Rules and Regulations. Final rule

24,692 words·~112 min read·/register/2007/10/30/07-5384

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27430; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-4] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Springfield, CO AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action will establish Class E surface airspace at Springfield, CO. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedure

(SIAP)at Springfield Municipal Airport. This action will enhance the safety of Instrument Flight rules

(IFR)aircraft operations at Springfield Municipal Airport, Springfield, CO. Additionally this action also corrects the geographic location of Springfield Municipal Airport, CO. DATES: *Effective Date:* 0901 UTC, February 14, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Area Office, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone

(425)917-6726. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On August 9, 2007, the FAA published in the **Federal Register** a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class E airspace at Springfield, CO, (72 FR 44815). This action would improve the safety of IFR aircraft at Springfield Municipal Airport, Springfield, CO. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order. The Rule This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Springfield, CO. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft at Springfield Municipal Airport, Springfield, CO. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace at Springfield, CO. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007 is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area. ANM CO, E5 Springfield, CO [New] Springfield Municipal Airport, CO (Lat. 37°27′31″ N., long. 103°37′05″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.0-mile radius of Springfield Municipal Airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface beginning at TOBE VORTAC, thence north along V-169 to lat. 38°34′00″ N., thence to lat. 38°34′00″ N., long. 102°00′00″ W., thence to lat. 36°30′00″ N., long. 102°00′00″ W., thence west on lat. 36°30′00″ N. to V-81, thence northwest along V-81 to point of beginning. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 17, 2007. Clark Desing, Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Center. [FR Doc. E7-21133 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 42 [Public Notice 5976] RIN 1400-AC40 Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption; Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000; Consular Officer Procedures in Convention Cases AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Final Rule. SUMMARY: This rule amends Department of State regulations to provide for intercountry adoptions that will occur pursuant to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Convention) and the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA). This rule addresses consular officer processing of immigration petitions, visas, and Convention certificates in cases of children immigrating to the United States in connection with an adoption covered by the Convention. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective October 30, 2007. Information about the date the Convention will enter into force is provided in 22 CFR 96.17. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara J. Kennedy, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, United States Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603, Washington, DC 20520-0106; telephone 202-663-1206 or e-mail *KennedyBJ@state.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Convention) is a multilateral treaty that provides a framework for the adoption of children habitually resident in one country party to the Convention by persons habitually resident in another country party to the Convention. It establishes procedures to be followed in such adoption cases and imposes safeguards to protect the best interests of the children at issue. It also provides for recognition of adoptions that occur pursuant to the Convention. In the United States, the implementing legislation for the Hague Convention is the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA). To implement the Convention, the IAA makes two significant changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA):

(1)It creates a new definition of “child” applicable in Convention adoption cases, found at INA 101(b)(1)(G), that roughly parallels the current definition of “child” in INA 101(b)(1)(F) with respect to an orphan, but that applies only to children being adopted from Convention countries.

(2)It incorporates Hague procedures into the immigration process for children covered by INA 101(b)(1)(G), most directly by precluding approval of an immigration petition under this classification until the Department has certified that the child was adopted (or legal custody was granted for purposes of emigration and adoption) in accordance with the Convention and the IAA. Separately, section 301 of the IAA requires all Federal, State, and local domestic entities to recognize adoptions or grants of legal custody that have been so certified by the Department. On October 4, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS)published in the **Federal Register** at 72 FR 56832 an interim rule on “Classification of aliens as children of United States citizens based on intercountry adoptions under the Hague Convention” (8 CFR parts 103, 204 and 213a) (“DHS Rule”). That rule governs the adjudication of Forms I-800A (relating to the suitability of prospective adoptive parents for intercountry adoption under the Convention) and Forms I-800 (relating to the classification of a Convention adoptee as the child of the adoptive parent(s) for purposes of the immigration and nationality laws of the United States). Additional regulations implement other aspects of the Convention and the IAA, such as those on the accreditation/approval of adoption service providers to perform adoption services in cases covered by the Convention (22 CFR part 96), the preservation of records (22 CFR part 98), and certificate issuance with respect to United States court proceedings (22 CFR part 97). Further background on the Convention and the IAA is provided in the Preamble to the Final Rule on the Accreditation of Agencies and Approval of Persons under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, Sections III and IV, 71 FR 8064-8066 (February 15, 2006). Discussion of Comments on the Proposed Rule This section provides a discussion of the comments received by the Department of State on the proposed rule. 1. *Comment:* Commenters requested elaboration of the operational component of this rule, including the mechanics of how the applications for petition approval and visa eligibility will be submitted. Specifically, who completes and submits the petition to the consular officer and at what stage in the process? Also, will it be possible for adoption service providers to submit petitions abroad, with required documentation and fees, on behalf of prospective adoptive parents? *Response:* Once the Form I-800A, Application for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention Country, has been approved, a Form I-800, Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as Immediate Relative, may be submitted either to DHS or to the consular officer, as under the current procedure in immigration cases involving orphan adoption. The DHS Rule, at 8 CFR 204.308, indicates that the proper filing location for Form I-800A and Form I-800 will be specified on the instructions for each form. The Supplementary Information, at 72 FR 56841-42, states that DHS anticipates that the filing process for Convention cases will be similar to the process for orphan cases. The Form I-800A will always be filed in the United States with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The Form I-800 may also be filed with USCIS, either at a Stateside office, or abroad, if the prospective adoptive parent(s) live abroad and USCIS has an office in the country in which they live. They may file the Form I-800 with a visa-issuing post if

(a)they are physically present within the territory of the visa-issuing post when they file the Form I-800, and

(b)either there is no USCIS office in that country or that USCIS office in country has delegated its authority to accept the filing of Forms I-800 to the visa-issuing post. The DHS Rule has no provision for the filing of the petition abroad when the prospective adoptive parents are physically present in the United States. As soon as the Form I-800 has been provisionally approved, however, the Form I-800 would generally be forwarded to the visa-issuing post for final approval once the adoption is completed. 8 CFR 204.313(g)(2). As for the visa application, there are no absolute requirements for appearance at a consular post and the signing of the application until the visa interview, which would generally not be practicable until after the adoption has occurred. The unsigned visa application, with supporting documents and fees, may be filed with a consular officer by an adoption service provider, on behalf of prospective adoptive parents, if not present, so that the application may be initially reviewed. 2. *Comment:* One commenter requested further elaboration of the provisional approval process, especially regarding when the provisional approval will occur and what information will be required for the provisional approval determination. *Response:* The DHS Rule explains much of this process. The basic steps in the provisional approval process are summarized as follows. Pursuant to the DHS Rule, the prospective adoptive parent(s) file Form 1-800A with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), together with a home study (prepared in accordance with 8 CFR 204.311 by someone authorized under 22 CFR Part 96 and 8 CFR 204.301 to complete home studies for Convention cases), and other evidence as described in new 8 CFR 204.310. If USCIS approves the Form I-800A, the prospective adoptive parent(s) may arrange for the submission of the approval notice, the home study and other supporting evidence to the Central Authority of the Convention Country in which they hope to adopt a child. 8 CFR 204.312(d)(2). The Central Authority must receive the same home study as was submitted to USCIS. Once the prospective adoptive parent(s) have received a report and any other information on a child from the relevant Central Authority and have decided to accept the referral, they would file Form I-800, with the report and other evidence specified in new 8 CFR 204.313, with the USCIS office or visa-issuing post specified in the Form I-800 instructions. This step must occur before the prospective adoptive parent(s) have adopted or obtained legal custody of the child. At this point, a USCIS officer or, if the Form I-800 is properly filed with a visa-issuing post, a consular officer will provisionally adjudicate the Form I-800. (If the prospective adoptive parent(s) filed an application for waiver of any known or suspected ground of inadmissibility at the same time they filed the Form I-800 at a consular office, the consular officer will forward both the Form I-800 and the waiver application to the appropriate USCIS office for decision as to approval of the waiver and provisional approval of the Form I-800.) If provisional approval of the I-800 petition is granted, the prospective adoptive parent(s) may then file a visa application for the child with the visa issuing post with jurisdiction over the child's country of residence. Section 42.24(g) sets forth the documentary requirements for the visa application, and states which requirements may be satisfied to the extent practicable. This may vary from case to case. In requiring some evidence only to the extent practicable, the rule recognizes that some evidence may not be obtainable at this early stage. However, in order to obtain as accurate an assessment of the case as possible at the initial review stage, it is important that supporting documents not be omitted unless obtaining them is truly not practicable under the circumstances of the particular case. If, after reviewing the information provided, it appears to the consular officer that the child would not be ineligible, based on the information provided, to receive an immigrant visa, the officer will annotate the visa application to reflect this conclusion. See section 42.24(h). If a USCIS officer or a consular officer has provisionally approved the I-800 petition and a consular officer has annotated the visa application, the consular officer is to notify the relevant Central Authority that the steps required by Article 5 of the Convention have been taken. (Article 5 of the Convention requires the receiving country to have:

(a)Determined that the prospective adoptive parent(s) are eligible and suited to adopt;

(b)ensured that the prospective adoptive parent(s) have been counseled as may be necessary; and

(c)determined that the child is or will be authorized to enter and reside permanently in the receiving country.) The prospective adoptive parent(s) may then either complete the adoption in the Convention country or else obtain legal custody for the purpose of adoption. After receiving appropriate notification from the Convention country that the adoption has occurred or, in custody for purpose of adoption cases, that legal custody has been granted, including a copy of the adoption or custody order, the consular officer will verify Convention and IAA compliance before affixing a certification to that effect to the adoption order. In verifying compliance, the consular officer must consider U.S. prior notification under Article 5 plus appropriate notification from the country of origin as prima facie evidence of compliance with the Convention and the IAA. In other words, the prior determination plus appropriate notification of the adoption or grant of legal custody is sufficient to establish compliance, so long as the consular officer does not have a well-founded and substantive reason to believe that the adoption or the grant of legal custody was non-compliant with the Convention or the IAA. At that point, the consular officer will finally adjudicate the Form I-800 and the visa application. If, however, the consular officer determines that the Form I-800 is not approvable, the consular officer will refer the case to USCIS for review and decision. The Department does not anticipate that this situation will arise often, if at all, because of the procedural safeguards inherent in the Convention adoption process. 3. *Comment:* One commenter asked what “appeal process” would be provided for prospective adoptive parents if, pursuant to section 42.24(h), they were informed of an ineligibility. *Response:* Under the DHS Rule, prospective adoptive parents may file a waiver application for any inadmissibilities when the I-800 petition is filed. See 8 CFR 204.313(d)(5). After provisional approval of the petition, if an ineligibility is found that has not been overcome by a waiver submitted at the provisional approval stage, the visa application will be denied and prospective adoptive parents will be advised whether a waiver is available and, if so, how to apply for it. As in any other immigrant visa case, an applicant will have an opportunity to present any additional evidence that may overcome the grounds of ineligibility, and to submit an application for a waiver if the visa is refused because of an ineligibility for which a waiver is available. See 22 CFR 42.81 and 8 CFR 212.7. If USCIS denies a Form I-800A or a Form I-800, the prospective adoptive parents may appeal the denial, as specified in 8 CFR 204.314. The traditional legal doctrine of non-reviewability of a decision to deny a visa application, however, applies to Convention adoption cases to the same extent as any other visa application case. 4. *Comment:* One commenter asked whether there would be a time frame for provisional review. *Response:* The DHS rule, which governs the provisional approval process, does not include a time frame for provisional review. This rule also does not include a time frame for the initial review of the visa application. 5. *Comment:* One commenter asked whether an agency could petition for provisional approval on a child's behalf before a prospective adoptive parent is identified. *Response:* No. The Form I-800A for prospective adoptive parent(s) must be approved before a Form I-800 petition can be submitted on behalf of a particular child. However, an adoption service provider could gather the relevant documents in advance so as to expedite the submission of the I-800 petition once prospective adoptive parent(s) are identified. 6. *Comment:* One commenter asked whether the provisional approval of the I-800 petition had to take place in the country of origin or whether, in some cases, it could take place at the local USCIS office. *Response:* The office with which the prospective adoptive parent(s) file the Form I-800 petition will vary. See DHS Rule, 8 CFR 204.308. If the Form I-800 is properly filed with a Stateside USCIS office, that office will make the decision regarding provisional approval. If the Form I-800 is properly filed abroad, the USCIS office or visa-issuing post abroad will make this decision. 7. *Comment:* One commenter suggested that the sixth word from the end of 42.24(f) be changed from “return” to “forward,” since in some cases DHS may not have seen the petition previously. *Response:* We have made the suggested change, and have also replaced the reference to 22 CFR 42.43 with a reference to 8 CFR 204.313(i)(3), which requires consular officers to forward any Form I-800 petition that is not clearly approvable, along with accompanying evidence, to USCIS. 8. *Comment:* One commenter asked about how information about the specific documents required from each country of origin would be shared with prospective adoptive parents and adoption service providers. *Response:* As currently, the information required from the country of origin will be available in the country-specific adoption flyer which is available both on *www.travel.state.gov* and from the relevant United States Consulate. 9. *Comment:* One commenter expressed concerns about the language in the explanatory section of the proposed rule, noting that generally the adoption service provider would be delivering the United States Government's Article 5 notification. The commenter expressed a preference that the consular officer directly notify the foreign Central Authority. The commenter also requested details about the acceptable methods of transmission. *Response:* How the notification is transmitted to the country of origin will vary depending on the practices and procedures set up by the relevant consular post. This language was included to make clear that, although the notification would be originated by the consular officer, it could be delivered by adoption service providers. The United States approach to implementation of the Convention, as set forth in the IAA, has been to use certain adoption service providers to perform some Central Authority functions, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. part 96. (Convention Article 22 permits a Convention country to use accredited bodies and approved persons to perform certain tasks in the adoption process). Such providers are capable of transmitting this notification securely and expeditiously, in a method that will depend on the circumstances of the particular country. 10. *Comment:* One commenter asked for clarification of 42.24 (j), specifically what type of notification was anticipated, and suggested changing the term “notification” to “documentation.” *Response:* The type of notification that will satisfy section 42.24(j) may vary depending on the Central Authority of the relevant country of origin. The United States expects to work diplomatically with these Central Authorities to ensure that the necessary notification is obtained. “Notification” is the term used here because this language is drawn from the IAA, which refers to “appropriate notification” from the foreign Central Authority as a prerequisite to certificate issuance. 11. *Comment:* One commenter asked how the rule would affect the length and the number of any visits the prospective adoptive parents take to the country of origin. *Response:* Because both the I-800A and the I-800 may be filed domestically, and the visa application may be filed without the physical presence of the applicant if not practicable, the rule will not necessarily impact the length or number of visits to the country of origin. 12. *Comment:* One commenter asked how provisional approval would affect the timing of the Interstate Compact

(ICPC)approval. *Response:* The DHS rule determines at what point in the process the petitioner for the child must comply with any U.S. State's pre-adoption requirements, including any State requirement to comply with ICPC. See, e.g., 8 CFR 204.305 (State preadoption requirements); 8 CFR 204.310 (filing requirements for Form I-800A); 8 CFR 204.311 (Convention adoption home study requirements); 8 CFR 204.313 (filing and adjudication of a Form I-800). Summary of the Final Regulation This final rule establishes new procedures that consular officers will follow in adjudicating cases of children whose cases are covered by the Convention. When children habitually resident abroad in a Convention country have been, are being, or will be moved in connection with adoption by parents habitually resident in the United States, the Convention applies. Although much of the petition and visa processes will be similar to the current orphan case procedures, there are important changes. Perhaps most significantly, United States authorities will perform the bulk of petition and visa adjudication work much earlier than under current practice. This early review will enable United States authorities to make the determination required by Article 5 of the Convention that the child will be eligible to enter and reside permanently in the receiving state prior to the adoption or grant of legal custody. The regulation also provides that, once the country of origin has provided appropriate notification that the adoption or grant of legal custody has occurred, including a copy of the adoption or custody order, the consular officer will issue a certificate to the United States adoptive or prospective adoptive parent(s) if the officer is satisfied that the requirements of the Convention and IAA have been met, and only if so will the consular officer approve the immigration petition and complete visa processing. To streamline the process, the regulation departs from current practice by allowing consular officers to approve petitions for children whose cases are covered by the Convention regardless of whether the petition was originally filed with the Department or DHS. The Department is issuing the rule as final with minor changes, taking into account the comments received and the DHS Rule. In particular, sections 42.24(f),

(h)and

(m)were slightly edited to reflect the fact that a petition filed originally with a consular officer would be “forwarded,” not “returned,” to DHS if the consular officer concluded that it was not clearly approvable, and to reflect the correct regulations. Section 42.24(d) was modified by the deletion of a requirement that a consular officer approve the petition, which would not have allowed for visa issuance in a case in which DHS approved a provisionally-approved petition after the consular officer had returned it as not clearly approvable. In addition, section 42.24(b) was changed to correspond more closely to the DHS rule with respect to the scope of application of the Convention and the handling of transition cases and cases involving a Convention adoptee who seeks to travel to the United States as a nonimmigrant for purposes of naturalization under INA section 322, as specified in 8 CFR 204.313(b)(2). Sections 42.24(e) and

(h)were amended to clarify the operations of waivers of ineligibility. Also, a cross-reference making the definitions in 22 CFR 96.2 apply to 22 CFR 42.24 was added for consistency with all other relevant rules. (The DHS Rule and the Department of State rules for 22 CFR 96, 97, 98, 99 and now 22 CFR 42.24 use the same definitions for the same terms when those terms are defined in 22 CFR 96.2.) Consequently, the defined terms “Convention country” and “legal custody” were used in sections 42.24(b), (f), and (j). In addition, section 42.24(j) was amended to clarify that the country of origin's provision of appropriate notification, in addition to the consular officer's notification pursuant to Article 5, is required to establish prima facie evidence of compliance with the Convention and the IAA. Finally, the Department further modified section 42.24(h) to reflect the possibility that a visa ineligibility identified by a consular officer during the initial review could be either overcome or, after forwarding to DHS, waived. Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act In accordance with provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act governing rules promulgated by federal agencies that affect the public (5 U.S.C. 552), the Department published a proposed rule and invited public comment. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule regulates individual aliens who seek immigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule would not result in any such expenditure, nor would it significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121. This rule would not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and export markets. Executive Order 12866 The Department of State does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Nonetheless, the Department has reviewed the rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in the Executive Order. Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. The Department plans for applicants for visas for children adopted under the Hague Convention to use visa application forms that have already been approved by OMB. The forms related to the petition process, such as the I-800 and I-800A, are DHS forms, and DHS would be responsible for compliance with the PRA, where it applies, with respect to those forms. We currently anticipate that the certificates to be issued by consular officers will not involve the collection of additional information not already collected. Moreover, section 503(c) of the IAA exempts from the PRA any information collection “for use as a Convention record as defined” in the IAA. Information collected on Convention adoptions in connection with the visa, petition, and certificate processes would relate directly to specific Convention adoptions (whether final or not), and therefore would fall within this exemption. Accordingly, the Department has concluded that this regulation will not involve an “information collection” under the Paperwork Reduction Act. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 42 Immigration, Passports, Visas, Intercountry adoption, Convention certificates. Visas: Documentation of Immigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended In view of the foregoing, 22 CFR part 42 is amended as follows: PART 42—VISAS: DOCUMENTATION OF IMMIGRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, AS AMENDED 1. The authority citation for part 42 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104 and 1182; Pub. L. 105-277; Pub. L. 108-449; 112 Stat. 2681-795 through 2681-801; The Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (done at the Hague, May 29, 1993), S. Treaty Doc. 105-51 (1998), 1870 U.N.T.S. 167 (Reg. No. 31922 (1993)); The Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. 14901-14954, Pub. L. 106-279. 2. Add § 42.24 to Subpart C to read as follows: § 42.24 Adoption under the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption and the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000.

(a)For purposes of this section, the definitions in 22 CFR 96.2 apply.

(b)On or after the Convention effective date, as defined in 22 CFR 96.17, a child habitually resident in a Convention country who is adopted by a United States citizen deemed to be habitually resident in the United States in accordance with applicable DHS regulations must qualify for visa status under the provisions of INA section 101(b)(1)(G) as provided in this section. Such a child shall not be accorded status under INA section 101(b)(1)(F), *provided that* a child may be accorded status under INA section 101(b)(1)(F) if Form I-600A or I-600 was filed before the Convention effective date. Although this part 42 generally applies to the issuance of immigrant visas, this section 42.24 may also provide the basis for issuance of a nonimmigrant visa to permit a Convention adoptee to travel to the United States for purposes of naturalization under INA section 322.

(c)The provisions of this section govern the operations of consular officers in processing cases involving children for whom classification is sought under INA section 101(b)(1)(G), unless the Secretary of State has personally waived any requirement of the IAA or these regulations in a particular case in the interests of justice or to prevent grave physical harm to the child, to the extent consistent with the Convention.

(d)An alien child shall be classifiable under INA section 101(b)(1)(G) only if, before the child is adopted or legal custody for the purpose of adoption is granted, a petition for the child has been received and provisionally approved by a DHS officer or, where authorized by DHS, by a consular officer, and a visa application for the child has been received and annotated in accordance with paragraph

(h)of this section by a consular officer. No alien child shall be issued a visa pursuant to INA section 101(b)(1)(G) unless the petition and visa application are finally approved.

(e)If a petition for a child under INA section 101(b)(1)(G) is properly filed with a consular officer, the consular officer will review the petition for the purpose of determining whether it can be provisionally approved in accordance with applicable DHS requirements. If a properly completed application for waiver of inadmissibility is received by a consular officer at the same time that a petition for a child under INA section 101(b)(1)(G) is received, provisional approval cannot take place unless the waiver is approved, and therefore the consular officer, pursuant to 8 CFR 204.313(i)(3) and 8 CFR 212.7, will forward the petition and the waiver application to DHS for decisions as to approval of the waiver and provisional approval of the petition. If a petition for a child under INA section 101(b)(1)(G) is received by a DHS officer, the consular officer will conduct any reviews, determinations or investigations requested by DHS with regard to the petition and classification determination in accordance with applicable DHS procedures.

(f)A petition shall be provisionally approved by the consular officer if, in accordance with applicable DHS requirements, it appears that the child will be classifiable under INA section 101(b)(1)(G) and that the proposed adoption or grant of legal custody will be in compliance with the Convention. If the consular officer knows or has reason to believe the petition is not provisionally approvable, the consular officer shall forward it to DHS pursuant to 8 CFR 204.313(i)(3).

(g)After a petition has been provisionally approved, a completed visa application form, any supporting documents required pursuant to § 42.63 and § 42.65, and any required fees must be submitted to the consular officer in accordance with § 42.61 for a provisional review of visa eligibility. The requirements in § 42.62, § 42.64, § 42.66 and § 42.67 shall also be satisfied to the extent practicable.

(h)A consular officer shall provisionally determine visa eligibility based on a review of the visa application, submitted supporting documents, and the provisionally approved petition. In so doing, the consular officer shall follow all procedures required to adjudicate the visa to the extent possible in light of the degree of compliance with §§ 42.62 through 42.67. If it appears, based on the available information, that the child would not be ineligible under INA section 212 or other applicable law to receive a visa, the consular officer shall so annotate the visa application. If evidence of an ineligibility is discovered during the review of the visa application, and the ineligibility was not waived in conjunction with provisional approval of the petition, the prospective adoptive parents shall be informed of the ineligibility and given an opportunity to establish that it will be overcome. If the visa application cannot be annotated as described above, the consular officer shall deny the visa in accordance with § 42.81, regardless of whether the application has yet been executed in accordance with § 42.67(a); provided however that, in cases in which a waiver may be available under the INA and the consular officer determines that the visa application appears otherwise approvable, the consular officer shall inform the prospective adoptive parents of the procedure for applying to DHS for a waiver. If in addition the consular officer comes to know or have reason to believe that the petition is not clearly approvable as provided in 8 CFR 204.313(i)(3), the consular officer shall forward the petition to DHS pursuant to that section.

(i)If the petition has been provisionally approved and the visa application has been annotated in accordance with subparagraph (h), the consular officer shall notify the country of origin that the steps required by Article 5 of the Convention have been taken.

(j)After the consular officer has received appropriate notification from the country of origin that the adoption or grant of legal custody has occurred and any remaining requirements established by DHS or §§ 42.61 through 42.67 have been fulfilled, the consular officer, if satisfied that the requirements of the IAA and the Convention have been met with respect to the adoption or grant of legal custody, shall affix to the adoption decree or grant of legal custody a certificate so indicating. This certificate shall constitute the certification required by IAA section 301(a) and INA section 204(d)(2). For purposes of determining whether to issue a certificate, the fact that a consular officer notified the country of origin pursuant to paragraph

(i)of this section that the steps required by Article 5 of the Convention had been taken and the fact that the country of origin has provided appropriate notification that the adoption or grant of legal custody has occurred shall together constitute prima facie evidence of compliance with the Convention and the IAA.

(k)If the consular officer is unable to issue the certificate described in paragraph

(j)of this section, the consular officer shall notify the country of origin of the consular officer's decision.

(l)After the consular officer determines whether to issue the certificate described in paragraph

(j)of this section, the consular officer shall finally adjudicate the petition and visa application in accordance with standard procedures.

(m)If the consular officer is unable to give final approval to the visa application or the petition, then the consular officer shall forward the petition to DHS, pursuant to § 42.43 or 8 CFR 204.313(i)(3), as applicable, for appropriate action in accordance with applicable DHS procedures, and/or refuse the visa application in accordance with § 42.81. The consular officer shall notify the country of origin that the visa has been refused. Dated: October 22, 2007. Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-21340 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 300 RIN 1820-AB57 Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities; Corrections AGENCY: Office of Special Education Programs, Department of Education. ACTION: Correcting amendments. SUMMARY: The Department of Education published final regulations in the **Federal Register** on August 14, 2006, to implement changes made to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. That document inadvertently included minor technical errors. This document corrects the final regulations. DATES: Effective October 30, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne Sheridan, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 6E229, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:

(202)401-6025. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document corrects technical errors included in the final regulations which were published in the **Federal Register** on August 14, 2006 (71 FR 46540). Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister/index.html* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at

(202)512-1530. You may also view this document in text or PDF at the following site: *http://ifap.ed.gov/IFAPWebApp/currentFRegistersPag.jsp* . Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities (84.027) and Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (84.173)) List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 300 Administrative practice and procedure, Education of individuals with disabilities, Elementary and secondary education, Equal educational opportunity, Grant programs—education, Privacy, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 34 CFR part 300 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments: PART 300—ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1406, 1411-1419, unless otherwise noted. § 300.8 [Corrected] 2. In § 300.8(c)(3), add the punctuation “,” after the word, “amplification”. § 300.9 [Corrected] 3. In § 300.9 — A. In paragraph (a), remove the word “other” and add, in its place, the words “through another”; and B. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the word “anytime” and add, in its place, the words “any time”. § 300.18 [Corrected] 4. In § 300.18 — A. In the heading for paragraph (c), add the word “academic” before the word “achievement”; B. In the introductory text in paragraph (c), add the word “academic” before the word “achievement”; C. In paragraph (c)(2), add the words “alternate academic achievement” before the word “standards”; and D. In the introductory text of paragraph (e), remove the word “meets” and add, in its place, the word “meet”. § 300.103 [Corrected] 5. In § 300.103(a), add the word “that” after the word “support”. § 300.118 [Corrected] 6. In § 300.118, remove the word “for” that appears after the word “supervision” and add, in its place, the word “of”. § 300.137 [Corrected] 7. In § 300.137(b)(1), remove the citation “§ 300.134(c)” and add, in its place, the citation “§ 300.134(d)”. § 300.162 [Corrected] 8. In § 300.162(c)(1), remove the citation “§ 300.202” and add, in its place, the citation “§ 300.203”. § 300.172 [Corrected] 9. In the introductory text of § 300.172(c)(1), remove the word “must” that appears before the word “enter”. § 300.181 [Corrected] 10. In § 300.181(c)(5), remove the citation “(b)(4)” and add, in its place, the citation “(c)(4)”. § 300.301 [Corrected] 11. In § 300.301(a), remove the phrase “§§ 300.305 and 300.306” and add, in its place, the phrase “§§ 300.304 through 300.306”. § 300.305 [Corrected] 12. In the introductory text of § 300.305(d)(1), remove the word “of' ” and add, in its place, the word “of”. § 300.306 [Corrected] 13. In § 300.306(a)(1), remove the citation “paragraph (b)” and add, in its place, the citation “paragraph (c)”. § 300.320 [Corrected] 14. In § 300.320(a)(2)(ii), add the word “academic” before the word “achievement”. § 300.321 [Corrected] 15. In § 300.321(a)(3), remove the word “then” and add, in its place, the word “than”. § 300.504 [Corrected] 16. In the introductory text of § 300.504(c), remove the citation “§ 300.520,”. § 300.506 [Corrected] 17. In § 300.506(b)(7), add a new paragraph designation “(8)” before the word “Discussions”. § 300.510 [Corrected] 18. In § 300.510(e), remove the citation “paragraph (c)” and add, in its place, the citation “paragraph (d)”. § 300.704 [Corrected] 19. In § 300.704(a)(2)(ii), remove the word “For” and add, in its place, the word “for”. § 300.812 [Corrected] 20. In § 300.812(b)(2), remove the word “For” and add, in its place, the word “for”. § 300.533 [Corrected] 21. In § 300.533, remove the citation “§ A300.530(c)” and add, in its place, the citation “§ 300.530(c)”. Appendix E to Part 300—[Corrected] 22. Under the term “ALTERNATE ASSESSMENTS”, in the first entry, add the word “academic” before the word “achievement”. 23. Under the term “HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER (R-Z)”, in the second entry, add the word “academic” before the word “achievement”. Dated: October 24, 2007. William W. Knudsen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E7-21338 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 RIN 0648-XD05 Fraser River Sockeye and Pink Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Orders AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary orders; inseason orders; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS publishes Fraser River salmon inseason orders to regulate salmon fisheries in U.S. waters. The orders were issued by the Fraser River Panel (Panel) of the Pacific Salmon Commission (Commission) and subsequently approved and issued by NMFS during the 2007 salmon fisheries within the U.S. Fraser River Panel Area. These orders established fishing dates, times, and areas for the gear types of U.S. treaty Indian and all citizen fisheries during the period the Panel exercised jurisdiction over these fisheries. DATES: The effective dates for the inseason orders are set out in this document under the heading Inseason Orders. Comments will be accepted through November 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-XD05 by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* • Fax: 206-526-6736 • Mail: NMFS NWR, 7600 Sand Point Way Ne, Seattle, WA, 98115. Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah McAvinchey, by phone at 206-526-4323, *sarah.mcavinchey@noaa.gov* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada concerning Pacific Salmon was signed at Ottawa on January 28, 1985, and subsequently was given effect in the United States by the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act

(Act)at 16 U.S.C. 3631-3644. Under authority of the Act, Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart F provide a framework for the implementation of certain regulations of the Commission and inseason orders of the Commission's Fraser River Panel for U.S. sockeye and pink salmon fisheries in the Fraser River Panel Area. The regulations close the U.S. portion of the Fraser River Panel Area to U.S. sockeye and pink salmon fishing unless opened by Panel orders that are given effect by inseason regulations published by NMFS. During the fishing season, NMFS may issue regulations that establish fishing times and areas consistent with the Commission agreements and inseason orders of the Panel. Such orders must be consistent with domestic legal obligations and are issued by Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS. Official notification of these inseason actions is provided by two telephone hotline numbers described at 50 CFR 300.97(b)(1). The inseason orders are published in the **Federal Register** as soon as practicable after they are issued. Due to the frequency with which inseason orders are issued, publication of individual orders is impractical. Therefore, the 2007 orders are being published in this single document to avoid fragmentation. Inseason Orders The following inseason orders were adopted by the Panel and issued for U.S. fisheries by NMFS during the 2007 fishing season. Each of the following inseason actions was effective upon announcement on telephone hotline numbers as specified at 50 CFR 300.97(b)(1); those dates and times are listed herein. The times listed are local times, and the areas designated are Puget Sound Management and Catch Reporting Areas as defined in the Washington State Administrative Code at Chapter 220-22: Order No. 2007-01: Issued 9 a.m., August 22, 2007 Treaty Indian Fisheries *Areas 4B, 5, and 6C* : Open for drift gillnets for the retention of pink salmon only from 12 p.m.

(noon)Thursday, August 23, 2007, to 12 p.m. Saturday August 25, 2007. All Citizen Fisheries *Areas 7 and 7A Reef Net* : Open to pink salmon fishing with non retention of sockeye from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Thursday, August 23 and Friday, August 24, 2007 and 5 a.m. to 12 p.m.

(noon)on Saturday August 25, 2007. Order No. 2007-02: Issued 3 p.m., August 24, 2007 Treaty Indian Fisheries *Areas 4B, 5 and 6C* : Extended for drift gillnets for pink salmon from 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, August 25, 2007, to 12 p.m.

(noon)Wednesday, August 29, 2007. *Areas 6, 7, and 7A* : Open to net fishing for pink salmon from 5 a.m., Sunday, August 26, 2007, to 9 p.m. Monday, August 27, 2007, southerly and easterly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen's Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the Province of British Columbia. All Citizen Fisheries Areas 7 and 7A open to pink salmon fishing with non retention of sockeye and with the East Point line restriction in effect: That portion of area 7A that lies northerly and westerly of a straight line drawn from the low water range marker in Boundary Bay on the International Boundary through the east tip of Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the East Point light on Saturna Island in the Province of British Columbia will remain closed (East Point line closure). Reef Net: Open 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, August 25, 2007, 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Sunday August 26, 2007 and 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Tuesday August 28, 2007. Purse Seine: Open 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Tuesday August 28, 2007. Gillnet: Open 8:00 a.m. to 11: 59 p.m. Tuesday August 28, 2007. Order No. 2007-03: Issued 11:45 a.m., August 4, 2007 Treaty Indian Fisheries *Areas 4B, 5 and 6C* : Extended for drift gillnets for pink salmon from 12 p.m.

(noon)Wednesday, August 29, 2007, to 12 p.m.

(noon)Saturday, September 1, 2007. *Areas 6, 7, and 7A* : Open to net fishing for pink salmon from 5 a.m., Thursday, August 30, 2007, to 9 p.m. Friday, August 31, 2007, southerly and easterly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen's Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the Province of British Columbia. All Citizen Fisheries Areas 7 and 7A open to pink salmon fishing with non retention of sockeye and with the East Point line restriction in effect: That portion of area 7A that lies northerly and westerly of a straight line drawn from the low water range marker in Boundary Bay on the International Boundary through the east tip of Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the East Point light on Saturna Island in the Province of British Columbia will remain closed (East Point line closure). *Reef Net* : Open 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Wednesday, August 29, 2007. *Purse Seine* : Open 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. Wednesday, August 29, 2007. *Gillnet* : Open 8 a.m. to 11: 59 p.m. Wednesday, August 29, 2007. Order No. 2007-04: Issued 2 p.m., August 31, 2007 Treaty Indian Fisheries *Areas 4B, 5 and 6C* : Extended for drift gillnets for pink salmon from 12

(noon)Saturday, September 1, 2007, to 12 p.m.

(noon)Wednesday, September 5, 2007. *Areas 6, 7, and 7A* : Open to net fishing for pink salmon from 5 a.m. Saturday September 1, 2007, to 9 p.m. Monday, September 3, 2007, southerly and easterly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen's Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the Province of British Columbia. All Citizen Fisheries Areas 7 and 7A open to pink salmon fishing with non retention of sockeye and with the East Point line restriction in effect: That portion of area 7A that lies northerly and westerly of a straight line drawn from the low water range marker in Boundary Bay on the International Boundary through the east tip of Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the East Point light on Saturna Island in the Province of British Columbia will remain closed (East Point line closure). *Reef Net* : Open 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday September 1, 2007, 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Sunday September 2, 2007, and 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Monday September 3, 2007. *Purse Seine* : Open 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday September 1, 2007, and 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Sunday September 2, 2007. *Gillnet* : Open 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on Saturday September 1, 2007, 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on Sunday September 2, 2007. *Order No. 2007-05* : Issued 12 p.m., September 3, 2007. Treaty Indian Fisheries Areas 4B, 5 and 6C: Extended for drift gillnets for pink salmon from 12 p.m.

(noon)Wednesday, September 5, 2007, to 12 (noon)Thursday September 6, 2007. Areas 6, 7, and 7A: Open to net fishing for pink salmon from 9 p.m. Monday, September 3, 2007, to 9 p.m. Wednesday, September 5, 2007, southerly and easterly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen's Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the Province of British Columbia. All Citizen Fisheries Areas 7 and 7A open to pink salmon fishing with non retention of sockeye and with the East Point line restriction in effect: That portion of area 7A that lies northerly and westerly of a straight line drawn from the low water range marker in Boundary Bay on the International Boundary through the east tip of Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the East Point light on Saturna Island in the Province of British Columbia will remain closed (East Point line closure). *Reef Net* : Open 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Tuesday September 4, 2007, and 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Wednesday September 5, 2007. *Purse Seine* : Open 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Tuesday September 4, 2007, and 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Wednesday September 5, 2007. *Gillnet* : Open 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday September 4, 2007 and 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday September 5, 2007. Order No. 2007-06: Issued 3 p.m., September 5, 2007. Treaty Indian Fisheries *Areas 4B, 5 and 6C* : Extended for drift gillnets for pink salmon from 12

(noon)Thursday September 6, 2007, to 12 p.m.

(noon)Saturday, September 8, 2007. *Areas 6, 7, and 7A* : Open to net fishing for pink salmon from 9 p.m. Wednesday, September 5, 2007, to 9 p.m., Friday, September 7, 2007, southerly and easterly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen's Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the Province of British Columbia. All Citizen Fisheries Areas 7 and 7A open to pink salmon fishing with non retention of sockeye and with the Iwersen's Dock line restriction in effect: That portion of area 7A that lies northerly and westerly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen's Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the province of British Columbia (Iwersen's Dock line closure). *Reef Net* : Open 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Thursday September 6, 2007, and 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Friday September 7, 2007. *Purse Seine* : Open 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Thursday September 6, 2007, and 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Friday September 7, 2007. *Gillnet* : Open 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on Thursday September 6, 2007, and 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on Friday September 7, 2007. Order No. 2007-07: Issued 11 p.m., September 7, 2007. The Fraser River Panel approved the following relinquishment of regulatory control in U.S. Puget Sound Panel waters: *Areas 4B, 5 and 6C* : Relinquish regulatory control effective 12:01 p.m. Saturday, September, 8, 2007. Treaty Indian Fisheries *Areas 6, 7, and 7A* : Open to net fishing for pink salmon from 9 p.m., Friday, September 7, 2007, to 12 p.m. (noon), Monday, September 10, 2007, southerly and easterly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen's Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the Province of British Columbia. All Citizen Fisheries Areas 7 and 7A open to pink salmon fishing with non retention of sockeye and with the Iwersen's Dock line restriction in effect: That portion of area 7A that lies northerly and westerly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen's Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the province of British Columbia (Iwersen's Dock line closure). *Reef Net* : Open from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday, September 8, from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Sunday, September 9, 2007, and from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Monday, September 10, 2007. *Purse Seine* : Open from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Monday, September 10, 2007. *Gillnet* : Open from 8 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on Monday, September 10, 2007. Order No. 2007-08: Issued 11 a.m., September 10, 2007. All Citizen Fisheries Areas 7 and 7A open to pink salmon fishing with non retention of sockeye: *Reef Net* : Open from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Wednesday September 12, 2007, from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Thursday, September 13, 2007, and 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Friday September 14, 2007. Order No. 2007-09: Issued 10 a.m., September 14, 2007. All Citizen Fisheries Areas 7 and 7A open to pink salmon fishing with non retention of sockeye: *Reef Net* : Open from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Friday, September 14, Saturday September 15, Sunday September 16, Monday September 17, Tuesday September 18, Wednesday September 19, and Thursday September 20, 2007. *Order No. 2007-10* : Issued 10 a.m., September 19, 2007. The Fraser River Panel approved the following relinquishment of regulatory control in U.S. Puget Sound Panel waters: *Area 7 and 7A* : Relinquish regulatory control effective 12:01 a.m., Thursday, September 20, 2007. Classification The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for the inseason orders to be issued without affording the public prior notice and opportunity for comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such prior notice and opportunity for comments is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment is impracticable because NMFS has insufficient time to allow for prior notice and opportunity for public comment between the time the stock abundance information is available to determine how much fishing can be allowed and the time the fishery must open and close in order to harvest the appropriate amount of fish while they are available. Moreover, such prior notice and opportunity for public comment is impracticable because not closing the fishery upon attainment of the quota would allow the quota to be exceeded and thus compromise the conservation objectives established preseason, and it does not allow fishers appropriately controlled access to the available fish at the time they are available. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date, required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), of the inseason orders. A delay in the effective date of the inseason orders would not allow fishers appropriately controlled access to the available fish at that time they are available. This action is authorized by 50 CFR 300.97, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3636(b). Dated: October 24, 2007. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-21329 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 209 Tuesday, October 30, 2007 Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0969; FRL-8489-1] Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the Beaumont/Port Arthur 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; State of Texas; Proposed Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to find that the Beaumont/Port Arthur

(BPA)marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has failed to attain the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard) by June 15, 2007, the attainment deadline set forth in the Clean Air Act

(CAA)and Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)for marginal nonattainment areas. If EPA finalizes this finding, the BPA area will then be reclassified, by operation of law, as a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The moderate area attainment date for the BPA area would then be as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than June 15, 2010. Once reclassified, Texas must submit State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revisions that meet the 8-hour ozone nonattainment requirements for moderate areas as required by the CAA. In this action, EPA is also proposing the schedule for the State's submittal of the SIP revisions required for moderate areas once the area is reclassified. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0969, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *EPA Region 6 “Contact Us” Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm* . Please click on “6PD” (Multimedia) and select “Air” before submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Mr. Guy Donaldson at *donaldson.guy@epa.gov* . Please also send a copy by email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. • *Fax:* Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at fax number 214-665-7263. • *Mail:* Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. • *Hand or Courier Delivery:* Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0969. 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. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0969, 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 through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 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 in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, Air Planning Section, (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone

(214)665-7247; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *young.carl@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Is the Background for This Proposed Action? A. What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards? B. What Is the Standard for 8-Hour Ozone? C. What Is a SIP and How Does It Relate to the NAAQS for 8-Hour Ozone? D. What Is the BPA Nonattainment Area, and What Is Its Current 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Classification? E. What Are the CAA Provisions Regarding Determinations of Nonattainment and Reclassifications? F. What Happens if the BPA Area Attains the 8-Hour Ozone Standard at the End of 2007? II. What Is EPA's Evaluation of the BPA Area's 8-Hour Ozone Data? III. What Action Is EPA Proposing? A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of the BPA Nonattainment Area and New Attainment Date B. Proposed Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the BPA Area IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Is the Background for This Proposed Action? A. What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards? The CAA requires EPA to establish a NAAQS for pollutants that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare” and to develop a primary and secondary standard for each NAAQS. The primary standard is designed to protect human health with an adequate margin of safety and the secondary standard is designed to protect public welfare and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for six common air pollutants referred to as criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. These standards present state and local governments with the air quality levels they must meet to comply with the CAA. Also, these standards allow the American people to assess whether the air quality in their communities is healthful. B. What Is the Standard for 8-Hour Ozone? On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3 -year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See, 69 FR 23857, (April 30, 2004) for further information.) Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, “Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards” states: The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm. C. What Is a SIP and How Does It Relate to the NAAQS for 8-Hour Ozone? Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meet the NAAQS established by EPA. Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to EPA for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP. Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. They may contain state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. D. What Is the BPA Nonattainment Area, and What Is Its Current 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Classification? The BPA 8-hour ozone nonattainment area consists of Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties. For areas subject to Subpart 2 of the CAA, such as the BPA nonattainment area, the maximum period for attainment runs from the effective date of designations and classifications for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and will be the same periods as provided in Table 1 of CAA Section 181(a): Marginal—3 years; Moderate—6 years; Serious—9 years, Severe—15 or 17 years; and Extreme—20 years. The Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule (April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23951) provides the classification scheme for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 51.903). The effective date of designations and classifications for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS was June 15, 2004 (April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23858). The BPA area was designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard on April 30, 2004, and classified “marginal” based on a design value of 0.091 ppm, with an attainment date of June 15, 2007 (April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23858). The design value of an area, which characterizes the severity of the air quality concern, is represented by the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration measured at each monitor averaged over any three-year period. E. What Are the CAA Provisions Regarding Determinations of Nonattainment and Reclassifications? Section 181(b)(2) prescribes the process for making determinations upon failure of an ozone nonattainment area to attain by its attainment date, and for reclassification of an ozone nonattainment area. Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that EPA determine, based on the area's design value (as of the attainment date), whether the area attained the ozone standard by that date. For marginal, moderate, and serious areas, if EPA finds that the nonattainment area has failed to attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date, the area must be reclassified by operation of law to the higher of

(1)the next higher classification for the area, or

(1)the area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or

(2)EPA determines that the area has violated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 51.918). Other requirements not related to attainment would remain in force. II. What Is EPA's Evaluation of the BPA Area's 8-Hour Ozone Data? EPA makes attainment determinations for ozone nonattainment areas using available quality-assured air quality data. Quality-assured air quality data from sites in the BPA area is presented in Table 1. For the BPA ozone nonattainment area, the attainment determination is based on 2004-2006 air quality data. The area has a design value of 0.085 ppm. Therefore, pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, the BPA nonattainment area did not attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2007, deadline for marginal areas. Table 1.—BPA Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations And Design Values

(ppm)1 Site 4th Highest daily max 2004 2005 2006 Design value 3 year average (2004-2006) Beaumont (48-245-0009) 0.082 0.081 0.085 0.082 Port Arthur West (48-245-0011) 0.080 0.079 0.085 0.081 Sabine Pass (48-245-0101) 0.091 0.082 0.084 0.085 Hamshire (48-245-0022) 0.084 0.080 0.078 0.080 West Orange (48-361-1001) 0.078 0.078 0.078 0.078 Mauriceville (48-361-1100) 0.066 0.076 0.071 0.071 Jefferson Co. Airport (48-245-0018) 0.084 0.083 0.084 0.083 1 Unlike for the 1-hour ozone standard, design value calculations for the 8-hour ozone standard are based on a rolling three-year average of the annual 4th highest values (40 CFR part 50, Appendix I). Under Sections 172(a)(2)(C) and 181(a)(5) of the CAA, an area can qualify for up to 2 one-year extensions of its attainment date based on the number of exceedances in the attainment year and if the State has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan. For the 8-hour standard, if an area's fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average value in the attainment year is 0.084 ppm or less (40 CFR 51.907), the area is eligible for up to 2 one-year attainment date extensions. The attainment year is the year immediately preceding the nonattainment area's attainment date. For BPA the attainment year is 2006. In 2006, the area's fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average was 0.085 ppm. Based on this information, the BPA area currently does not qualify for a 1-year extension of the attainment date. Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA provides that, when EPA finds that an area failed to attain by the applicable date, the area is reclassified by operation of law to the higher of: The next higher classification or the classification applicable to the area's ozone design value at the time of the required notice under Section 181(b)(2)(B). Section 181(b)(2)(B) requires EPA to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** identifying the reclassification status of an area that has failed to attain the standard by its attainment date. The classification that would be applicable to the BPA area's ozone design value at the time of today's notice is “marginal” because the area's 2006 calculated design value, based on quality-assured ozone monitoring data from 2004-2006, is 0.085 ppm. By contrast, the next higher classification for the BPA area is “moderate”. Because “moderate” is a higher nonattainment classification than “marginal” under the CAA statutory scheme, upon the effective date of a final rulemaking, the BPA area will be reclassified by operation of law as “moderate”, for failing to attain the standard by the marginal area applicable attainment date of June 15, 2007. III. What Action Is EPA Proposing? A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of the BPA Nonattainment Area and New Attainment Date Pursuant to section 181(b)(2), EPA is proposing to find that the BPA area has failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2007, attainment deadline prescribed under the CAA for marginal ozone nonattainment areas. If EPA finalizes this finding and it takes effect, the area shall be reclassified by operation of law from marginal nonattainment to moderate nonattainment. Moderate areas are required to attain the standard “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than 6 years after designation or June 15, 2010. The “as expeditiously as practicable” attainment date will be determined as part of the action on the required SIP submittal demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is proposing a schedule by which Texas will submit the SIP revisions necessary for the proposed reclassification to moderate nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. B. Proposed Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the BPA Area EPA must address the schedule by which Texas is required to submit a revised SIP. When an area is reclassified, EPA has the authority under section 182(i) of the Act to adjust the Act's submittal deadlines for any new SIP revisions that are required as a result of the reclassification. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.908(d), for each nonattainment area, the State must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. The attainment year ozone season is the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date, in this case 2009 (40 CFR 51.900(g)). The ozone season is the ozone monitoring season as defined in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.1, Table D-3 (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61236). For the purposes of this reclassification for the BPA area, January 1st is the beginning of the ozone monitoring season. As a result EPA proposes that the required SIP revision be submitted by Texas as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1, 2009. This timeline also calls for implementation of applicable controls no later than January 1, 2009. A revised SIP must include the following moderate area requirements:

(1)An attainment demonstration (40 CFR 51.908),

(2)provisions for reasonably available control technology and reasonably available control measures (40 CFR 51.912),

(3)reasonable further progress reductions in volatile organic compound

(VOC)and nitrogen oxide (NO X ) emissions (40 CFR 51.910), and

(4)contingency measures to be implemented in the event of failure to meet a milestone or attain the standard (CAA 172(c)(9)). 2 See also the requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas set forth in CAA section 182(b). 2 A vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program would normally be listed as a requirement for an ozone moderate or above nonattainment area. However, the Federal I/M flexibility Amendments of 1995 determined the urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000 for 1990 (such as BPA) are not mandated to participate in the I/M program (60 FR 48027, September 18, 1995). As discussed above, the BPA area may attain the 8-hour ozone standard at the end of 2007, based on data from 2005, 2006 and 2007. If, after notice and comment rulemaking, EPA determines that the area does attain the standard at the end of 2007, the requirement to submit SIPs related to attainment of the standard shall be suspended until such time as

(1)the area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or

(2)EPA determines that the area has violated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 51.918). IV. Proposed Action Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), EPA is proposing to find that the BPA marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007. If EPA finalizes its proposal, the area will by operation of law be reclassified as a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Pursuant to section 182(i) of the CAA EPA is also proposing the schedule for submittal of the SIP revisions required for moderate areas once the area is reclassified. EPA proposes that the required SIP revisions be submitted as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1, 2009. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order

(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. The Agency has determined that the finding of nonattainment would result in none of the effects identified in the Executive Order. Under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, determinations of nonattainment are based upon air quality considerations and the resulting reclassifications must occur by operation of law. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* This proposed action to reclassify the BPA area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines does not establish any new information collection burden. 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 action on small entities, small entity is defined as:

(1)A small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA)size standards. (See 13 CFR 121.);

(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. Determinations of nonattainment and the resulting reclassification of nonattainment areas by operation of law under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA do not in and of themselves create any new requirements. Instead, this rulemaking only makes a factual determination, and does not directly regulate any entities. After considering the economic impacts of today's action on small entities, I certify that this rule 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 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 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 to 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 proposed action does not include a Federal mandate within the meaning of UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by either State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector, and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Also, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections 203. EPA believes, as discussed previously in this document, that the finding of nonattainment is a factual determination based upon air quality considerations and that the resulting reclassification of the area must occur by operation of law. Thus, EPA believes that the proposed finding does not constitute a Federal mandate, as defined in section 101 of the UMRA, because it does not impose an enforceable duty on any entity. 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 proposed 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 action merely proposes to determine that the BPA area had not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the BPA area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 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 action does not have “Tribal implications” as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action merely proposes to determine that the BPA area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the BPA area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines The Clean Air Act and the Tribal Authority Rule establish the relationship of the Federal government and Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 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 Executive Order 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 action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to children. This action merely proposes to determine that the BPA area has not attained the standard by the applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the BPA area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions 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 Advancement Act As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards

(CAA)and Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)for marginal nonattainment areas. If EPA finalizes this finding, the Baton Rouge area will then be reclassified, by operation of law, as a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The moderate area attainment date for the Baton Rouge area would then be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than June 15, 2010. Once reclassified, Louisiana must submit State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revisions that meet the 8-hour ozone nonattainment requirements for moderate areas, as required by the CAA. In this action, EPA is also proposing the schedule for the State’s submittal of the SIP revisions required for moderate areas once the area is reclassified. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0967, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *EPA Region 6 “Contact Us” Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm.* Please click on “6PD” (Multimedia) and select “Air” before submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Mr. Guy Donaldson at *donaldson.guy@epa.gov.* Please also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. • *Fax:* Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at fax number 214-665-7263. • *Mail:* Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. • *Hand or Courier Delivery:* Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0967. 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. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0967, 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 through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 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 in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section, (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone

(214)665-7367; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *rennie.sandra@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Is the Background for This Proposed Action? A. What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards? B. What Is the Standard for 8-Hour Ozone? C. What Is a SIP and How Does it Relate to the NAAQS for 8-Hour Ozone? D. What Is the Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area, and What Is Its Current 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Classification? E. What Are the CAA Provisions Regarding Determinations of Nonattainment and Reclassifications? II. What Is EPA's Evaluation of the Baton Rouge Area's 8-Hour Ozone Data? III. What Action Is EPA Proposing? A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of the Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area and New Attainment Date B. Proposed Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the Baton Rouge Area IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Review I. What is the Background for this Proposed Action? A. What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards? The CAA requires EPA to establish a NAAQS for pollutants that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare” and to develop a primary and secondary standard for each NAAQS. The primary standard is designed to protect human health with an adequate margin of safety and the secondary standard is designed to protect public welfare and the environment. EPA has set NAAQSs for six common air pollutants referred to as criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. These standards present state and local governments with the air quality levels they must meet to comply with the CAA. Also, these standards allow the American people to assess whether the air quality in their communities is healthful. B. What Is the Standard for 8-Hour Ozone? On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See, 69 FR 23857, (April 30, 2004) for further information). Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, “Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards” states: “The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.” C. What Is a SIP and How Does it Relate to the NAAQS for 8-Hour Ozone? Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the NAAQS established by EPA. Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to EPA for approval and incorporation into the Federally enforceable SIP. Each Federally approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. Each contain state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. D. What Is the Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area, and What Is Its Current 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Classification? The Baton Rouge 8-hour ozone nonattainment area consists of the Parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge in Louisiana. For areas subject to Subpart 2 of the CAA, such as the Baton Rouge nonattainment area, the maximum period for attainment runs from the effective date of designations and classifications for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and will be the same period as provided in Table 1 of CAA Section 181(a): Marginal—3 years; Moderate—6 years; Serious—9 years, Severe—15 or 17 years; and Extreme—20 years. The Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule (April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23951) provides the classification scheme for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 51.903). The effective date of designations and classifications for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS was June 15, 2004 (April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23858). The Baton Rouge area was initially designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard on April 30, 2004, and classified as “marginal” based on a design value of 0.086 ppm, with an attainment date of June 15, 2007 (April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23858). The design value of an area, which characterizes the severity of the air quality concern, is represented by the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration measured at each monitor averaged over any three-year period. E. What Are the CAA Provisions Regarding Determinations of Nonattainment and Reclassifications? Section 181(b)(2) prescribes the process for making determinations upon failure of an ozone nonattainment area to attain by its attainment date, and for reclassification of an ozone nonattainment area. Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that EPA determine, based on the area's design value (as of the attainment date), whether the ozone nonattinment area attained the ozone standard by that date. For marginal, moderate, and serious areas, if EPA finds that the nonattainment area has failed to attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date, the area must be reclassified by operation of law to the higher of

(1)the next higher classification for the area, or

(2)the classification applicable to the area's design value as determined at the time of the required **Federal Register** notice. Section 181(b)(2)(B) requires EPA to publish in the **Federal Register** a notice identifying any area that has failed to attain by its attainment date and the resulting reclassification. Different circumstances apply to severe and extreme areas. II. What is EPA's Evaluation of the Baton Rouge Area's 8-Hour Ozone Data? EPA makes attainment determinations for ozone nonattainment areas using available quality-assured air quality data. Within the Baton Rouge area, ground-level ozone is measured at ten different sites. Data for the four sites whose design values exceed the standard is presented in Table 1. For the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area, the attainment determination is based on 2004-2006 air quality data. The area has a design value of 0.091 ppm, based on data from the LSU site (EPA site number 22-033-0003). Therefore, pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, the Baton Rouge nonattainment area did not attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2007, deadline for marginal areas. Table 1.—Baton Rouge Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Ozone Concentrations and Design Values

(ppm)1 Site 4th Highest daily max 2004 2005 2006 Design value 3 year average (2004-2006) LSU (22-033-0003) 0.091 0.097 0.085 0.091 Baker (22-033-1001) 0.087 0.084 0.092 0.087 Port Allen (22-121-0001) 0.082 0.086 0.088 Carville (22-047-0012) 0.084 0.085 0.086 0.085 Pride (22-033-0013) 0.079 0.084 0.083 0.082 Capitol (22-033-0009) 0.074 0.082 0.084 0.080 Grosse Tete (22-047-0007) 0.076 0.088 0.087 0.083 Plaquemine (22-047-0009) 0.076 0.081 0.083 0.080 French Settlement (22-063-0002) 0.075 0.077 0.080 0.077 Dutchtown (22-005-0004) 0.082 0.078 0.088 0.082 1 Unlike for the 1-hour ozone standard, design value calculations for the 8-hour ozone standard are based on a rolling three-year average of the annual 4th highest values (40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I). Under Sections 172(a)(2)(C) and 181(a)(5) of the CAA, an area can qualify for up to two 1-year extensions of its attainment date based on the number of exceedances in the attainment year and if the State has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan. For the 8-hour standard, if an area's fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average in the attainment year is 0.084 ppm or less (40 CFR 51.907), the area is eligible for up to two 1-year attainment date extensions. The attainment year is the year immediately preceding the nonattainment area's attainment date. For Baton Rouge, the attainment year is 2006. In 2006, the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average was 0.092 ppm. Four monitoring sites (see Table 1) recorded values at 0.085 ppm or greater as the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration for 2006. Based on this information, the Baton Rouge area currently does not qualify for a 1-year extension of the attainment date. Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA provides that, when EPA finds that an area failed to attain by the applicable date, the area is reclassified by operation of law to the higher of: The next higher classification or the classification applicable to the area's ozone design value at the time of the required notice under Section 181(b)(2)(B). Section 181(b)(2)(B) requires EPA to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** identifying the reclassification status of an area that has failed to attain the standard by its attainment date. The classification that would be applicable to the Baton Rouge area's ozone design value at the time of today's notice is “marginal” because the area's 2006 calculated design value, based on quality-assured ozone monitoring data from 2004-2006, is 0.091 ppm. By contrast, the next higher classification for the Baton Rouge area is “moderate”. Because “moderate” is a higher nonattainment classification than “marginal” under the CAA statutory scheme, upon the effective date of a final rulemaking, the Baton Rouge area will be reclassified by operation of law as “moderate”, for failing to attain the standard by the marginal area applicable attainment date of June 15, 2007. III. What Action Is EPA Proposing? A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of the Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area and New Attainment Date Pursuant to section 181(b)(2), EPA is proposing to find that the Baton Rouge area has failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2007, attainment deadline prescribed under the CAA for marginal ozone nonattainment areas. If EPA finalizes this finding and it takes effect, the area shall be reclassified by operation of law from marginal nonattainment to moderate nonattainment. Moderate areas are required to attain the standard “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than 6 years after designation or June 15, 2010. The “as expeditiously as practicable” attainment date will be determined as part of the action on the required SIP submittal demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is proposing a schedule by which Louisiana will submit SIP revisions necessary for the proposed reclassification to moderate nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. B. Proposed Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the Baton Rouge Area EPA must address the schedule by which Louisiana is required to submit a revised SIP. When an area is reclassified, EPA has the authority under section 182(i) of the Act to adjust the Act's submittal deadlines for any new SIP revisions that are required as a result of the reclassification. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.908(d), for each nonattainment area, the State must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. The attainment year ozone season is the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date, in this case 2009 (40 CFR 51.900(g)). The ozone season is the ozone monitoring season as defined in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D, section 4.1, Table D-3 (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61236). For the purposes of this reclassification for the Baton Rouge area, January 1 is the beginning of the ozone monitoring season. As a result, EPA proposes that the required SIP revision be submitted by Louisiana as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1, 2009. This timeline also calls for implementation of applicable controls no later than January 1, 2009. A revised SIP must include the following moderate area requirements:

(1)An attainment demonstration (40 CFR 51.908),

(2)provisions for reasonably available control technology and reasonably available control measures (40 CFR 51.912),

(3)reasonable further progress reductions in volatile organic compound

(VOC)and nitrogen oxide (NO X ) emissions (40 CFR 51.910),

(4)contingency measures to be implemented in the event of failure to meet a milestone or attain the standard (CAA 172(c)(9)),

(5)a vehicle inspection and maintenance program (40 CFR 51.350), and

(6)NO X and VOC emission offsets of 1.15 to 1 for major source permits (40 CFR 51.165(a). See also the requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas set forth in CAA section 182(b). IV. Proposed Action Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), EPA is proposing to find that the Baton Rouge marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007. If EPA finalizes its proposal, the area will by operation of law be reclassified as a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Pursuant to section 182(i) of the CAA EPA is also proposing the schedule for submittal of the SIP revisions required for moderate areas once the area is reclassified. EPA proposes that the required SIP revision for Louisiana be submitted as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1, 2009. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order

(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. The Agency has determined that the finding of nonattainment would result in none of the effects identified in the Executive Order. Under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, determinations of nonattainment are based upon air quality considerations and the resulting reclassifications must occur by operation of law. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* This proposed action to reclassify the Baton Rouge area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines does not establish any new information collection burden. 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

(1)A small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA)size standards. (See 13 CFR 121.);

(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. Determinations of nonattainment and the resulting reclassification of nonattainment areas by operation of law under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA do not in and of themselves create any new requirements. Instead, this rulemaking only makes a factual determination, and does not directly regulate any entities. After considering the economic impacts of today's action on small entities, I certify that this rule 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 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 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 to 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 proposed action does not include a Federal mandate within the meaning of UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by either State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector, and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Also, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections 203. EPA believes, as discussed previously in this document, that the finding of nonattainment is a factual determination based upon air quality considerations and that the resulting reclassification of the area must occur by operation of law. Thus, EPA believes that the proposed finding does not constitute a Federal mandate, as defined in section 101 of the UMRA, because it does not impose an enforceable duty on any entity. 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 proposed 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 action merely proposes to determine that the Baton Rouge Area had not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge Area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines, thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 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 action does not have “Tribal implications” as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action merely proposes to determine that the Baton Rouge Area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge Area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines The Clean Air Act and the Tribal Authority Rule establish the relationship of the Federal government and Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 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 Executive Order 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 action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to children. This action merely proposes to determine that the Baton Rouge area has not attained the standard by the applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge Area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions 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 Advancement Act As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 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 action merely proposes to determine that the Baton Rouge area has not attained by the applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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. EPA has determined that this proposed 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. This action merely proposes to determine that the Baton Rouge area did not attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, to reclassify the Baton Rouge area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, *et seq.* Dated: October 22, 2007. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E7-21314 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No.: 070817468-7594-01] RIN 0648-AV91 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Framework Adjustment 20 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Framework Adjustment 20 (Framework 20) to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which was developed by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council). Framework 20 would maintain in effect the interim measures that were enacted by NMFS on June 21, 2007, to reduce the potential for overfishing the Atlantic sea scallop (scallop) resource and excessive scallop mortality resulting from deck loading. The action reduces the number of scallop trips to the Elephant Trunk Access Area (ETAA), and prohibits the retention of more than 50 U.S. bushels (17.62 hL) of in-shell scallop outside of the boundaries of the ETAA. The proposed rule also clarifies that the current restriction on landing no more than one scallop trip per calendar day for vessels fishing under general category rules does not prohibit a vessel from leaving on a scallop trip on the same calendar day that the vessel landed scallops. Framework 20 would extend these interim measures, which are scheduled to expire on December 23, 2007, through the end of the scallop fishing year on February 29, 2008. Framework 20 would make the clarification of the restriction on landing more than one trip per calendar day permanent under the Scallop FMP. DATES: Comments must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES ) by 5 p.m., local time, on November 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN number 0648-AV91, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* ; • Fax:

(978)281-9135; • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Scallop Framework 20.” Instructions: all comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publically accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachment to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file format only. Copies of Framework 20 and its Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available on request from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. These documents are also available online at http://www.nefmc.org. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Frei, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9221; fax 978-281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Interim measures currently in effect were enacted to supercede measures that were scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2007, under Framework 18 to the FMP (Framework 18). The interim action was enacted in response to findings of the Scallop Plan Development Team (PDT), which advised the Council on November 7, 2006, that reducing the number of trips in the ETAA, delaying the opening, and prohibiting “deckloading,” would reduce the potential for overfishing the scallop resource in 2007. The Council voted in November 2006 to recommend that NMFS implement interim measures consistent with the PDT's memorandum. On December 22, 2006, (71 FR 76945) NMFS implemented an interim final rule adopting these recommendations. This interim final rule was extended on June 21, 2007, (72 FR 29889) and is scheduled to expire on December 23, 2007. Framework 20 would maintain the provisions of the interim action that:

(1)Reduced the number of trips from five trips to three trips for full-time scallop vessels in the ETAA (scallop possession limit would remain at 18,000 lb);

(2)reduced the number of trips from three trips to two trips (for all access areas) for part-time scallop vessels in the ETAA (scallop possession limit for part-time vessels would be increased from 16,800 lb (7,620 kg) per trip to 18,000 lb (8,165 kg) per trip);

(3)reduced the occasional vessel possession limit from 10,500 lb (4,763 kg) per trip to 7,500 lb (3,402 kg) per trip;

(4)reduced the general category scallop fleet ETAA trip allocation from 1,360 trips to 865 trips; and

(5)prohibited the retention or deck loading (i.e., leaving a high volume of scallops on deck after leaving an access area so that the scallops can be shucked on the way in) of more than 50 U.S. bushels (17.62 hL) of in-shell scallop outside of the boundaries of the ETAA. The Council developed Framework 20 to prevent the Framework 18 measures from reverting back into effect when the interim measures expire on December 23, 2007. If this were to happen, it would restore the higher trip allocations and allow additional effort by the fleet, resulting in overfishing for the last 2 months (January and February 2008) of the 2007 fishing year (FY). Such an outcome would undermine the effect of the interim measures in preventing overfishing. Proposed Measures 1. ETAA Trip Reduction Framework 20 would maintain the reduction in the number of trips from five trips to three trips for full-time scallop vessels in the ETAA (scallop possession limit would remain at 18,000 lb (8,165 kg)); the reduction in the number of trips from three trips to two trips (for all access areas) for part-time scallop vessels in the ETAA (scallop possession limit for part-time vessels remains at 16,800 lb (7,620 kg) per trip); and the reduction in the occasional vessel possession limit from 10,500 lb (4,763 kg) per trip to 7,500 lb (3,402 kg) per trip. The regulations at § 648.60(a)(5) published for Framework 18 specified that an occasional vessel's possession limit is 7,500 lb (3,402 kg) per trip. However, Framework 18 intended and analyzed a possession limit of 10,500 lb (4,763 kg) per trip for the 2007 FY. Framework 20 would also maintain the reduction in the general category scallop fleet trip allocation from 1,360 to 865 trips in the ETAA. Reducing the number of trips for scallop vessels in the ETAA would address the concern that overfishing of the scallop resource may occur in 2007. Although the biomass in the ETAA remains very high relative to the rest of the scallop resource, it is less abundant than was projected in Framework 18. As a result, even though the fishing mortality is expected to be lower than the target fishing mortality in the area, it would be high enough at the lower biomass to contribute to overfishing in 2007. Part-time vessels would have a trip reduction with an increase in the possession limit to ensure that the total access area catch for part-time vessels remains at 40 percent of the full-time access area catch, as intended by the FMP. Occasional vessels would have one trip to any access area, but have a possession limit of 7,500 lb (3,402 kg) for the trip, ensuring that the total access area catch for occasional vessels remains at 8.3 percent of the full-time access area catch. Reducing trips in the ETAA was contemplated in Framework 18 and the potential impacts of the trip reductions were fully analyzed in Framework 18. 2. Prohibition on Deckloading Framework 20 maintains the prohibition on the retention of more than 50 U.S. bushels (17.62 hL) of in-shell scallop outside of the boundaries of the ETAA for vessels on ETAA trips. Deckloading is the practice of loading the deck of a vessel with the scallop catch from several tows. Under the current Access Area regulations, vessels can deckload and leave the area, and the vessel crews can spend the time steaming home sorting and shucking scallops, thereby reducing overall trip costs. This can result in a vessel having more scallops on board than are necessary to achieve the possession limit. The excess scallops are discarded. In addition, due to deckloading, scallops remain on deck longer, increasing discard mortality. In the ETAA, deckloading may cause even higher scallop mortality, since catch rates are expected to be very high, there is a mix of scallop sizes in the area, and scallop crews may discard smaller scallops in favor of larger scallops. Although the amount of additional mortality cannot be estimated, prohibiting deckloading on ETAA trips is a complementary measure that will help prevent additional scallop mortality. 3. Regulatory Change Framework 20 would also implement a regulatory change to make the regulations consistent with the original intent of Amendment 4 to the FMP (Amendment 4). Amendment 4 intended that general category scallop vessels could not land scallops on more than one trip per calendar day. NMFS implemented the scallop regulations consistent with this intent until it was recently discovered that the regulations, as written, prohibit such vessels from “fishing for” scallops more than once per calendar day. This prohibited a vessel from leaving on a scallop trip on a calendar day if scallops had previously been landed that day. The general category scallop industry is concerned that interpreting the regulation this way may encourage unsafe fishing behavior to avoid the “one trip per calendar day” restriction. Therefore, to make the regulations consistent with Amendment 4, NMFS is proposing a regulatory change that would prohibit a general category scallop vessel from landing scallops on more than one trip per calendar day, but would allow vessels to depart on a subsequent scallop trip on the same calendar day that the vessel landed scallops. Classification NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and has preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. An initial IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the analysis follows. Description of the Small Business Entities The proposed regulations implementing Framework 20 would affect vessels with limited access scallop and general category permits. According to NMFS Northeast Region permit data as of October 2006, 351 vessels were issued limited access scallop permits, with 318 full-time, 32 part-time, and 1 occasional limited access permit issued. In addition, 2,501 open access general category permits were issued. All of the vessels in the Atlantic sea scallop fishery are considered small business entities because all of them grossed less than $3 million according to landings data for the period 2004 to 2006. According to this information, annual revenue from scallops averaged over a million dollars per limited access vessel in 2005. Total revenues per vessel were higher when revenues from species other than scallops were included, but still averaged less than $3 million per vessel. Average scallop revenue per general category vessel was $88,702 in 2005, though it exceeded $240,000 when revenue from other species was included. Proposed Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements There are no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements associated with the measures proposed in Framework 20. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Measures and Alternatives The proposed regulations implementing Framework 20 were developed to ensure that scallop landings and economic benefits would be kept to sustainable levels. Therefore, overall positive economic impacts are expected as a result of preventing overfishing. The prohibition on deckloading on ETAA trips is expected to help prevent additional scallop mortality associated with discards and thus would improve yield, revenues, and economic benefits from the resource. The owners of vessels that fish for scallops would benefit over the long-term if overfishing is prevented. There was strong industry support for the proposed action in public testimony before the Council at the meeting when it adopted Framework 20. A range of alternatives was considered in Framework 18 including: Scallop fishery specifications for 2006 and 2007 (open area days-at-sea and scallop access area trip allocations); scallop area rotation program adjustments; a seasonal closure of the ETAA; and revisions to management measures that would improve administration of the FMP. Most of the alternatives in Framework 18 were not considered by the Council in Framework 20 because they would have been outside the scope of the action intended to implement the interim measures through the end of the 2007 fishing year. The only measure in Framework 18 relevant to Framework 20 is the measure that allowed the Regional Administrator to reduce the number of ETAA trips through a rulemaking procedure based on biomass trigger points and resulting trip reductions that were included in the scallop regulations. NMFS could not use that procedure because the trip reduction recommended by the Council was based on overall fishing mortality, not the specified trigger points in the regulations, and NMFS promulgated the interim rule for the ETAA. The economic impacts of the reduction of ETAA trips through the Framework 18 rulemaking procedure, and the no action alternative to that measure, were fully analyzed in Framework 18 and are the basis of the economic impacts analysis of Framework 20. The only other alternative the Council considered in Framework 20 was therefore to take no action. If no action had been taken, the Framework 18 measures would revert back into effect, which would increase the number of trips for full-time scallop vessels in the ETAA to five trips (an increase of two trips) and general category vessels would be allocated 1,360 trips (an increase of 495 trips). There is a very high likelihood that the additional trips would be taken because the scallops can be caught efficiently in the ETAA and the value of scallops is high. This would increase the potential that the additional fishing activity during January and February 2008 would lead to overfishing in the 2007 FY. Overfishing would have had negative impacts on scallop biomass, with landings, revenues and economic benefits likely to decline in future years as a result. The Council found this to be unacceptable and adopted the reduced number of trips in the ETAA under Framework 20 to prevent this outcome. NMFS proposes regulations consistent with the Council's recommendation for the same reasons. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: October 24, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.14, paragraph (i)(1) is removed and reserved, paragraph (i)(2) is revised, and paragraphs (h)(27), (i)(13), and (i)(14) are added to read as follows: § 648.14 Prohibitions.

(h)* * *

(27)Possess more than 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops, as specified in § 648.52(d), outside the boundaries of the Elephant Trunk Access Area specified in § 648.59(e) by a vessel that is declared into the Elephant Trunk Access Area under the Area Access Program as specified in § 648.60.

(i)* * *

(1)[Reserved]

(2)Land scallops on more than one trip per calendar day.

(13)Fish for or land per trip, or possess at any time, in excess of 400 lb (181.4 kg) of shucked, or 50 bu (17.62 hL) of in-shell scallops, unless the vessel is participating in the Area Access Program specified in § 648.60, is carrying an observer as specified in § 648.11, and an increase in the possession limit is authorized as specified in § 648.60(d)(2).

(14)Possess more than 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops, as specified in § 648.52(d), outside the boundaries of the Elephant Trunk Access Area specified in § 648.59(e) by a vessel that is declared into the Elephant Trunk Access Area under the Area Access Program as specified in § 648.60. 3. In § 648.52, paragraph

(e)is added to read as follows: § 648.52 Possession and landing limits.

(e)Owners or operators of a vessel that is declared into the Elephant Trunk Access Area Sea Scallop Area Access Program as described in § 648.60, are prohibited from possessing more than 50 bu (17.62 hL) of in-shell scallops outside of the Elephant Trunk Access Area described in § 648.59(e). **§ 648.58 [Amended]** 4. In § 648.58, paragraph

(a)is removed and reserved. 5. In § 648.59, paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(4) are revised to read as follows: § 648.59 Sea Scallop Access Areas.

(e)* * *

(1)From March 1, 2007, through February 29, 2012, and subject to the seasonal restrictions specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, a vessel issued a scallop permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from the area known as the Elephant Trunk Sea Scallop Access Area, described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, only if the vessel is participating in, and complies with the requirements of, the area access program described in § 648.60.

(4)*Number of trips* —(i) *Limited access vessels* . Based on its permit category, a vessel issued a limited access scallop permit may fish no more than the maximum number of trips in the Elephant Trunk Sea Scallop Access Area between March 1, 2007, and February 29, 2008, as specified in § 648.60(a)(3)(i), unless the vessel owner has made an exchange with another vessel owner whereby the vessel gains an Elephant Trunk Sea Scallop Access Area trip and gives up a trip into another Sea Scallop Access Area, as specified in § 648.60(a)(3)(ii), or unless the vessel is taking a compensation trip for a prior Elephant Trunk Access Area trip that was terminated early, as specified in § 648.60(c).

(ii)*General category vessels* . Subject to the possession limits specified in §§ 648.52(a) and (b), and 648.60(g), a vessel issued a general category scallop permit may not enter in, or fish for, possess, or land sea scallops in or from the Elephant Trunk Sea Scallop Access Area once the Regional Administrator has provided notification in the **Federal Register** , in accordance with § 648.60(g)(4), that the 865 trips allocated for the period March 1, 2007, through February 29, 2008, have been taken, in total, by all general category scallop vessels, unless transiting pursuant to paragraph

(f)of this section. The Regional Administrator shall notify all general category scallop vessels of the date when the maximum number of allowed trips have been, or are projected to be, taken. 6. In § 648.60, paragraphs (a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(ii)(B), (a)(5)(i), (d)(1)(v), (e)(1)(v), and (g)(3)(iv) are revised to read as follows: § 648.60 Sea scallop area access program requirements.

(a)* * *

(3)* * *

(i)*Limited Access Vessel trips* .

(A)Except as provided in paragraph

(c)of this section, paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(B) through

(E)specify the total number of trips that a limited access scallop vessel may take into Sea Scallop Access Areas during applicable seasons specified in § 648.59. The number of trips per vessel in any one Sea Scallop Access Area may not exceed the maximum number of trips allocated for such Sea Scallop Access Area as specified in § 648.59, unless the vessel owner has exchanged a trip with another vessel owner for an additional Sea Scallop Access Area trip, as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, has been allocated a compensation trip pursuant to paragraph

(c)of this section.

(B)*Full-time scallop vessels* . In the 2007 fishing year, a full-time scallop vessel may take one trip in the Closed Area I Access Area, one trip in the Nantucket Lightship Access Area, and three trips in the Elephant Trunk Access Area.

(C)*Part-time scallop vessels* . In the 2007 fishing year, a part-time scallop vessel may take one trip in the Closed Area I Access Area and one trip in the Nantucket Lightship Access Area; or one trip in the Closed Area I Access Area and one trip in the Elephant Trunk Access Area; or one trip in the Nantucket Lightship Access Area and one trip in the Elephant Trunk Access Area; or two trips in the Elephant Trunk Access Area.

(D)*Occasional scallop vessels* . An occasional scallop vessel may take one trip in the 2007 fishing year into any of the Access Areas described in § 648.59 that is open during the specified fishing years.

(E)*Hudson Canyon Access Area trips* . In addition to the number of trips specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)

(B)and

(C)of this section, vessels may fish remaining Hudson Canyon Access Area trips allocated for the 2005 fishing year in the Hudson Canyon Access Area in the 2006 and/or 2007 fishing year, as specified in § 648.59(a)(3). The maximum number of trips that a vessel could take in the Hudson Canyon Access Area in the 2005 fishing year was three trips, unless a vessel acquired additional trips through an authorized one-for-one exchange as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section. Full-time scallop vessels were allocated three trips into the Hudson Canyon Access Area. Part-time vessels were allocated two trips that could be distributed among Closed Area I, Closed Area II, and the Hudson Canyon Access Areas, not to exceed one trip in the Closed Area I or Closed Area II Access Areas. Occasional vessels were allocated one trip that could be taken in any Access Area that was open in the 2005 fishing year.

(ii)* * *

(B)Limited access scallop vessels involved in an exchange of Closed Area II and/or Nantucket Lightship Closed Area Access Area trips for the 2006 fishing year, and Elephant Trunk Access Area trips for the 2007 fishing year shall be subject to a reduction of the vessels' allocated trips so that the total number of allocated Elephant Trunk Access Area trips between two vessels that were involved in such an exchange shall be six for full-time vessels and four for part-time vessels in the 2007 fishing year. Reductions will be applied equally to both vessels' resulting Elephant Trunk Access Area allocation for the 2007 fishing year after the exchange is taken into account, unless the vessel giving Elephant Trunk Access Area trips to another vessel has one or zero Elephant Trunk Access Area trips remaining after the exchange. In such a case, the vessel that received the Elephant Trunk Access Area trips will be subject to a reduction of up to four Elephant Trunk Access Area trips.

(5)* * *

(i)*Scallop possession limits* . Unless authorized by the Regional Administrator, as specified in paragraphs

(c)and

(d)of this section, after declaring a trip into a Sea Scallop Access Area, a vessel owner or operator of a limited access scallop vessel may fish for, possess, and land, per trip, scallops, up to the maximum amounts specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(A) and

(B)of this section. No vessel declared into the Elephant Trunk Access Area as described in § 648.59(e) may possess more than 50 bu (17.62 hL) of in-shell scallops outside of the Elephant Trunk Access Area described in § 648.59(e).

(A)Up to 18,000 lb (8,165 kg) of shucked scallops for full-time and part-time scallop vessels.

(B)Up to 7,500 lb (3,402 kg) of shucked scallops for occasional scallop vessels.

(d)* * *

(1)* * *

(v)*Elephant Trunk Access Area* . From March 1, 2007, through February 29, 2008, the observer set-aside for the Elephant Trunk Access Area is 173,100 lb (78.5 mt). ** * * * **

(e)* * *

(1)* * *

(v)*Elephant Trunk Access Area* . From March 1, 2007, through February 29, 2008, the research set-aside for the Elephant Trunk Access Area is 346,200 lb (157 mt).

(g)* * *

(3)* * *

(v)*Elephant Trunk Access Area* . 346,000 lb (157 mt) in 2007. [FR Doc. 07-5384 Filed 10-25-07; 2:44 pm]

Connectionstraces to 38

Traces to 38 documents

CFR