effective Date Requirements Because this amendment merely lists those user fee airports already designated by the Commissioner of CBP in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 58b and neither imposes additional burdens on, nor takes away any existing rights or privileges from, the public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), notice and public procedure are unnecessary, and for the same reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), a delayed effective date is not required. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) do not apply. This amendment does not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866. Signing Authority This document is limited to technical corrections of CBP regulations. Accordingly, it is being signed under the authority of 19 CFR 0.1(b). List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 122 Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Customs duties and inspection, Freight. Amendments to Regulations Part 122, Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 122) is amended as set forth below: PART 122—AIR COMMERCE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 1431, 1433, 1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a, 2071 note. 2. Section 122.15(b) is amended by revising the list of airports to read as follows: § 122.15 User fee airports.

(b)List of user fee airports. * * * Location Name Addison, Texas Addison Airport. Ardmore, Oklahoma Ardmore Industrial Airpark. Bakersfield, California Meadows Field Airport. Bedford, Massachusetts L.G. Hanscom Field. Broomfield, Colorado Jefferson County Airport. Carlsbad, California McClellan-Palomar Airport. Daytona Beach, Florida Daytona Beach International Airport. Decatur, Illinois Decatur Airport. Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey Atlantic City International Airport. Englewood, Colorado Centennial Airport. Fort Worth, Texas Fort Worth Alliance Airport. Fresno, California Fresno Yosemite International Airport. Gypsum, Colorado Eagle County Regional Airport. Hillsboro, Oregon Hillsboro Airport. Johnson City, New York Binghamton Regional Airport. Leesburg, Florida Leesburg Regional Airport. Lexington, Kentucky Blue Grass Airport. Manchester, New Hampshire Manchester Airport. Mascoutah, Illinois MidAmerica St. Louis Airport. McKinney, Texas Collin County Regional Airport. Melbourne, Florida Melbourne Airport. Mesa, Arizona Williams Gateway Airport. Midland, Texas Midland International Airport. Morristown, New Jersey Morristown Municipal Airport. Moses Lake, Washington Grant County International Airport. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina Myrtle Beach International Airport. Orlando, Florida Orlando Executive Airport. Palm Springs, California Palm Springs International Airport. Riverside, California March Inland Port Airport. Rochester, Minnesota Rochester International Airport. Rogers, Arkansas Rogers Municipal Airport. Roswell, New Mexico Roswell Industrial Center. San Bernardino, California San Bernardino International Airport. Santa Maria, California Santa Maria Public Airport. Sarasota, Florida Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport. Scottsdale, Arizona Scottsdale Airport. Sugar Land, Texas Sugar Land Regional Airport. Trenton, New Jersey Trenton Mercer Airport. Victorville, California Southern California Logistics Airport. Waterford, Michigan Oakland County International Airport. Waukegan, Illinois Waukegan Regional Airport. West Chicago, Illinois Dupage County Airport. Wheeling, Illinois Chicago Executive Airport. Wilmington, Ohio Airborne Air Park Airport. Yoder, Indiana Fort Wayne International Airport. Ypsilanti, Michigan Willow Run Airport. Dated: October 18, 2007. W. Ralph Basham, Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection. [FR Doc. E7-20803 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. CGD01-07-145] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Army Corps of Engineers Blasting and Dredging Operation, Boston Harbor, Boston, MA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones in Boston Harbor, Boston, Massachusetts, for the Army Corps of Engineers

(ACOE)blasting and dredging operation, to include the underwater blasting locations and the vessel transporting blasting material to and from the work sites, between October 5, 2007 and December 31, 2007. The zone temporarily closes all navigable waters of Boston Harbor within a four hundred

(400)yard radius of the four underwater demolition sites located at approximate positions 42°20′05.5″ N, 070°59′53.9″ W, east-southeast of Castle Island; 42°20′19.0″ N, 070°58′46.5″ W, President Roads Anchorage; 42°21′15.80″ N, 070°55′51.95″ W, North Channel; 42°22′03.70″ N, 070°55′18.83″ W, North Channel, while blasting operations are occurring and a moving safety zone of one hundred yards around the M/V EMILY ROSE. The operations will only occur during daylight hours. The safety zone is necessary to protect the maritime public from the potential hazards posed by the blasting and dredging. Entry into this zone is prohibited during the closure period unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Boston, Massachusetts. DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on October 5, 2007 until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD01-07-145 and are available for inspection or copying at Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Eldridge McFadden, Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, at

(617)223-5160. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. A notice and comment period was not held for this rulemaking because the logistics with respect to the blasting and dredging were not determined with sufficient time to draft and publish an NPRM. Delaying the necessary blasting operations to accommodate a notice and comment period would be contrary to the public interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** as immediate action is needed to protect vessels transiting the area from the hazards associated with underwater blasting and rock removal operations. Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is necessary to protect persons, facilities, vessels and others in the maritime community from the safety hazards associated with the handling, detonation, and transportation of explosives. Background and Purpose The Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a project to deepen Boston Harbor. Within the shipping channels there are several rock formations which are impeding the progress of the work. The Army Corps has contracted RDA Construction to perform the associated blasting and dredging to remove the rock. The explosives will be transferred to and from the blasting sites aboard the M/V EMILY ROSE. In order to protect the maritime public from the hazards associated with the loading, detonation, and transportation of explosives in and around the blasting areas, the Coast Guard is establishing safety zones around each of the four blasting sites and a moving safety zone around the vessel EMILY ROSE as it transits from the loading point on the Fore River in Quincy, Massachusetts to the blasting sites and back. Entry into these zones will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. Discussion of Rule This rule establishes temporary safety zones on the navigable waters of Boston Harbor within a four hundred

(400)yard radius of the various rock sites located in Boston Harbor at approximate positions 42°20′05.5″ N, 070°59′53.9″ W, east-southeast of Castle Island; 42°20′19.0″ N, 070°58′46.5″ W, President Roads Anchorage; 42°21′15.80″ N, 070°55′51.95″ W, North Channel; and, 42°22′03.70″ N, 070°55′18.83″ W, North Channel while blasting and dredging is occurring. This regulation also establishes a moving safety zone on all navigable waters of the Fore River and Boston Harbor in a 100 yard radius around the M/V EMILY ROSE as it loads and unloads explosives and transits from the Fore River to the four demolition areas and from the demolition areas back to the Fore River shipyard. The explosives loading will occur at the Fore River shipyard wet dock in Quincy, Massachusetts. The explosives will be transported via vessel to the construction barges at the above noted positions where the blasting and dredging is occurring. This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. EDT on October 5, 2007 until 11:59 p.m. EST on December 31, 2007. Although the safety zone will be in effect for twelve weeks, it will only be enforced during actual transit and blasting times. Blasting will only occur during daylight hours. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the zone during the enforcement period. Public notifications will be made prior to and during the enforcement period via safety marine information broadcasts and the event will be published in the Local Notice to Mariners. During the enforcement periods, entry into those zones by any vessel is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Boston. Given the limited time-frame of the enforcement period of the zone, the small safety zone size and the short duration of the blasting events, the Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Blasting operations are only to occur during daylight, specifically between the hours of 6 a.m. and 4 p.m. The moving safety zone around the EMILY ROSE will be enforced only during the loading, unloading and transit of explosives to the site and from the site back to shore with any unused explosives. Portions of the safety zones around the perimeter of the blasting work are located within the channel and may peripherally affect vessels transiting in or out of the port. However, the zone around the blasting worksite will be enforced only during the actual blasting times thus minimizing any adverse impact. Public notifications will be made during the entire effective period of this safety zone via marine information broadcasts and through local notice to mariners. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this rule will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of Boston Harbor during the blasting and dredging operations, the effect of this rule will not be significant for several reasons: vessels, although excluded from the zone, will have sufficient navigable water to safely maneuver in all other waters of Boston Harbor surrounding the zone when blasting is occurring; and, when blasting operations are not occurring the zones will not be enforced thus allowing vessels to move within the areas designated by this rule; also, advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners allowing mariners to plan voyages accordingly. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Boston Harbor during the effective period of this safety zone. For the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, this safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Assistance for Small Entities Under subsection 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Chief Eldridge McFadden, Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, at

(617)223-5160. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it establishes a safety zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T01-145 to read as follows: § 165.T-01-145 Safety Zone: Army Corps Underwater Rock Demolition, Boston Harbor, Boston, MA.

(a)*Location.* The following areas are safety zones:

(1)All navigable waters of the Fore River and Boston Harbor, from surface to bottom, within a four hundred

(400)yard radius around the blasting and dredging sites located in Boston Harbor at approximate positions: 42°20′05.5″ N, 070°59′53.9″ W, east-southeast of Castle Island; 42°20′19.0″ N, 070°58′46.5″ W, President Roads Anchorage; 42°21′15.80″ N, 070°55′51.95″ W, North Channel; and 42°22′03.70″ N, 070°55′18.83″ W, North Channel, while blasting operations are occurring.

(2)All navigable waters within a one hundred

(100)yard radius of the motor vessel EMILY ROSE while it is loading, transporting and unloading explosives.

(b)*Effective Date.* This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on October 5, 2007 until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2007.

(c)*Definitions.* The following definition applies to this section: *Designated representative* , means any commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port, Boston Harbor.

(d)*Regulations.*

(1)The general regulations contained in 33 CFR § 165.23 apply.

(2)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Boston or the COTP's designated representative.

(3)The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to obtain permission by calling the Sector Boston Command Center at 617-223-5761 or via VHF channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(e)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced only during daylight hours where blasting operations are being conducted and when the vessel EMILY ROSE is loading, transporting or unloading explosives. Dated: October 4, 2007. Gail P. Kulisch, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Boston, Massachusetts. [FR Doc. E7-20780 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 55 [OAR-2004-0091; FRL-8479-6] Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations; Consistency Update for California AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). ACTION: Final rule—consistency update. SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the updates of the Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”) Air Regulations proposed in the **Federal Register** on March 23, 2006, August 18, 2006 and May 31, 2007. Requirements applying to OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries must be updated periodically to remain consistent with the requirements of the corresponding onshore area (“COA”), as mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (“the Act”). The portions of the OCS air regulations that are being updated pertain to the requirements for OCS sources for which the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District is the designated COA. The intended effect of approving the requirements contained in “Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources” (September 2007) is to regulate emissions from OCS sources in accordance with the requirements onshore. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective on November 23, 2007. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number OAR-2004-0091 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Allen, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4120, *allen.cynthia@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Public Comment III. EPA Action IV. Administrative Requirements 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, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Congressional Review Act K. Petitions for Judicial Review I. Background Throughout this document, the terms “we”, “us”, and “our” refer to U.S. EPA. On March 23, 2006 (71 FR 14662), August 18, 2006 (71 FR 47758) and May 31, 2007 (72 FR 30320), EPA proposed to approve requirements into the OCS Air Regulations pertaining to Ventura County APCD. These requirements are being promulgated in response to the submittal of rules from this California air pollution control agency. EPA has evaluated the proposed requirements to ensure that they are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of federal or state ambient air quality standards or Part C of title I of the Act, that they are not designed expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS and that they are applicable to OCS sources. 40 CFR 55.1. EPA has also evaluated the rules to ensure that they are not arbitrary or capricious. 40 CFR 55.12(e). In addition, EPA has excluded administrative or procedural rules. Section 328(a) of the Act requires that EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. This limits EPA's flexibility in deciding which requirements will be incorporated into part 55 and prevents EPA from making substantive changes to the requirements it incorporates. As a result, EPA may be incorporating rules into part 55 that do not conform to all of EPA's state implementation plan

(SIP)guidance or certain requirements of the Act. Consistency updates may result in the inclusion of state or local rules or regulations into part 55, even though the same rules may ultimately be disapproved for inclusion as part of the SIP. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of the Act for SIP approval, nor does it imply that the rule will be approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP. II. Public Comments EPA's proposed actions provided 30-day public comment periods. During these periods, we received no comments on the proposed actions. III. EPA Action In this document, EPA takes final action to incorporate the proposed changes into 40 CFR part 55. No changes were made to the proposed actions. EPA is approving the proposed actions under section 328(a)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7627. Section 328(a) of the Act requires that EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. IV. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: 1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; 2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; 3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or 4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB Review. This rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. These OCS rules already apply in the COA, and EPA has no evidence to suggest that these OCS rules have created an adverse material effect. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this action simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with rules in the COA. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in 40 CFR part 55, and by extension this update to the rules, under the provisions of the *Paperwork Reduction Act* , 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0249. Notice of OMB's approval of EPA Information Collection Request (“ICR”) No. 1601.06 was published in the **Federal Register** on March 1, 2006 (71 FR 10499-10500). The approval expires January 31, 2009. As EPA previously indicated (70 FR 65897-65898 (November 1, 2005)), the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for collection of information under 40 CFR part 55 is estimated to average 549 hours per response. 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 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable. In addition, EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved OMB control numbers for various regulations to list the regulatory citations for the information requirements contained in this final rule. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. These OCS rules already apply in the COA, and EPA has no evidence to suggest that these OCS rules have had a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this action simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with rules in the COA. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 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 one 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. Today's final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one year. This rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. These OCS rules already apply in the COA, and EPA has no evidence to suggest that these OCS rules have created an adverse material effect. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this action simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with rules in the COA. 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 Executive Order 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. This rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this rule simply updates the existing OCS rules to make them consistent with current COA requirements. This rule does not amend the existing provisions within 40 CFR part 55 enabling delegation of OCS regulations to a COA, and this rule does not require the COA to implement the OCS rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175, 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 a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes and thus does not have “tribal implications,” within the meaning of Executive Order 13175. This rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this rule simply updates the existing OCS rules to make them consistent with current COA requirements. In addition, this rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Consultation with Indian tribes is therefore not required under Executive Order 13175. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997)), applies to any rule that:

(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 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 Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. In addition, the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportional risk to children. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable laws 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 voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decided not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. As discussed above, this rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this final rule simply updates the existing OCS rules to make them consistent with current COA requirements. In the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards and in light of the fact that EPA is required to make the OCS rules consistent with current COA requirements, it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in this action. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. 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. 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 action will be effective November 23, 2007. K. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 24, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Outer Continental Shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Dated: September 20, 2007. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 55, is to be amended as follows: PART 55—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 55 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* ) as amended by Public Law 101-549. 2. Section 55.14 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(H) to read as follows: § 55.14 Requirements that apply to OCS sources located within 25 miles of states seaward boundaries, by state.

(e)* * *

(3)* * *

(ii)* * *

(H)*Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources* , September 2007. 3. Appendix A to CFR Part 55 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(8) under the heading “California” to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 55—Listing of State and Local Requirements Incorporated by Reference Into Part 55, by State California

(a)* * *

(b)* * *

(8)The following requirements are contained in *Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources,* September 2007: Rule 2 Definitions (Adopted 04/13/04) Rule 5 Effective Date (Adopted 04/13/04) Rule 6 Severability (Adopted 11/21/78) Rule 7 Zone Boundaries (Adopted 06/14/77) Rule 10 Permits Required (Adopted 04/13/04) Rule 11 Definition for Regulation II (Adopted 03/14/06) Rule 12 Applications for Permits (Adopted 06/13/95) Rule 13 Action on Applications for an Authority to Construct (Adopted 06/13/95) Rule 14 Action on Applications for a Permit to Operate (Adopted 06/13/95) Rule 15.1 Sampling and Testing Facilities (Adopted 10/12/93) Rule 16 BACT Certification (Adopted 06/13/95) Rule 19 Posting of Permits (Adopted 05/23/72) Rule 20 Transfer of Permit (Adopted 05/23/72) Rule 23 Exemptions from Permits (Adopted 09/12/06) Rule 24 Source Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Emission Statements (Adopted 09/15/92) Rule 26 New Source Review—General (Adopted 03/14/06) Rule 26.1 New Source Review—Definitions (Adopted 11/14/06) Rule 26.2 New Source Review—Requirements (Adopted 05/14/02) Rule 26.3 New Source Review—Exemptions (Adopted 03/14/06) Rule 26.6 New Source Review—Calculations (Adopted 03/14/06) Rule 26.8 New Source Review—Permit To Operate (Adopted 10/22/91) Rule 26.10 New Source Review—PSD (Adopted 01/13/98) Rule 26.11 New Source Review—ERC Evaluation At Time of Use (Adopted 05/14/02) Rule 26.12 Federal Major Modifications (Adopted 06/27/06) Rule 28 Revocation of Permits (Adopted 07/18/72) Rule 29 Conditions on Permits (Adopted 03/14/06) Rule 30 Permit Renewal (Adopted 04/13/04) Rule 32 Breakdown Conditions: Emergency Variances, A., B.1., and D. only. (Adopted 02/20/79) Rule 33 Part 70 Permits—General (Adopted 09/12/06) Rule 33.1 Part 70 Permits—Definitions (Adopted 09/12/06) Rule 33.2 Part 70 Permits—Application Contents (Adopted 04/10/01) Rule 33.3 Part 70 Permits—Permit Content (Adopted 09/12/06) Rule 33.4 Part 70 Permits—Operational Flexibility (Adopted 04/10/01) Rule 33.5 Part 70 Permits—Time frames for Applications, Review and Issuance (Adopted 10/12/93) Rule 33.6 Part 70 Permits—Permit Term and Permit Reissuance (Adopted 10/12/93) Rule 33.7 Part 70 Permits—Notification (Adopted 04/10/01) Rule 33.8 Part 70 Permits—Reopening of Permits (Adopted 10/12/93) Rule 33.9 Part 70 Permits—Compliance Provisions (Adopted 04/10/01) Rule 33.10 Part 70 Permits—General Part 70 Permits (Adopted 10/12/93) Rule 34 Acid Deposition Control (Adopted 03/14/95) Rule 35 Elective Emission Limits (Adopted 11/12/96) Rule 36 New Source Review—Hazardous Air Pollutants (Adopted 10/06/98) Rule 42 Permit Fees (Adopted 04/11/06) Rule 44 Exemption Evaluation Fee (Adopted 09/10/96) Rule 45 Plan Fees (Adopted 06/19/90) Rule 45.2 Asbestos Removal Fees (Adopted 08/04/92) Rule 47 Source Test, Emission Monitor, and Call-Back Fees (Adopted 06/22/99) Rule 50 Opacity (Adopted 04/13/04) Rule 52 Particulate Matter-Concentration (Grain Loading) (Adopted 04/13/04) Rule 53 Particulate Matter-Process Weight (Adopted 04/13/04) Rule 54 Sulfur Compounds (Adopted 06/14/94) Rule 56 Open Burning (Adopted 11/11/03) Rule 57 Incinerators (Adopted 01/11/05) Rule 57.1 Particulate Matter Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment (Adopted 01/11/05) Rule 62.7 Asbestos—Demolition and Renovation (Adopted 09/01/92) Rule 63 Separation and Combination of Emissions (Adopted 11/21/78) Rule 64 Sulfur Content of Fuels (Adopted 04/13/99) Rule 67 Vacuum Producing Devices (Adopted 07/05/83) Rule 68 Carbon Monoxide (Adopted 04/13/04) Rule 71 Crude Oil and Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Adopted 12/13/94) Rule 71.1 Crude Oil Production and Separation (Adopted 06/16/92) Rule 71.2 Storage of Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Adopted 09/26/89) Rule 71.3 Transfer of Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Adopted 06/16/92) Rule 71.4 Petroleum Sumps, Pits, Ponds, and Well Cellars (Adopted 06/08/93) Rule 71.5 Glycol Dehydrators (Adopted 12/13/94) Rule 72 New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)(Adopted 09/13/05) Rule 73 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS (Adopted 09/13/05) Rule 74 Specific Source Standards (Adopted 07/06/76) Rule 74.1 Abrasive Blasting (Adopted 11/12/91) Rule 74.2 Architectural Coatings (Adopted 11/13/01) Rule 74.6 Surface Cleaning and Degreasing (Adopted 11/11/03—effective 07/01/04) Rule 74.6.1 Batch Loaded Vapor Degreasers (Adopted 11/11/03—effective 07/01/04) Rule 74.7 Fugitive Emissions of Reactive Organic Compounds at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants (Adopted 10/10/95) Rule 74.8 Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Waste-water Separators and Process Turnarounds (Adopted 07/05/83) Rule 74.9 Stationary Internal Combustion Engines (Adopted 11/08/05) Rule 74.10 Components at Crude Oil Production Facilities and Natural Gas Production and Processing Facilities (Adopted 03/10/98) Rule 74.11 Natural Gas-Fired Residential Water Heaters—Control of NO X (Adopted 04/09/85) Rule 74.11.1 Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers (Adopted 09/14/99) Rule 74.12 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products (Adopted 11/11/03) Rule 74.15 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (Adopted 11/08/94) Rule 74.15.1 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (Adopted 06/13/00) Rule 74.16 Oil Field Drilling Operations (Adopted 01/08/91) Rule 74.20 Adhesives and Sealants (Adopted 01/11/05) Rule 74.23 Stationary Gas Turbines (Adopted 1/08/02) Rule 74.24 Marine Coating Operations (Adopted 11/11/03) Rule 74.24.1 Pleasure Craft Coating and Commercial Boatyard Operations (Adopted 01/08/02) Rule 74.26 Crude Oil Storage Tank Degassing Operations (Adopted 11/08/94) Rule 74.27 Gasoline and ROC Liquid Storage Tank Degassing Operations (Adopted 11/08/94) Rule 74.28 Asphalt Roofing Operations (Adopted 05/10/94) Rule 74.30 Wood Products Coatings (Adopted 06/27/06) Rule 75 Circumvention (Adopted 11/27/78) Rule 101 Sampling and Testing Facilities (Adopted 05/23/72) Rule 102 Source Tests (Adopted 04/13/04) Rule 103 Continuous Monitoring Systems (Adopted 02/09/99) Rule 154 Stage 1 Episode Actions (Adopted 09/17/91) Rule 155 Stage 2 Episode Actions (Adopted 09/17/91) Rule 156 Stage 3 Episode Actions (Adopted 09/17/91) Rule 158 Source Abatement Plans (Adopted 09/17/91) Rule 159 Traffic Abatement Procedures (Adopted 09/17/91) Rule 220 General Conformity (Adopted 05/09/95) Rule 230 Notice to Comply (Adopted 11/09/99) [FR Doc. E7-20139 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 061020273-7001-03] RIN 0648-XD45 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Commercial Quota Harvested for New York AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 2007 summer flounder commercial quota allocated to the State of New York has been harvested. Vessels issued a commercial Federal fisheries permit for the summer flounder fishery may not land summer flounder in New York for the remainder of calendar year 2007, unless additional quota becomes available through a transfer from another state. Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery require publication of this notification to advise New York that the quota has been harvested and to advise vessel permit holders and dealer permit holders that no commercial quota is available for landing summer flounder in New York. DATES: Effective 0001 hours, October 20, 2007, through 2400 hours, December 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Bryant, Fishery Management Specialist,

(978)281-9244. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned on a percentage basis among the coastal states from North Carolina through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.100. The initial total commercial quota for summer flounder for the 2007 calendar year was set equal to 7,789,800 lb (3,533 mt) (71 FR 75134, December 14, 2006). This quota was increased through an emergency action to 10,267,098 lb (4,658 mt) (72 FR 2458, January 19, 2007). The percent allocated to vessels landing summer flounder in New York is 7.64599 percent, resulting in a commercial quota of 785,029 lb (357 mt). The 2007 allocation was reduced to 767,161 lb (348 mt) when research set-aside was deducted and then reduced to 619,123 (281 mt) after the 2006 overages had been applied. Section 648.101(b) requires the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) to monitor state commercial quotas and to determine when a state's commercial quota has been harvested. NMFS then publishes a notification in the **Federal Register** to advise the state and to notify Federal vessel and dealer permit holders that, effective upon a specific date, the state's commercial quota has been harvested and no commercial quota is available for landing summer flounder in that state. The Regional Administrator has determined, based upon dealer reports and other available information, that New York has harvested its quota for 2007. The regulations at § 648.4(b) provide that Federal permit holders agree, as a condition of the permit, not to land summer flounder in any state that the Regional Administrator has determined no longer has commercial quota available. Therefore, effective 0001 hours, October 20, 2007, further landings of summer flounder in New York by vessels holding summer flounder commercial Federal fisheries permits are prohibited for the remainder of the 2007 calendar year, unless additional quota becomes available through a transfer and is announced in the **Federal Register** . Effective 0001 hours, October 20, 2007, federally permitted dealers are also notified that they may not purchase summer flounder from federally permitted vessels that land in New York for the remainder of the calendar year, or until additional quota becomes available through a transfer from another state. Classification This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: October 17, 2007. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 07-5228 Filed 10-22-07; 3:08 pm]

Connectionstraces to 31

Traces to 31 documents

CFR