Rules and Regulations. Final rule; approval of amendments

9,594 words·~44 min read·/register/2007/11/19/07-5731

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

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 943 [Docket No. TX-057-FOR] Texas Regulatory Program and Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendments. SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are approving amendments to the Texas regulatory program (Texas program) and the Texas abandoned mine land reclamation plan (Texas plan) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act).

Texas proposed revisions to and additions to regulations concerning post mining land uses; terms and conditions of the bond; topsoil redistribution; standards for revegetation success; public hearing; review of notice of violation or cessation order; determination of amount of penalty; assessment of separate violation for each day; request for hearing; and liens. Also, Texas proposed revisions to its statute concerning liens and administrative penalty for violation of permit conditions.

Texas intends to revise its program and plan to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations and/or SMCRA, to clarify ambiguities, and to improve operational efficiency. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alfred L. Clayborne, Director, Tulsa Field Office. Telephone:

(918)581-6430. E-mail: *aclayborne@osmre.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Texas Program and Texas Plan II. Submission of the Amendments III. OSM's Findings IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments V. OSM's Decision VI. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Texas Program and Texas Plan Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) conditionally approved the Texas program effective February 16, 1980. You can find background information on the Texas program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval, in the February 27, 1980, **Federal Register** (45 FR 12998). You can find later actions on the Texas program at 30 CFR 943.10, 943.15, and 943.16. The Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program was established by Title IV of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ) in response to concerns over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. A reclamation fee on each ton of coal supports the abandoned mine land reclamation program. The money collected is used to finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and Indian Tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity within the State or on Indian lands if they develop and submit to the Secretary for approval, a program (often referred to as a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary approved the Texas plan on June 23, 1980. You can find background information on the Texas plan, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the approval of the plan in the June 23, 1980, **Federal Register** (45 FR 41937). You can find later actions concerning the Texas plan and amendments to the plan at 30 CFR 943.25. II. Submission of the Amendments By letter dated February 14, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-662), Texas sent us amendments to the Texas program and the Texas plan, at its own initiative, under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ). We announced receipt of the proposed amendments in the April 30, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 21185). We did not receive any public comments. We did receive comments from two Federal agencies. During our review of the amendment to the Texas program, the Railroad Commission of Texas notified us that the Texas legislators capped the State's administrative penalty at $10,000 instead of the $13,000 as proposed in the amendment to the Texas program submitted to us on February 14, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-662). On May 7, 2007, Texas sent us this revision to its regulatory program statutes regarding administrative penalty for violations of permit conditions along with corresponding revisions to its regulations regarding determination of amount of penalty (Administrative Record No. TX-662.03). Also, during our review of the Texas program amendment, we identified concerns about informal public hearings and assessment of separate violations for each day. By email dated June 5, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-662.07) we notified Texas of these concerns. Texas sent us revisions to this amendment by e-mail dated June 7, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-662.08). Based on Texas' revisions to its amendment, we reopened the public comment period in the June 11, 2007, **Federal Register** at 72 FR 32049. The public comment period ended on June 26, 2007. We did not receive any public comments. III. OSM's Findings Following are the findings we made concerning the amendments under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15, 732.17, 884.14, and 884.15. We are approving the amendments as described below. A. Revisions to Texas' Statutes, Chapter 134 of the Texas Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act (TSCMRA) 1. Section 134.150 Lien Texas revised its requirements at section 134.150(c) pertaining to who may not be subject to liens as a result of the reclamation of abandoned mine lands. Currently, persons who owned property before May 2, 1977, and who did not consent to, or participate in, or exercise control over the mining operation that necessitated the reclamation are exempt from liens. Texas removed the date requirement at section 134.150(c)(1) so that persons who did not consent to, or participate in, or exercise control over the mining operation (that necessitated the reclamation) are exempt from liens regardless of when they acquired the property. We are approving the change because this date requirement of May 2, 1977, was also removed from section 408(a) of SMCRA effective December 20, 2006, and because the change will not make Texas' plan less stringent than SMCRA. 2. Section 134.174 Administrative Penalty for Violation of Permit Condition of this Chapter Texas proposed to revise subsection

(b)by increasing its penalty cap from $5,000 to $10,000 for each violation at surface coal mining operations. Section 518(i) of SMCRA requires that the civil penalty provisions of each State program contain, at a minimum, penalties which are “no less stringent than” those set forth in SMCRA. Section 518(a) of SMCRA assesses a maximum penalty of $5,000 for each violation. Texas proposed a maximum penalty of $10,000 for each violation. We are approving Texas' change at section 134.174(b) because it is no less stringent than SMCRA. B. Revisions to Texas' Regulations That Have the Same Meaning as the Corresponding Provisions of the Federal Regulations Texas' regulations listed in the table below contain language that is the same as or similar to the corresponding sections of the Federal regulations or statute. Topic State regulation Texas Administrative Code

(TAC)Federal counterpart regulation or statute Reclamation Plan: Postmining Land Uses 12.147(a) through (a)(3) 30 CFR 780.23(b) through (b)(3). Letters of Credit 12.309(g)(2) 30 CFR 800.21(b)(2). Topsoil: Redistribution 12.337(b) through (b)(3) 30 CFR 816.22(d)(1) through (d)(1)(iii). Revegetation: Standards for Success 12.395(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(3)(A) and (B), and (c)(3) and

(4)30 CFR 816.116(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(3)(i) and (ii), and (c)(3)(i) and (c)(4). Informal Public Hearing 12.681(a),

(b)through (b)(3), (c), (e), (f), and

(h)30 CFR 843.15(a),

(b)through (b)(3), (c), (e), and (h). Formal Review of Notice of Violation or Cessation Order 12.682(a) and

(b)30 CFR 843.16(a) and (b). Assessment of Separate Violations for Each Day 12.689(b) through (b)(3) 30 CFR 845.15(b) through (b)(2). Request for Hearing 12.693 30 CFR 845.19(a). Liens 12.816(c) Section 408(a) of SMCRA, as amended in December 2006. Because the above State regulations contain language that is the same as or similar to or have the same meaning as the corresponding Federal regulations or statute, we find that they are no less stringent than SMCRA and/or no less effective than the Federal regulations. B. TAC 12.337 Topsoil: Redistribution In section 12.337(a), Texas added topsoil substitutes to the list of materials to be redistributed after final grading during surface mining reclamation. The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.22(d)(2) includes topsoil substitutes as one of the materials being redistributed after the land is regraded during surface mining reclamation. We are approving this addition because it is no less affective than the above Federal regulation. C. TAC 12.681 Informal Public Hearing Texas added the word, informal, to the section heading. Texas also revised paragraph

(g)by changing “public hearing” to “informal public hearing” and by changing “review” to “formal review.” The revised paragraph

(g)reads as follows:

(g)The granting or wavier of the above informal public hearing shall not affect the right of any person to formal review under §§ 134.175 and 134.176 of the Act and §§ 2001.141-2001.147 of the APA (relating to Contested Cases: Final Decisions and Orders; Motions for Rehearing). At such review proceedings, no evidence as to statements made or evidence produced at the informal public hearing pursuant to this section shall be introduced as evidence to impeach a witness. The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 843.15(g) refers to “hearings” and “reviews” under enforcement procedures as “informal hearings” and “formal reviews.” We are approving the above revisions because they simply clarify that under Texas' enforcement procedures, public hearings are “informal public hearings” and reviews are “formal reviews” and because the revisions are no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 843.15(g). D. TAC 12.688 Determination of Amount of Penalty Texas' current regulation regarding administrative penalties was promulgated in 1979. Texas proposed to increase these penalties to reflect the decreased value in the dollar since 1979. The current penalties begin with $20 increments for each penalty assessment point and increase to a maximum penalty of $5,000. The revised penalties begin with $550 and increase to $10,000. Section 518(i) of SMCRA requires that the civil penalty provisions of each State program contain penalties which are “no less stringent than” those set forth in SMCRA. Our regulations at 30 CFR 840.13(a) specify that each State program shall contain penalties which are no less stringent than those set forth in section 518 of the Act and shall be consistent with 30 CFR part 845. However, in a 1980 decision on OSM's regulations governing civil monetary penalties (CMPs), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that because section 518 of SMCRA fails to enumerate a point system for assessing civil penalties, the imposition of this requirement upon the States is inconsistent with SMCRA. In response to the Secretary's request for clarification, the Court further stated that it could not uphold requiring the States to impose penalties as stringent as those appearing in 30 CFR 845.15. Instead, section 518(i) of the Act requires only the incorporation of penalties and procedures explained in section 518. The system proposed by the State must incorporate the four criteria of section 518(a) of SMCRA:

(1)History of previous violations,

(2)seriousness of the violation,

(3)negligence of the permittee, and

(4)good faith of the permittee in attempting to achieve compliance. As a result of the litigation, 30 CFR 840.13(a) was suspended in part on August 4, 1980 (45 FR 51548) by suspending the requirement that penalties shall be consistent with 30 CFR part 845. Consequently, we cannot require that the CMP provisions contained in a State's regulatory program mirror the point system and resulting dollar amounts specified in our regulations. We are approving Texas' revised penalties because the penalties are no less stringent than those specified in SMCRA and the procedural requirements are the same or similar to the procedures specified in SMCRA and the Federal regulations. IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments Public Comments We asked for public comments on the Texas program and Texas plan amendments, but did not receive any. Federal Agency Comments On March 16, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-662.01) and May 31, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-662.06), under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), 884.14(a)(2), and 884.15(a), and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendments from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Texas program and Texas plan. On March 22, 2007, the Natural Resources Conservation Service stated that it had no comments pertaining to the proposed changes (Administrative Record No. TX-662.02). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers responded on April 20, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-662.04), that both its Southwestern Division representatives and its Regulatory Branch in its Headquarters office had no additional comments at this time to the proposed changes to the Texas abandoned mine land reclamation plan. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)Concurrence and Comments Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the Texas program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 *et seq.* ) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* ). None of the revisions that Texas proposed to make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment. On March 16, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-662.01) and July 10, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-662.06), under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), 884.14(a)(2), and 884.15(a), we requested comments on the Texas program and Texas plan amendments from the EPA. The EPA did not respond to our request. State Historical Preservation Officer

(SHPO)and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

(ACHP)Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on State regulatory program amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On March 16, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-662.01) and May 31, 2007 (Administrative Record No. TX-662.06), we requested comments on the Texas program amendment, but neither responded to our request. V. OSM's Decision Based on the above findings, we approve the amendments to the Texas program and the Texas plan that Texas sent us on February 14, 2007, and as revised on May 7, 2007, and June 7, 2007. To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 943, which codify decisions concerning the Texas program and Texas plan. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards. VI. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections

(a)and

(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. This determination is based on the fact that the Texas program does not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Texas program has no effect on federally-recognized Indian tribes. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect The Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is

(1)considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

(a)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million;

(b)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and

(c)Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: October 19, 2007. Ervin J. Barchenger, Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 943 is amended as set forth below: PART 943—TEXAS 1. The authority citation for part 943 continues to read as follows: Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* 2. Section 943.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in chronological order by “Date of final publication” to read as follows: § 943.15 Approval of Texas regulatory program amendments. Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description * * * * * * * February 14, 2007 November 19, 2007 TSCMRA 134.174(b); TAC 12.147(a) through (a)(3); 12.309(g)(2); 12.337(a) and

(b)through (b)(3); 12.395(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(3)(A) and (B), and (c)(3) and (4); 12.681(a),

(b)through (b)(3), (c), (e), (f), (g), and (h); 12.682(a) and (b); 12.688; 12.689(b) through (b)(3); and 12.693. 3. Section 943.25 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in chronological order by “Date of final publication” to read as follows: § 943.25 Approval of Texas abandoned mine land reclamation plan amendments. Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description * * * * * * * February 14, 2007 November 19, 2007 TSCMRA 134.150(c) and TAC 12.816(c), [FR Doc. E7-22555 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1013; FRL-8496-7] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we are approving the rescission from the California SIP of local rules that address Storage, Handling and Transport of Petroleum Coke and PM-10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations, and the accompanying negative declaration. DATES: This rule is effective on January 18, 2008 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 19, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1013, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov* . 3. *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *http://www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4120, *allen.cynthia@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rule rescissions did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule rescissions? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rule rescissions? B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria? C. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rule rescissions did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rule rescissions we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Table 1.—Submitted Rules Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted AVAQMD 1158 Storage, Handling, and Transport of Petroleum Coke 02/20/07 08/24/07 AVAQMD 1186 PM-10 Emissions From Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations 05/16/06 10/05/06 These rule submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review on September 17, 2007 and October 24, 2006, respectively. B. Are there other versions of these rules? A version of Rule 1158 adopted December 2, 1983 was approved into the SIP on January 15, 1987. A version of Rule 1186 adopted September 10, 1999 was approved into the SIP on June 10, 2000. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule rescissions? Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. These rules were originally developed as part of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) program to control particulate matter (PM). At the time, SCAQMD's jurisdiction included the portion of Los Angeles County located in the Mojave Desert Air Basin, known as the Antelope Valley. On July 1, 1997 the AVAQMD was formed, pursuant to statute and assumed the duties and powers of the SCAQMD in the Antelope Valley. The AVAQMD subsequently rescinded Rules 1158 and 1186 after determining that there are no sources regulated by these rules within the jurisdiction of the AVAQMD. EPA's technical support document

(TSD)has more information about these rules. II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rule rescissions? EPA has evaluated all the appropriate background and submittal documentation and has determined that the rescission of Rules 1158 and 1186 are approvable. The AVAQMD has identified that the sources regulated by these rules are not present in the AVAQMD. Further, the AVAQMD also stated that they do not anticipate these types of sources in the future. The rule rescissions are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations and EPA policy. B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria? We believe these rule rescissions are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance. The TSD has more information on our evaluation. C. Public Comment and Final Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule rescissions because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this **Federal Register** , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule rescissions. If we receive adverse comments by December 19, 2007, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on January 18, 2008. This will incorporate these rule rescissions into the federally enforceable SIP. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 18, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: November 2, 2007. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(153)(vii)(C) and (278)(i)(A)(3) to read as follows: § 52.220 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(153)* * *

(vii)* * *

(C)Previously approved on March 14, 1984 in paragraph (c)(153)(vii)(B) of this section and now deleted without replacement for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Rule 1158.

(278)* * *

(i)* * *

(A)* * *

(3)Previously approved on January 21, 2000 in paragraph (c)(278)(i)(A)(2) of this section and now deleted without replacement for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Rule 1186. [FR Doc. E7-22447 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0605; FRL-8497-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre ozone nonattainment Area (or “Area”) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area is composed of Lackawanna, Luzerne, Monroe, and Wyoming Counties. EPA is approving the ozone redesignation request for Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area. In conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is approving the 8-hour maintenance plan. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area, which EPA is approving. In addition, EPA is approving the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area maintenance plan for purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is approving the redesignation request, and the maintenance plan and the 2002 base year emissions inventory as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on December 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0605. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* website. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn,

(215)814-2176, or by e-mail at *rehn.brian@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On September 25, 2007 (72 FR 54390), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Pennsylvania's redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revisions for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area that provide for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. The NPR also proposed approval of a 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Area. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on June 12, 2007. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revisions, and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions, are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23591, April 30, 2004). *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA* , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA,* Docket No. 04-1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C. Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8 decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8 decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations:

(1)Nonattainment area New Source Review

(NSR)requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;

(2)Section 185 penalty fees for the 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and

(3)measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain NAAQS. In addition, the June 8 decision clarified that the Court's reference to conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was limited to requiring the continued use of the 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is already required under EPA's conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified the 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding purposes. For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because even in the light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. II. Final Action EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's redesignation request, maintenance plan, and 2002 base year emissions inventory SIP revisions because they satisfy the requirements for approval. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request that was submitted on June 12, 2007 and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area submitted on June 12, 2007 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by PADEP in conjunction with its redesignation request. In addition, EPA is approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory submitted by PADEP on June 12, 2007 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for NO <sup>X</sup> and VOCs in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity determinations. The adequate and approved MVEBs are provided in the following table: Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day

(TPD)Budget year VOC NO <sup>X</sup> 2009 25.2 48.3 2018 16.9 23.7 The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area is subject to the CAA's requirement for the basic nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This final rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Because this action affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allows the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, this action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 18, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, approving the redesignation of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, the 2002 base year emission inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: November 8, 2007. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2020 Identification of plan.

(e)* * *

(1)* * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area: Lackawanna, Luzerne, Monroe and Wyoming Counties 06/12/07 11/19/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] PART 81—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 4. In § 81.339, the table entitled “Pennsylvania-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, Lackawanna County, Luzerne County, Monroe County, Wyoming County to read as follows: § 81.339 Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania—Ozone (8-Hour Standard) Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA: Lackawanna County, Luzerne County, Monroe County, Wyoming County 12/19/07 Attainment. * * * * * * * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except otherwise noted. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E7-22446 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 721 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898; FRL-8340-8] RIN 2070-AB27 Certain Chemical Substances; Withdrawal of Significant New Use Rules AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Withdrawal of final rules. SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing two significant new use rules (SNURs) promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA)for substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs), i.e., dodecandioic acid, 1, 12-dihydrazide (CAS No. 4080-98-2; PMNs P-01-759 and P-05-555) and thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl- (CAS No. 116971-11-0; PMN P-07-283). EPA published the SNURs using direct final rulemaking procedures. EPA received notices of intent to submit adverse comments on these rules. Therefore, the Agency is withdrawing these SNURs, as required under the expedited SNUR rulemaking process. EPA also intends to publish in the **Federal Register** , under separate notice and comment rulemaking procedures, proposed SNURs for these two substances. DATES: This final rule is effective November 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For general information contact* : Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* . *For technical information contact* : Karen Chu, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(202)564-8773; e-mail address: *chu.karen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Does this Action Apply to Me? A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the **Federal Register** of September 19, 2007 (72 FR 53470) (FRL-8135-8). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . II. What Rule is being Withdrawn? In the **Federal Register** of September 19, 2007 (72 FR 53470), EPA issued several direct final Significant New Use Rules (SNURs), including SNURs for the two chemical substances that are the subject of this withdrawal. These direct final rules were issued pursuant to the procedures in 40 CFR part 721, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 721.170(d)(4)(i)(B), EPA is withdrawing the rules issued for dodecandioic acid, 1, 12-dihydrazide (CAS No. 4080-98-2; PMNs P-01-759 and P-05-555) and thiophene, 2, 5-dibromo-3-hexyl- (CAS No. 116971-11-0; PMN P-07-283) (see § 721.10057 and § 721.10088, respectively) because the Agency received a notice to submit adverse comments. EPA intends to propose SNURs for these two substances via notice and comment rulemaking in a future **Federal Register** document. For further information regarding EPA's expedited process for issuing SNURs, interested parties are directed to 40 CFR part 721, subpart D and the **Federal Register** of July 27, 1989 (54 FR 31314). The record for the direct final SNUR for these substances which is being withdrawn was established at EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898. That record includes information considered by the Agency in developing this rule and one of the notices of intent to submit adverse comments. The other notice of intent to submit adverse comments was claimed as Confidential Business Information by the commenter and therefore is not in the public docket. III. How Do I Access the Docket? To access the electronic docket, please go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the online instructions to access Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898. Additional information about the docket facility is provided under ADDRESSES in the **Federal Register** document of September 19, 2007 (72 FR 53470). If you have questions, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . IV. What Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this Action? This final rule revokes or eliminates an existing regulatory requirement and does not contain any new or amended requirements. As such, the Agency has determined that this withdrawal will not have any adverse impacts, economic or otherwise. The statutory and executive order review requirements applicable to the direct final rule were discussed in the **Federal Register** document of September 19, 2007 (72 FR 53470). Those review requirements do not apply to this action because it is a withdrawal and does not contain any new or amended requirements. V. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 14, 2007. Oscar Hernandez, Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Therefore, 40 CFR part 721 is amended as follows: PART 721—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c). § 721.10057 [Removed] 2. By removing § 721.10057. § 721.10088 [Removed] 3. By removing § 721.10088. [FR Doc. E7-22614 Filed 11-16-07 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 060418103-6181-02] RIN 0648-XD92 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Spiny Dogfish Fishery; Commercial Period 2 Quota Harvested AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Closure of spiny dogfish fishery. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the spiny dogfish commercial quota available to the coastal states from Maine through Florida for the semi-annual quota period, November 1, 2007 - April 30, 2008, has been harvested. Therefore, effective 0001 hours, November 16, 2007, federally permitted commercial vessels may not fish for, possess, transfer, or land spiny dogfish until May 1, 2008, when the 2008 Period 1 quota becomes available. Federally permitted dealers are also advised that they may not purchase spiny dogfish from federally permitted spiny dogfish vessels through April 30, 2007. Regulations governing the spiny dogfish fishery require publication of this notification to advise the coastal states from Maine through Florida that the quota has been harvested and to advise vessel permit holders and dealer permit holders that no Federal commercial quota is available for landing spiny dogfish in these states. This action is necessary to prevent the fishery from exceeding its Period 2 quota and to allow for effective management of this stock. DATES: Effective at 0001 hr local time, November 16, 2007, through 2400 hr local time April 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Frei, Fisheries Management Specialist, at

(978)281-9221, or *Don.Frei@Noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations governing the spiny dogfish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota, which is allocated into two quota periods based upon percentages specified in the fishery management plan. The commercial quota is distributed to the coastal states from Maine through Florida, as described in § 648.230. The initial total commercial quota for spiny dogfish for the 2007 fishing year is 4 million lb (1.81 million kg) (71 FR 40436, July 17, 2006 ). The commercial quota is allocated into two periods (May 1 through October 31, and November 1 through April 30). Vessel possession limits are intended to preclude directed fishing, and they are set at 600 lb (272 kg) for both quota Periods 1 and 2. Quota Period 1 is allocated 2.3 million lb (1.05 million kg), and quota Period 2 is allocated 1.7 million lb (763,849 kg) of the commercial quota. The total quota cannot be exceeded, so landings in excess of the amount allocated to quota Period 1 have the effect of reducing the quota available to the fishery during quota Period 2. The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) monitors the commercial spiny dogfish quota for each quota period and, based upon dealer reports, state data, and other available information, determines when the total commercial quota will be harvested. NMFS is required to publish a notification in the **Federal Register** advising and notifying commercial vessels and dealer permit holders that, effective upon a specific date, the Federal spiny dogfish commercial quota has been harvested and no Federal commercial quota is available for landing spiny dogfish for the remainder of that quota period. Section 648.4(b) provides that Federal spiny dogfish permit holders agree, as a condition of the permit, not to land spiny dogfish in any state after NMFS has published notification in the **Federal Register** that the commercial quota has been harvested and that no commercial quota for the spiny dogfish fishery is available. Therefore, effective 0001 hr local time, November 16, 2007, landings of spiny dogfish in coastal states from Maine through Florida by vessels holding commercial Federal fisheries permits are prohibited through April 30, 2008, 2400 hr local time. The 2008 Period 1 quota will be available for commercial spiny dogfish harvest on May 1, 2008. Effective November 16, 2007, federally permitted dealers are also advised that they may not purchase spiny dogfish from vessels issued Federal spiny dogfish permits that land in coastal states from Maine through Florida. Classification This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: November 13, 2007. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 07-5731 Filed 11-14-07; 1:17 pm]

Connectionstraces to 34

Traces to 34 documents

U.S. Code