A proposed rule detailing the revisions was published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2007 (72 FR 19674). A 15-day comment period was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposed rule. During the 15-day comment period, one comment was received. A comment was received from a producers association in support of the proposed rule, the continued use of the legislative formula for establishing the cotton user fees, and the cotton classing services provided.

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866; and, therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule would not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures that may be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has determined that its implementation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. There are an estimated 30,000 cotton growers in the U.S. who voluntarily use the AMS cotton classing services annually, and the majority of these cotton growers are small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201). Continuing the user fee at the 2006 crop level as stated will not significantly affect small businesses as defined in the RFA because:

(1) The fee represents a very small portion of the cost-per-unit currently borne by those entities utilizing the services. (The 2006 user fee for classification services was $1.85 per bale; the fee for the 2007 crop would be maintained at $1.85 per bale; the 2007 crop is estimated at 19,900,000 bales).

(2) The fee for services will not affect competition in the marketplace; and

(3) The use of classification services is voluntary. For the 2006 crop, 21,729,000 bales were produced; and, almost all of these bales were voluntarily submitted by growers for the classification service.

(4) Based on the average price paid to growers for cotton from the 2005 crop of 46.9 cents per pound, 500 pound bales of cotton are worth an average of $234.50 each. The proposed user fee for classification services, $1.85 per bale, is less than one percent of the value of an average bale of cotton.

In compliance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320), which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the information collection requirements contained in the provisions to be amended by this rule have been previously approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581-AC58.

The user fee charged to cotton producers for High Volume Instrument (HVI) classification services under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 473a) was $1.85 per bale during the 2006 harvest season as determined by using the formula provided in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended by Public Law 102-237. The fees cover salaries, costs of equipment and supplies, and other overhead costs, including costs for administration, and supervision.

This rule establishes the user fee charged to producers for HVI classification at $1.85 per bale during the 2007 harvest season.

Public Law 102-237 amended the formula in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987 for establishing the producer's classification fee so that the producer's fee is based on the prevailing method of classification requested by producers during the previous year. HVI classing was the prevailing method of cotton classification requested by producers in 2006. Therefore, the 2007 producer's user fee for classification service is based on the 2006 base fee for HVI classification.

The fee was calculated by applying the formula specified in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended by Public Law 102-237. The 2006 base fee for HVI classification exclusive of adjustments, as provided by the Act, was $2.45 per bale. An increase of 2.82 percent, or 7 cents per bale, due to the implicit price deflator of the gross domestic product added to the $2.45 would result in a 2007 base fee of $2.52 per bale. The formula in the Act provides for the use of the percentage change in the implicit price deflator of the gross national product (as indexed for the most recent 12-month period for which statistics are available). However, gross national product has been replaced by gross domestic product by the Department of Commerce as a more appropriate measure for the short-term monitoring and analysis of the U.S. economy.

The number of bales to be classed by the United States Department of Agriculture from the 2007 crop is estimated at 19,900,000 bales. The 2007 base fee was decreased 15 percent based on the estimated number of bales to be classed (1 percent for every 100,000 bales or portion thereof above the base of 12,500,000, limited to a maximum decreased adjustment of 15 percent). This percentage factor amounts to a 38 cents per bale reduction and was subtracted from the 2007 base fee of $2.52 per bale, resulting in a fee of $2.14 per bale.

However, with a fee of $2.14 per bale, the projected operating reserve would be 37.2 percent. The Act specifies that the Secretary shall not establish a fee which, when combined with other sources of revenue, will result in a projected operating reserve of more than 25 percent. Accordingly, the fee of $2.14 must be reduced by 29 cents per bale, to $1.85 per bale, to provide an ending accumulated operating reserve for the fiscal year of not more than 25 percent of the projected cost of operating the program. This would establish the 2007 season fee at $1.85 per bale.

Accordingly, § 28.909, paragraph (b) would reflect the continuation of the HVI classification fee at $1.85 per bale.

As provided for in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended, a 5 cent per bale discount would continue to be applied to voluntary centralized billing and collecting agents as specified in § 28.909(c).

Growers or their designated agents receiving classification data would continue to incur no additional fees if classification data is requested only once. The fee for each additional retrieval of classification data in § 28.910 would remain at 5 cents per bale. The fee in § 28.910(b) for an owner receiving classification data from the National database would remain at 5 cents per bale, and the minimum charge of $5.00 for services provided per monthly billing period would remain the same. The provisions of § 28.910(c) concerning the fee for new classification memoranda issued from the National database for the business convenience of an owner without reclassification of the cotton will remain the same at 15 cents per bale or a minimum of $5.00 per sheet.

The fee for review classification in § 28.911 would be maintained at $1.85 per bale. The fee for returning samples after classification in § 28.911 would remain at 40 cents per sample.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because this rule maintains user fees for 2007 crop cotton classification services under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act at the same level as in 2006 and a 15-day comment period was provided for public comment and one favorable comment was received.

The emerald ash borer (EAB) ( Agrilus planipennis ) is a destructive wood-boring insect that attacks ash trees ( Fraxinus spp., including green ash, white ash, black ash, and several horticultural varieties of ash). The insect, which is indigenous to Asia and known to occur in China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, the Russian Far East, Taiwan, and Canada, eventually kills healthy ash trees after it bores beneath their bark and disrupts their vascular tissues.

The EAB regulations in 7 CFR 301.53-1 through 301.53-9 (referred to below as the regulations) restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of EAB to noninfested areas of the United States. The States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio and portions of the State of Michigan have already been designated as quarantined areas.

On August 22, 2006, two EAB larvae were recovered during an ongoing survey in Prince George's County, MD. Since then, EAB larvae have been recovered in three additional neighborhoods in Prince George's County. Officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and officials of State and county agencies in Maryland are conducting intensive survey and eradication programs in the infested areas. The State of Maryland has quarantined Prince George's County to prevent the spread of EAB to noninfested areas in that State. However, Federal regulations are necessary to restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from the quarantined areas to prevent the spread of EAB from Maryland to other States.

The regulations in § 301.53-3(a) provide that the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will list as a quarantined area each State, or each portion of a State, where EAB has been found by an inspector, where the Administrator has reason to believe that EAB is present, or where the Administrator considers regulation necessary because of its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from localities where EAB has been found.

Less than an entire State will be designated as a quarantined area only under certain conditions. Such a designation may be made if the Administrator determines that: (1) The State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of regulated articles that are equivalent to those imposed by the regulations on the interstate movement of regulated articles; and (2) the designation of less than an entire State as a quarantined area will be adequate to prevent the artificial spread of the EAB.

In accordance with these criteria and the recent EAB findings described above, we are amending § 301.53-3(c) to add Prince George's County, MD, to the list of quarantined areas.

This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to help prevent the spread of EAB to noninfested areas of the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

We are amending the EAB regulations by adding Prince George's County, MD, to the list of quarantined areas. As a result of this action, the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas is restricted. This action is necessary to prevent the artificial spread of this plant pest into noninfested areas of the United States.

Ash trees are a valuable resource for the nursery, landscaping, and timber industries in Maryland. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources estimates that about 20 percent of streamside trees in the State are ash trees. Ash trees account for over 3 percent of trees in naturally wooded areas. Ash wood is used for all traditional applications of hardwood from flooring and cabinets to baseball bats. The USDA has estimated that losses could reach almost $300 million in the Baltimore metropolitan area alone if EAB becomes established in the nearby county of Baltimore and the surrounding counties. It is estimated that the eradication efforts in the county of Prince Georges will cost more than $4 million in Federal funding. 1

This interim rule will affect business entities located within Prince George's County, MD. According to the U.S. Agricultural Census, in 2002 there were 22 nurseries in this county. 2 The exact number and size of any other affected entity or operation that will be subject to movement restriction in the quarantined area is unknown. However, only restricted articles moved out of the quarantine area will be affected.

It is reasonable to assume that most of the nurseries are small in size according to the U.S. Small Business Administration's standards. The small business size standard based upon the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 111421 (nursery and tree production) is $750,000 or less in annual receipts. The small business size standard based upon NAICS code 113210 (forest nursery and gathering of forest products, including nursery operations that sell deciduous shade trees) is $5 million or less in annual receipts. 3 The small business size standard based upon NAICS code 113310 (logging operations) is 500 or fewer persons employed by the operation.

Under the regulations, regulated articles may be moved interstate from a quarantined area into or through an area that is not quarantined only if they are accompanied by a certificate or limited permit. An inspector or a person operating under a compliance agreement will issue a certificate for interstate movement of a regulated article if certain conditions are met, including that the regulated article is determined to be apparently free of EAB.

Businesses could be affected by the regulations in two ways. First, if a business wishes to move regulated articles interstate from a quarantined area, that business must either: (1) Enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS for the inspection and certification of regulated articles to be moved interstate from the quarantined area; or (2) present its regulated articles for inspection by an inspector and obtain a certificate or a limited permit, issued by the inspector, for the interstate movement of regulated articles. The inspections may be inconvenient, but they should not be costly in most cases, even for businesses operating under a compliance agreement that would perform the inspections themselves. For those businesses that elect not to enter into a compliance agreement, APHIS would provide the services of the inspector without cost during normal business hours. There is also no cost for the compliance agreement, certificate, or limited permit for the interstate movement of regulated articles.

Second, there is a possibility that, upon inspection, a regulated article could be determined by the inspector to be potentially infested with EAB, and, as a result, the article would be ineligible for interstate movement under a certificate. In such a case, the entity's ability to move regulated articles interstate would be restricted. However, the affected entity could conceivably obtain a limited permit under the conditions of § 301.53-5(b).

Our experience with administering the EAB regulations and the regulations for other pests, such as the Asian longhorned beetle, that impose essentially the same conditions on the interstate movement of regulated articles lead us to believe that any economic effects on affected small entities will be small and are outweighed by the benefits associated with preventing the spread of EAB into noninfested areas of the United States.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This interim rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The regulations in “Subpart-Logs, Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured Wood Articles” (7 CFR 319.40 through 319.40-11, referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of various logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood products into the United States. The regulations in § 319.40-3 cover general permits, including the requirements for articles that may be imported without specific permits or importer documents. Paragraph (b) of that section covers the requirements for regulated wood packaging material, including requirements for treating wood packaging material. The treatment and other requirements of § 319.40-3(b) are intended to be consistent with the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 15, “Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging Material in International Trade” (ISPM 15). ISPM 15 is an international standard for wood packaging material established by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). Under ISPM 15 and our regulations, all regulated wood packaging material must be appropriately treated and marked under an official program developed and overseen by the national plant protection organization of the country of export.

One of the treatments in § 319.40-3(b) is fumigation with methyl bromide. The methyl bromide treatment schedule in the regulations is the schedule that was in ISPM 15 at the time the regulations became effective. However, in April 2006, the membership of the IPPC—which includes the United States—adopted an amendment to ISPM 15 that modified the methyl bromide treatment standard to improve its efficacy. The modification changed the exposure time from 16 to 24 hours and adjusted the concentration readings per cubic meter accordingly; the dosage rate of methyl bromide remains unchanged. As a member of the standards committee of the IPPC, we agreed with this change to the standard. Therefore, in order for our regulations to remain consistent with ISPM 15 and provide for a more effective treatment, we are amending the methyl bromide treatment schedule that appears in § 319.40-3(b). The updated schedule is presented in the regulatory text at the end of this document.

Immediate action is necessary to update the regulations so that the prescribed treatment for wood packaging materials is consistent with international standards. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this action effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

We are amending the regulations for the importation of unmanufactured wood articles to bring the methyl bromide treatment schedule into alignment with current international phytosanitary standards. This action is necessary because international phytosanitary standards have changed and the regulations need to be updated to reflect current standards.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Section 603 of the Act requires an agency to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the expected impact of a proposed rule on small entities, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. APHIS has prepared this IRFA in order that the public may have the opportunity to offer comments on expected small-entity effects of this interim rule. We address here items as required by section 603(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This rule will affect foreign exporters of goods that are shipped using wood packaging materials. No U.S. entities involved in the production or supply of unmanufactured wood packaging materials are expected to be negatively impacted by this rule because the revised treatment must occur in the country of origin. The impact on foreign entities is not expected to be large because only the treatment time and concentration reading have been changed; the methyl bromide dosage rate remains the same. It is possible that these foreign entities might pass on additional treatment costs, if any, to U.S. buyers. We welcome information that the public may offer that would either confirm or challenge the Agency's determination that effects, if any, on U.S. entities will be minimal.

The interim rule has no mandatory reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for U.S. entities, other than the requirements that normally pertain to commodity importation. APHIS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict of the interim rule with other Federal rules.

We do not foresee the interim rule having a significant economic impact on small entities, and therefore have not proposed significant alternatives to minimize impacts. The rule will simply align the U.S. methyl bromide treatment requirements for wood packaging materials with the standards established by the IPPC.

This interim rule will benefit the United States by reducing the risk of introduction of pests via unmanufactured wood packaging materials. It may impact foreign exporters of goods to the United States who use unmanufactured wood packaging materials, which in turn may affect importers of these goods. However, cost increases, if any, due to the revised treatment requirements are not expected to significantly affect domestic entities and thus will not have a measurable impact on the flow of trade. We welcome information that the public may offer that would allow the Agency to better determine the effect, if any, that the interim rule will have on U.S. small entities.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Section 1508.4 of the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations define categorical exclusion as a “category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency in implementation of these regulations (section 1507.3) and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.”

The changes to the treatment schedule do not increase the application rate for methyl bromide, but they do increase the length of time for the fumigation. The increase in time to 24 hours does not require more usage of methyl bromide if the fumigation enclosure is sealed well and the fumigation is conducted properly. The decrease in required concentrations over time within the fumigation enclosure in the revised treatment schedule makes allowance for additional adsorption of methyl bromide to the wood that occurs over the extended time period. APHIS also notified the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of this change. The EPA responded that it does not consider the change to be significant. Based on this information, we have determined this revision meets the definition of a categorically excluded action under CEQ's regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

The record of categorical exclusion determination may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this proposed rule.) In addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis ) is a destructive wood-boring insect that attacks ash trees ( Fraxinus spp., including green ash, white ash, black ash, and several horticultural varieties of ash). The insect, which is indigenous to Asia and known to occur in China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, the Russian Far East, and Taiwan, eventually kills healthy ash trees after it bores beneath their bark and disrupts their vascular tissues.

EAB was first found in North America in ash trees in several counties in Michigan in July 2002, and subsequently in a small area in Ontario, Canada. On October 14, 2003, we published an interim rule in the Federal Register (68 FR 59082-59091, Docket No. 02-125-1) in which we quarantined 13 counties in Michigan and placed restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from those quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of EAB to other States. Additional detections of EAB were made in Ohio in November 2003, in Indiana in April 2004, and in Illinois in June 2006. Subsequent interim rules 1 have extended the quarantined area to additional counties in Michigan, and to the entire States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Officials of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and of State, county, and city agencies have been conducting intensive survey and eradication programs in the infested areas in the affected States. Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio have quarantined the EAB-infested areas and imposed restrictions on the intrastate movement of certain articles from the regulated areas to prevent the artificial spread of EAB within each State. Similarly, provincial officials in Ontario and officials of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) have been conducting extensive survey and eradication activities in the infested areas in Ontario. Plant health officials in the United States and Canada have been working cooperatively to establish a regulatory framework to address the risk of the artificial spread of EAB between the two countries.

The regulations in 7 CFR part 319, “Foreign Quarantine Notices,” prohibit or restrict the importation of certain plants and plant products to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests and noxious weeds into the United States. In order to prevent the artificial spread of EAB from Canada into noninfested areas of the United States, we are amending our regulations in part 319 to restrict or prohibit the importation of EAB host material into the United States from EAB-infested areas of Canada. These requirements are consistent with the requirements imposed by the CFIA with respect to the importation into Canada of EAB host material from EAB-infested areas of the United States.

The regulations contained in “Subpart-Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant Products,” §§ 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to below as the regulations), restrict, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation.

Nursery stock, plants, and other propagative plant material that cannot be feasibly inspected, treated, or handled to prevent them from introducing plant pests new to or not known to be widely prevalent in or distributed within and throughout the United States are listed in § 319.37-2 as prohibited articles. Prohibited articles may not be imported into the United States unless imported by the USDA for experimental or scientific purposes, or under specified safeguards.

Ash nursery stock imported into the United States from areas in Canada regulated under the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture and the CFIA's EAB Infested Place Orders  2 presents a significant risk of spreading the pest; therefore, we are amending § 319.37-2 to list any ash nursery stock originating in these EAB-regulated areas in Canada as prohibited articles. Previously, we believed that small ash trees (trees smaller than 460 millimeters or approximately 18 inches in height and half an inch or less in diameter) could not serve as a host for the pest. However, subsequently we found EAB on ash stock that measured less than half an inch in diameter. Therefore, we are prohibiting the importation into the United States of all ash trees, regardless of size, that originate in regions regulated by the CFIA under the EAB Infested Place Orders because of EAB. We have amended the entry for articles of the genus Fraxinus in the table of prohibited articles in paragraph (a) of § 319.37-2 to indicate these restrictions.

Alternately, nursery stock, plants, and other propagative plant material that can be inspected, treated, or handled to prevent them from spreading plant pests are designated in the regulations as restricted articles. Paragraph (a) of § 319.37-3 lists restricted articles that may be imported or offered for importation into the United States after issuance of a written permit by the Plant Protection and Quarantine programs, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). We are adding a provision to this section to require that ash nursery stock that originates in counties or municipal regional counties not regulated for EAB but which are within Provinces or Territories in Canada regulated for EAB may only be imported after issuance of an import permit by APHIS. Nursery stock originating in unaffected Provinces or Territories ( i.e. , Provinces or Territories without areas regulated for EAB) and seeds of Fraxinus spp. from anywhere in Canada present little risk of spreading EAB into the United States and will not require import permits. We are adding a new paragraph (a)(19) to § 319.37-3 to reflect these changes.

Paragraph (a) of § 319.37-4 of the regulations states that, except for small lots of seed imported in accordance with § 319.37-4(d), any restricted article offered for importation into the United States must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate or, in the case of certain greenhouse-grown plants from Canada, a certificate of inspection in the form of a label. Paragraph (c) of § 319.37-4 lists the requirements for importing certain greenhouse-grown plants from Canada without a phytosanitary certificate.

Considering the serious threat posed by EAB, we believe it is necessary to require all ash nursery stock-including greenhouse-grown ash nursery stock-from Canada that is eligible for importation ( i.e. , ash nursery stock that does not originate in an EAB-regulated county or municipal regional county within a Canadian Province or Territory) to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection, as defined in § 319.37-1. The phytosanitary certificate must include an additional declaration stating that the material was produced or harvested in a county or municipal regional county where EAB does not occur.

The regulations in “Subpart-Logs, Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured Wood Articles” (7 CFR 319.40-1 through 319.40-11, referred to below as the regulations) are intended to mitigate the plant pest risk presented by the importation of logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles.

Under the regulations in § 319.40-2, logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles must be imported with the following: (1) A permit and (2) an importer document that lists the genus and species of the tree from which the regulated article was derived, the country and locality, if known, where the tree from which the regulated article was derived was harvested, the quantity of the regulated article to be imported, the use for which the regulated article is imported, and any treatments or handling of the regulated article required by the regulations that were performed prior to arrival at the port of first arrival. These requirements are intended to protect against the introduction of plant pests, including EAB, into the United States.

However, the provisions of § 319.40-2 have not applied to ash logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles imported into the United States from Canada which only require a general permit under § 319.40-3(a). Other than regulated articles of the subfamilies Aurantioideae, Rutoideae, and Toddalioideae of the botanical family Rutaceae, and pine articles from regions regulated for pine shoot beetle ( Tomicus pinniperda ) on their way to a facility operating under a compliance agreement for specified treatment or handling, currently regulated articles from Canada covered by the general permit need only be accompanied by an importer document stating that they were derived from trees harvested in Canada and have never been moved outside Canada. Therefore, we are amending § 319.40-3 to exclude regulated articles of the genus Fraxinus from Canada from eligibility for importation under general permit, and we are specifying provisions for the importation of these articles in a new paragraph (n) of § 319.40-5.

Section 319.40-5 sets out importation and entry requirements for articles that require more specific conditions for importation. Since there are particular risks associated with the importation of various articles derived from trees of the genus Fraxinus, we are adding the measures described below in a new paragraph (n) to mitigate these risks. Regulated articles of the genus Fraxinus (ash) from Canada may only be imported in accordance with these measures and subject to the certification requirements in § 319.40-2(a) and the inspection and other requirements in § 319.40-9.

Studies by the USDA and independent researchers have shown that EAB larvae do not survive the grinding process in wood or bark chips that are less than 1 inch in diameter. Wood and bark chips this size are also too small to support EAB larval growth. Therefore, the risk of pest introduction associated with these wood and bark chips is low. For this reason we are allowing wood and bark chips that measure 1 inch or less in two dimensions to be imported into the United States under the conditions described below. Additionally, we are designating all hardwood species of firewood as regulated articles because as hardwood is dried and cut into firewood, it is difficult to identify the Fraxinus (ash) species from other species of tree from which the firewood was derived.

Canada may refer to regions within recognized legal boundaries within a Province or Territory as “counties” or “municipal regional counties;” for the sake of clarity and simplicity, we refer to those regions simply as counties. Under this rule, the following requirements apply to specified articles:

• Firewood of all hardwood (non-coniferous) species, and ash logs and wood, including cants and stumps, that originate in an EAB-regulated county within a Province or Territory regulated for EAB by the CFIA require a permit and must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the articles in the shipment were (1) debarked, and vascular cambium was removed to a depth of 1.27 cm ( 1/2 inch) during the debarking process, or (2) heat treated in accordance with § 319.40-7(c). If articles were heat-treated, the method of treatment must be described in the treatment section of the certificate.

• Firewood of all hardwood (non-coniferous) species, and ash logs and wood, including cants and stumps, that originate in a county not regulated for EAB within a Province or Territory regulated for the EAB by the CFIA require an import permit and must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the articles in the shipment were produced/harvested in a county where the EAB does not occur, based on official surveys.

• Firewood of all hardwood (non-coniferous) species, and ash logs and wood, including cants and stumps, that originate in a Province or Territory that is not regulated for EAB by the CFIA must be accompanied by an importer document that certifies that the article did not originate in a Province or Territory known to be affected with EAB. Since articles from unaffected Provinces or Territories present little risk of carrying EAB, we are not requiring a permit or phytosanitary certificate for these items.

• Ash wood chips or bark chips larger than 1 inch (2.54 cm) in diameter in any two dimensions that originate in an EAB-regulated county within a Province or Territory that is regulated for EAB by the CFIA are prohibited importation into the United States.

• Ash wood chips or bark chips 1 inch (2.54 cm) or less in diameter that originate in an EAB-regulated county within a Province or Territory that is regulated for EAB by the CFIA require a permit and must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the wood or bark chips in the shipment were ground to 1 inch (2.54 cm) or less in diameter in any two dimensions.

• Ash wood chips or bark chips that originate in a county not regulated for EAB within a Province or Territory regulated for EAB by the CFIA require a permit and must be accompanied by a certificate with an additional declaration stating that the articles in the shipment were produced/harvested in a county where the EAB does not occur, based on official surveys.

• Ash wood chips or bark chips that originate in a Province or Territory that is not regulated for EAB by the CFIA must be accompanied by an importer document that certifies that the article did not originate in a Province or Territory known to be affected by EAB. Since articles from unaffected Provinces or Territories present little risk of carrying EAB, we are not requiring a permit or a certificate for these items.

Articles being moved through Canada from counties not regulated for EAB may not transit an EAB-regulated area in Canada en route to the United States unless they are moved directly through the regulated area without stopping (except for refueling or for traffic conditions, such as traffic lights or stop signs). If these articles are being moved through the EAB-regulated area in Canada between May 1 and August 31 or when the ambient air temperature is 40 °F or higher, they must be in an enclosed vehicle or completely covered to prevent access by the EAB.

Section 319.40-1 provides definitions for terms that apply to all of the regulations in the subpart. The definition of certificate details the information that must be provided on certificates of inspection, which includes a description of the restricted articles intended to be imported into the United States as well as any specific additional declarations that may be required by the specific sections of the regulations. We are amending the definition of certificate to specify that the certificate is addressed to Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs, the national plant protection organization of the United States. We are doing this for purposes of clarity.

Immediate action is necessary to prevent the spread of EAB into noninfested regions of the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this action effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is set out below, regarding the economic effects of this interim rule on small entities. Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude that this rule will result in any significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the economic impacts of this rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential economic impacts. In particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this rule.

Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to regulate the importation of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within the United States.

This interim rule amends the regulations to prohibit or restrict the importation of certain articles from Canada that present risk of being infested with EAB. This action is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the spread of the pest from infested areas in Canada to noninfested areas of the United States, and to prevent further introductions of the pest into the United States.

The EAB has been found in ash trees in counties in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana in the United States, and in Essex County, Ontario, Canada. The economic impact could be severe if the EAB is allowed to spread from infested areas to the surrounding forests of the northeastern United States, where nursery, landscaping, and timber industries, and forest-based recreation and tourism industries play a vital economic role. APHIS's EAB import requirements are consistent with the EAB import requirements imposed by the CFIA with respect to the importation of EAB host material from the United States into Canada.

As a result of this rule, importation into the United States of ash nursery stock, and wood chips and bark chips larger than 1 inch in diameter is prohibited from the EAB-regulated areas in Canada. Additional documentation is required for all products from both EAB-regulated and non-regulated areas in Canada (table 1).

Ash logs and wood imported from EAB-regulated counties in Canada will require a permit and phytosanitary certificate, and an appropriate treatment of the wood. Thus, businesses in the regulated counties in Canada that wish to export ash logs and wood to the United States will have to incur additional costs for heat treatment or debarking. The cost of heat treatment has been estimated at $10.40 to $23.75 per cubic meter (35.314 cubic feet) of treated wood and the cost of debarking has been estimated at $2 per cubic meter of wood. However, the regulations still provide for the importation of products from non-regulated counties and Provinces/Territories in accordance with the provisions outlined in this interim rule.

On January 31, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR 4463-4467, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0104) a proposal  1 to amend the regulations for importing animals and animal products in 9 CFR part 94 by adding the Mexican State of Nayarit to the list of regions considered free of classical swine fever (CSF) in § 94.25, and adding Nayarit to the list of CSF-free regions in §§ 94.9 and 94.10 whose exports of live swine, pork, and pork products to the United States must meet certain certification requirements to ensure their freedom from CSF.

On February 22, 2007, we published a document in the Federal Register (72 FR 7934, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0104) correcting two instances in the preamble of our proposed rule where we erroneously mentioned adding Nayarit to a list of CSF-affected regions, which we should have referred to as a list of CSF-free regions.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending April 2, 2007. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.

This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . This rule adds Nayarit to the lists of regions considered free of CSF and allows pork, pork products, live swine, 2 and swine semen to be imported into the United States from Nayarit, subject to certain conditions. We have determined that approximately 2 weeks are needed to ensure that Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, personnel at ports of entry receive official notice of this change in the regulations. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this rule should be effective 15 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

This rule amends the regulations for importing animals and animal products by adding the Mexican State of Nayarit to the list of regions considered free of CSF. We are taking this action at the request of the Mexican Government and the State of Nayarit and after conducting a risk evaluation that indicates that Nayarit is free of this disease. We are also adding Nayarit to a list of CSF-free regions whose exports of live swine, pork, and pork products to the United States must meet certain certification requirements to ensure their freedom from CSF. These actions relieve certain CSF-related restrictions on the importation into the United States of pork, pork products, live swine, and swine semen from Nayarit while continuing to protect against the introduction of this disease into the United States.

This rule is likely to have a minimal effect on U.S. live swine markets, both in the short term and in the medium term. The hog inventory of Nayarit amounted to about four-tenths of 1 percent of U.S. hog and pig inventory in 2004. 3 In 2004, there were 34 commercial swine farms in Nayarit with a population of 30,634 hogs and pigs. Another 18,650 hogs and pigs were reared in backyards, intended for consumption by the owners (table 1). Nayarit has never exported swine to the United States. This State—as is the case with Mexico as a whole—is a net importer of swine (table 2).

In 2004, the State of Nayarit produced around 4,000 metric tons of pork, an amount equal to 0.35 percent of Mexico's production of pork (table 3). Slaughter/processing plants handling swine in Nayarit are not federally inspected (TIF) establishments. Only TIF plants are allowed to ship pork and pork products abroad or to CSF-free States in Mexico.

This rulemaking is also unlikely to have a significant effect on U.S. pork and pork products markets because, as with live swine, the United States is unlikely to import large amounts of these commodities from Nayarit. The United States is a net exporter of pork, while Mexico, as indicated below in tables 2 and 3, is a net importer. In 2004, Mexico exported 36,000 metric tons of pork, averaging only around 3.2 percent of total Mexican pork production.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the economic impact of their rules on small entities. The domestic entities most likely to be affected by declaring the Mexican State of Nayarit free of CSF are pork producers.

According to the 2002 Agricultural Census, there were about 66,036 hog and pig farms in the United States in that year, of which 93 percent received $750,000 or less in annual revenues. Agricultural operations with $750,000 or less in annual receipts are considered small entities, according to the Small Business Administration size criteria.

We do not expect that U.S. hog producers, U.S. exporters of live hogs, or U.S. exporters of pork and pork products, small or otherwise, will be affected significantly by this rule. This is because, for the reasons discussed above, the amount of live swine, pork, and other pork products imported into the United States from the Mexican State of Nayarit is likely to be small.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared for this final rule. The environmental assessment provides a basis for the conclusion that adding the Mexican State of Nayarit to the list of regions considered free of CSF, and to the list of CSF-free regions whose exports of live swine, pork, and pork products to the United States must meet certain certification requirements to ensure their freedom from CSF, will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site. 4 Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are also available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

This final rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Background

Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act (“FRA”) restricts the ability of member banks to extend credit to their executive officers, directors, principal shareholders, and to related interests of such persons. 1 Section 22(g) of the FRA imposes some additional limitations on extensions of credit made by member banks to their executive officers. 2 Section 106(b)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970 (“BHC Act Amendments”) adds further restrictions on extensions of credit to an executive officer, director, or principal shareholder of a bank from a correspondent bank. 3 The Board's Regulation O implements sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the FRA, as well as section 106(b)(2) of the BHC Act Amendments. 4 Sections 22(g) and 22(h) and Regulation O apply, by their terms, to all banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System. 5 Other Federal law subjects Federally insured state non-member banks and Federally insured savings associations to sections 22(g) and 22(h) and Regulation O in the same manner and to the same extent as if they were member banks. 6

Section 601 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (“Act”) (Pub. L. No. 109-351) removed several statutory reporting requirements relating to insider lending by member banks. These amendments, which became effective on October 13, 2006, eliminated the statutory provisions that:

• Require a member bank to include a separate report with its quarterly Reports of Condition and Income (“Call Report”) on any extensions of credit the bank has made to its executive officers since its last Call Report (12 U.S.C. 375a(9));

• Require an executive officer of a member bank to file a report with the member bank's board of directors whenever the executive officer obtains an extension of credit from another bank in an amount that exceeds the amount the executive officer could obtain from the member bank (12 U.S.C. 375a(6));

• Require an executive officer or principal shareholder of a depository institution to file an annual report with the institution's board of directors during any year in which the officer or shareholder has an outstanding extension of credit from a correspondent bank of the institution (12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(G)(i)); and

• Authorize the Federal banking agencies to issue regulations that require the reporting and public disclosure of information related to extensions of credit received by an executive officer or principal shareholder of a depository institution from a correspondent bank of the institution (12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(G)(ii)).

In December 2006, the Board adopted, and sought public comment on, an interim rule that implemented the changes made by section 601 of the Act. 7 In particular, the interim rule eliminated:

• Section 215.9 of Regulation O, which requires an executive officer of a member bank to file a report with the member bank's board of directors whenever the executive officer obtains certain extensions of credit from another bank;

• Section 215.10 of Regulation O, which requires a member bank to include a separate report with its quarterly Call Report on any extensions of credit the bank has made to its executive officers since its last Call Report; and

• Subpart B of Regulation O, which requires the reporting and public disclosure of extensions of credit to an executive officer or principal shareholder of a member bank by a correspondent bank of the member bank.

The interim rule also made minor conforming changes to Regulation O to reflect the removal of these provisions.

The Board received six comments on the interim rule: three from banks, two from bank trade associations, and one from an individual. The banks and trade associations supported the interim rule and the associated reduction in regulatory reporting burden. The individual commenter criticized the interim rule and stated that public reporting is an important device for preventing financial scandals.

After reviewing the public comments on the interim rule, the Board has determined to adopt a final rule that is identical to the interim rule. Although the Board agrees that appropriate public reporting by depository institutions can be an effective mechanism of market discipline, the Board believes that elimination of these regulatory reporting requirements is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Act. In addition, the Board has long supported eliminating these reporting provisions because the Board has found that they did not contribute significantly to the effective monitoring of insider lending or the prevention of insider abuse.

One commenter urged the Board to take steps to ensure that depository institutions recognize that section 601 of the Act and this final rule do not alter the underlying substantive insider lending restrictions in Federal law. The Board shares the concern expressed by this commenter. The Board notes that the changes made by section 601 and the final rule do not alter the substantive restrictions on loans by depository institutions to their executive officers and principal shareholders found in Regulation O. In addition, section 601 and the final rule do not alter the substantive restrictions on loans made to executive officers and principal shareholders of depository institutions by their correspondent banks found at 12 U.S.C. 1972(2). To address the shared concerns of the Board and this commenter, the Board has amended the scope section of Regulation O (12 CFR 215.1(b)(4)) to remind depository institutions of the correspondent bank insider lending restrictions.

The Board also notes that elimination of these reporting requirements does not limit the authority of the appropriate Federal banking agency to take enforcement action against a depository institution or its insiders for violation of the Federal insider lending restrictions. Moreover, Regulation O would continue to require that a depository institution and its insiders maintain sufficient information to enable examiners to monitor the institution's compliance with the regulation, 8 and the Federal banking agencies would retain authority under other provisions of law to collect information regarding insider lending by depository institutions.

Two commenters requested that the Board eliminate section 215.5(d)(4) of Regulation O in light of the elimination of section 215.9 of the rule. Section 215.5(d)(4) of Regulation O requires a member bank to make any extension of credit to an executive officer “subject to the condition in writing that the extension of credit will, at the option of the member bank, become due and payable at any time that the officer is indebted to any other bank or banks” on non-mortgage, non-educational loans in excess of a specific dollar threshold (typically $100,000). 9 Section 215.9 of Regulation O previously required a member bank's executive officer to report to the bank's board of directors within 10 days of the date that the officer becomes indebted to other banks on non-mortgage, non-educational loans in excess of the same dollar threshold (typically $100,000).

The “due on demand clause” requirement contained in section 215.5(d)(4) of Regulation O derives directly from section 22(g)(1)(D) of the Federal Reserve Act. 10 Accordingly, the Board does not have authority to eliminate this Federal insider lending restriction. The Board notes, however, that the continued existence of section 215.5(d)(4) does not make the elimination of section 215.9 ineffective. A bank must continue to include the section 215.5(d)(4) “due on demand” clause in each of its extensions of credit to executive officers, but Regulation O no longer requires the specific internal reporting regime of former section 215.9 to ensure the utility of the due on demand clause. Going forward, a bank may choose to ensure the effectiveness of the due on demand clause requirement in any reasonably prudent way. For example, a bank may comply with the requirement by mandating a periodic report from its executive officer borrowers. Alternatively, a bank may decide to obtain information about an executive officer borrower's indebtedness to other banks only at the time the bank would be interested in exercising the due on demand clause (for example, when the creditworthiness of the officer has dropped materially). Either of these methods could, based on all the facts and circumstances, be a reasonable way to ensure the utility of the due on demand clause requirement.

The Board also has received numerous inquiries about how a bank can ensure compliance with the correspondent lending restrictions in 12 U.S.C. 1972(2), given that all related reporting requirements are being eliminated as part of this rulemaking. Briefly, the correspondent lending restrictions in 12 U.S.C. 1972(2) require, among other things, that extensions of credit by a bank to an insider of a correspondent bank be on market terms. In light of the elimination of the statutory and regulatory reporting requirements associated with 12 U.S.C. 1972(2), a bank may select any reasonably prudent method to ensure compliance with the restrictions. For example, a bank may establish policies and procedures to request additional information about a borrower's relationships with correspondent banks when the bank determines that a prospective extension of credit to the borrower will be on preferential terms.

Finally, one commenter asked the Board to raise the $100,000 “other purpose” loan cap in section 215.5(c)(4) of Regulation O and to raise the $500,000 prior board approval threshold in section 215.4(b)(2) of the rule. 11 The Board has determined not to raise these dollar amounts as a part of this rulemaking but intends to consider raising these limits, in consultation with the other Federal banking agencies, in connection with an upcoming comprehensive review of Regulation O.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Board certifies that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Although the final rule would apply to all member banks regardless of their size, the rule would reduce the regulatory burden on member banks, including small member banks, by removing requirements to report certain types of extensions of credit to insiders and to insiders of correspondent banks. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget.

The collections of information that are revised by this rulemaking are found in 12 CFR 215.9 and 215.10, and 12 CFR part 215, subpart B. This information previously was required to evidence compliance with the requirements of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 375a and 375b) and 12 U.S.C. 1972. The respondents/recordkeepers are for-profit financial institutions, including small businesses, and individuals.

The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number associated with 12 CFR 215.9 and 12 CFR part 215, subpart B was 7100-0034 (FFIEC 004). The OMB control number associated with 12 CFR 215.10 was 7100-0036 (FFIEC 031 and 041).

The FFIEC 004 was discontinued as a result of this rule as of December 31, 2006. The total amount of annual burden estimated to be saved as a result of this aspect of the rule is 5,331 hours. The estimated annual cost savings are $239,895. In addition, the last page of the FFIEC 031 and 041 reporting forms (loans to executive officers), which is associated with 12 CFR 215.10, was eliminated as a result of this rule as of December 31, 2006. The total amount of annual burden estimated to be eliminated as a result of this aspect of the rule is 919 hours and there are estimated to be minimal cost savings.

For the FFIEC 004, individual respondent financial information was regarded as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), (6) and (8)). However, until the passage of the Act and the issuance of the interim rule, upon request from the public the member bank was required to disclose the name of each executive officer and principal shareholder who, together with related interests, has loans from correspondent banks equal to a minimum of 5 percent of the member bank's capital and surplus, or $500,000, whichever was less. The FFIEC 031 and 041 data on loans to executive officers were not considered confidential.

Five of the six commenters, representing banks and bank trade associations, supported the reduction in reporting burden associated with the interim rule. One individual's comment criticized the interim rule and noted that public reporting is an important device for preventing financial scandals. However, the Federal Reserve believes that the elimination of these reporting requirements is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Act, and will make the reporting changes, as proposed.

The Federal Reserve has a continuing interest in the public's opinions of our collections of information. At any time, comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to: Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (7100-0034 or 7100-0036), Washington, DC 20503.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the Board to use “plain language” in all rules published in the Federal Register . The Board has sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner.

On December 12, 2002, OTS issued a final rule specifying the recordkeeping and confirmation requirements for savings associations that effect securities transactions. 1 Among these regulatory requirements is a requirement that officers and employees of savings associations file a personal securities transaction report with the savings association, within ten business days of the end of each calendar quarter, if the officer or employee:

• Makes investment recommendations or decisions for the accounts of customers;

• Participates in the determination of these recommendations or decisions; or

• In connection with his or her duties, obtains information concerning which securities the savings association intends to purchase, sell, or recommend for purchase or sale. 2

OTS modeled this personal securities filing requirement on SEC Rule 17j-1, 3 which, at the time OTS established its recordkeeping and confirmation requirements, required personal securities trading reports to be filed within ten business days after the end of each calendar quarter. In July 2004, the SEC amended Rule 17j-1 to change the filing deadline from ten business days to 30 calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter. 4 The SEC amendment was in response to comments regarding the delay in obtaining personal financial statements on a timely basis.

In this interim final rule, OTS is amending 12 CFR 551.150(a) to require officers and employees who are subject to the rule to file personal securities trading reports with OTS no later than 30 calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter. OTS believes it is appropriate to subject officers and employees of savings associations who are covered by the rule to requirements that are consistent with the requirements that the SEC has established for officers and employees of investment companies. Moreover, the amendment to the rule will result in more accurate reporting. The employees and officers impacted by the personal trading reporting requirement typically do not receive their quarterly statements from their brokers within ten business days of the end of any calendar quarter. The revised regulation will enable officers and employees covered by the rule to base their personal securities transactions reports on their most current brokerage statement.

OTS is requesting comment on the interim final regulation. Specifically OTS seeks comment on:

(1) Does the interim final regulation accomplish its stated purposes?

(2) Does the interim final regulation create any ambiguities that were not present in the current regulation?

(3) Does the interim final regulation impose unnecessary regulatory burdens?

Section 722 of GLBA requires federal banking agencies to use “plain language” in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. OTS believes the interim final rule change is presented in a simple and straightforward manner.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that notice and comment procedures are not required when an agency finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553. The original rule was intended to track the SEC rule. Subsequently the SEC changed the filing requirement from 10 to 30 days. It is appropriate for OTS to change its rule to conform to the SEC rule. No additional substantive burden is being added by this action, and the revision reduces regulatory burden by providing a longer period of time to file the required report. Accordingly, OTS finds that prior notice and public comment are unnecessary because the rule conforms OTS's regulation to the SEC's rules, and does not alter any substantive requirements.

Although OTS has concluded that public notice and comment are not required for this interim final rule, it invites comments during the 60-day period following publication. In developing a final rule, OTS will consider all public comments it receives within that period.

Under section 553(d) of the APA, a rule may not be effective until 30 days after its publication. 5 This provision, however, does not apply where the agency finds good cause for making the rule effective immediately. For the reasons set forth above, and because the rule reduces regulatory burden, OTS finds that there is good cause for making this rule effective immediately.

Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (CDRIA)  6 requires that new regulations and amendments to existing regulations take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date of publication of the rule. This delayed effective date provision, however, applies only if the rule imposes additional reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions. This rule imposes no additional reporting, disclosure or other requirements on any insured depository institution. Section 302 is inapplicable.

OTS has determined that this interim final rule does not involve a change to collections of information previously approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Director of OTS has determined that this interim final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601), the Director certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The interim final rule would conform OTS rules to SEC rules and give affected officers and employees additional time to file certain required reports. Accordingly, OTS has determined that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.

OTS has determined that the proposed rule will not result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments or by the private sector of $100 million or more and that a budgetary impact statement is not required under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates Act). The interim final rule would conform OTS rules to SEC rules and give affected officers and employees additional time to file certain required reports. The change should not have a significant impact on small institutions. Accordingly, a budgetary impact statement is not required under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.

You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-04-10, amendment 39-14491 (71 FR 8443, February 17, 2006). The existing AD applies to certain Cessna Model 500, 550, S550, 560, 560XL, and 750 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2007 (72 FR 7357). That NPRM proposed to require installing identification sleeves on the wires for the positive and negative terminal studs of the engine and/or auxiliary power unit fire extinguishing bottles, as applicable, and re-connecting the wires to the correct terminal studs. That NPRM also proposed to retain the requirements of the existing AD; add airplanes to the applicability; and, for certain airplanes only, require a review of wiring changes made using the original issue of one service bulletin and corrective actions if necessary.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been received on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

There are about 3,801 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet, including about 3,071 airplanes of U.S. Registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(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) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

On April 12, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, North Carolina in the Federal Register (72 FR 18424). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. However advance notifications will be made to affected waterway users via marine information broadcasts, local radio stations and area newspapers.

On June 9 and 10, 2007, the Virginia Boat Racing Association will sponsor the “Carolina Cup Regatta”, on the waters of the Pasquotank River. The event will consist of approximately 60 inboard hydroplanes racing in heats counter clockwise around an oval race course. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to view the competition. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

The Coast Guard did not receive comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register . Accordingly, the Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Pasquotank River, near Elizabeth City, North Carolina.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this regulation would prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Pasquotank River adjacent to Elizabeth City, North Carolina during the event, the effects of this regulation would not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area would be in effect. Extensive advance notifications would be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcast, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Vessel traffic would be able to transit the regulated area between heats, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this temporary rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Pasquotank River during the event.

This rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be enforced for only a short period, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 9 and 10, 2007. The regulated area will apply to a segment of the Pasquotank River adjacent to the Elizabeth City waterfront. Marine traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels will be required to proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we would issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this temporary rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This temporary rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this temporary rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.

On April 9, 2007, we published a Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Roanoke River, Plymouth, North Carolina in the Federal Register (72 FR 17456). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. However advance notifications will be made to affected waterway users via marine information broadcasts, local radio stations and area newspapers.

The Outboard Drag Boat Association will be sponsoring a series of seven (7) power boat racing events titled the “Plymouth Drag Boat Race”. The power boat races will be held on the following dates: June 24, July 22, August 11, 12, 19, September 30 and October 21, 2007. The regulated area for the races includes a section of the Roanoke River approximately one mile long and bounded in width by each shoreline, immediately adjacent to Plymouth, North Carolina. The power boat races will consist of approximately (30) vessels conducting high speed straight line runs along the river and parallel with the shoreline. A fleet of spectator vessels are expected to gather near the event site to view the competition. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during the power boat races.

The Coast Guard did not receive comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register . Accordingly, the Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Roanoke River, near Plymouth, North Carolina.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Roanoke River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notification that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcast, local radio stations and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary. Vessel traffic will be able to transit the regulated area between heats, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities: Owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Roanoke River from 10 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on June 24, July 22, August 11, 12, 19, September 30 and October 21, 2007. This rule would not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the regulated area will apply to a one mile segment of the Roanoke River, traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. The Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit the area between races. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, listed at the beginning of this rule. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” is not required for this rule.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Public comment is not necessary since the drawbridge that the regulation governed is out of service (remains in the open to navigation position) and will be removed in the fall of 2007. The drawbridge no longer affects navigation through the area.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . There is no need to delay the implementation of this rule because the drawbridge it governs no longer affects navigation.

The existing drawbridge across Burns Cutoff, mile 3.0, which had previously serviced the area is being kept in the open-to-navigation position and will be removed in the fall of 2007. It no longer affects navigation. The regulation governing the operation of the drawbridge is found in 33 CFR 117.145. The purpose of this rule is to remove 33 CFR 117.145 from the Code of Federal Regulations since it governs a drawbridge that is no longer in service and will be removed in Fall of 2007. This final rule removes the regulation regarding the Daggett Road drawbridge.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This rule removes the special regulation for a bridge that is already out of service.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will have no impact on any small entities because the regulation being removed applies to a bridge that has already been taken out of service and will be removed in the fall of 2007.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule affects a carriage requirement. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.

Caltrans requested a temporary change to the operation of the California Route 12 Drawbridge, mile 3.0, Mokelumne River, near Isleton, CA. The California Route 12 Drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 7 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., except that during the following periods the draw need only open for recreational vessels on the hour, 20 minutes past the hour, and 40 minutes past the hour; Saturdays 10 a.m. until 2 p.m.; Sundays 11 a.m. until 6 p.m.; Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day, 11 a.m. until 6 p.m. At all other times, it opens on signal if at least four hours notice is given as required by 33 CFR 117.175. Navigation on the waterway is recreational, search and rescue and commercial traffic hauling materials for levee repair.

This deviation is effective from 7 p.m. on June 4, 2007 through 6 a.m. on September 15, 2007. Caltrans requested the drawspan be secured in the closed-to-navigation position Monday through Thursday, 7 p.m. to 6 a.m., Saturdays 12:01 a.m. to 6 a.m., and Sundays 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The drawspan will resume normal operations, for holidays, July 2, 2007 through July 7, 2007 and September 2, 2007 through September 5, 2007. During the temporary deviation period, the bridge roadway surface will be rehabilitated. This work can only be conducted during periods of moderate temperatures and low humidity. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No party has indicated this work would have a significant impact on their operations. Alternate routes are available for vessels while the drawspan is secured in the closed-to-navigation position. Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation position, may continue to do so at any time.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest or ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property.

Temporary safety zones are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from the hazards associated with powerboat races. Based on recent accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, the Captain of the Port Buffalo, has determined powerboat races pose significant risks to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreational vessels, congested waterways, and alcohol use, could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities.

The proposed safety zone consists of all navigable waters of the Upper Niagara River located at 42°03′36″ N, 078°54′45″ W to 43°03′09″ N, 078°55′21″ W to 43°03′00″ N, 078°53′42″ W to 43°02′42″ N, 078°54′09″ W and return. All Geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). The size of this proposed zone was determined using the location of the race course approved by the Captain of the Port Buffalo and local knowledge concerning wind, waves, and currents.

All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.

This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone, and the zone is in areas where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zone's activation.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of The Niagara River, North Tonawanda, NY between 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. on June 2 and June 3, 2007.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only seven hours for each event. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of The Port Buffalo to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these special local regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Proposed Rule or options for compliance are encourage to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone; therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies.

A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

On April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18434), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. On May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26581), EPA published a correction to the NPR. The correction to the NPR fixed Table 5 in the original NPR. The NPR proposed approval of Virginia's redesignation request, a SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Richmond Area that sets forth how the Richmond Area will maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11 years, and a 2002 base year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by the VADEQ on September 18, 2006, September 20, 2006, September 25, 2006 and supplements on November 17, 2006 and February 13, 2007. Other specific requirements of Virginia's redesignation request SIP revision for the maintenance plan and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. On May 14, 2007, EPA received a comment, from Dominion Resources Services, Inc., in support of its April 12, 2007 NPR. Also, On May 11, 2007, EPA received adverse comments on the said April 12, 2007 NPR. A summary of the comments submitted and EPA's responses are provided in Section II of this document.

Comment: The commenter states that Dominion Resources Services, Inc. supports EPA's redesignation proposal for the Richmond-Petersburg Area and urges EPA to move forward with a final redesignation rulemaking.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment of support for our final action.

Comment: We received comments that claimed Virginia had not fulfilled all applicable Part D requirements under the 8-hour NAAQS . Specifically, the comments claimed that because the Richmond area was initially designated as a moderate nonattainment area Virginia was required to have provisions in the SIP for the following three control technique guidelines (CTGs): (1) Reactor Processes and Distillation Processes (notice of release: 58 FR 60197, November 15, 1993); (2) Wood Furniture manufacturing Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 25223, May 20, 1996); and, (3) Shipbuilding and Ship repair Surface Coating Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996).

Response: EPA disagrees with the comment. While the Richmond area was initially classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23858), the area was reclassified as marginal by a September 22, 2004 final rule (69 FR 56697) pursuant to the authority of section 181(a)(4) of the CAA. Under section 181(a)(4), an ozone nonattainment area may be reclassified “if an area classified under paragraph (1) (Table 1) would have been classified in another category if the design value in the area were 5 percent greater or 5 percent less than the level on which such classification was based.” See 69 FR at 56700, September 22, 2004.

Under subpart 2 to Part D, the classification of an ozone nonattainment area has three main consequences: First, certain control programs, required SIP submissions and other requirements are mandated by section 182; second, the area receives a statutorily mandated attainment date pursuant to section 181; and, last, in the case of marginal areas, certain requirements under section 172(c), such as an attainment demonstration or contingency measures, are not applicable. In addition, with respect to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), section 182(a)(2)(A), which sets forth the specifics of the applicable Part D requirements for marginal areas, only requires states correct certain deficiencies in their RACT SIP which were required prior to enactment of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA on November 15, 1990. With respect to CTG RACT requirements, section 182(a)(2)(A) required correction of deficiencies in rules to implement CTGs issued before November 15, 1990. In contrast, for moderate areas section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires among other things implementation of RACT for any existing sources covered by any CTG issued by EPA after November 15, 1990 until the date of attainment. The CTGs specified in the comment were all issued after November 15, 1990 and therefore not subject to section 182(a)(2)(A).

Comment: We received comments that claimed Virginia had not fulfilled all applicable Part D requirements under the 1-hour NAAQS . Specifically, the comments claimed that because the Richmond area was designated as a moderate nonattainment area Virginia was required to have provisions in the SIP for the following three control technique guidelines (CTGs): (1) Reactor Processes and Distillation Processes (notice of release: 58 FR 60197, November 15, 1993); (2) Wood Furniture manufacturing Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 25223, May 20, 1996); and, (3) Shipbuilding and Ship repair Surface Coating Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996).

Response: EPA redesignated the Richmond nonattainment area from nonattainment for attainment for the 1-hour NAAQS on November 17, 1997. In that action, EPA made a final determination that the area had fulfilled all applicable Part D requirements. We have not re-opened that issue in the context of this rulemaking.

Comment: The commenter states that the April 12, 2007 Federal Register states that EPA “. . . notified Virginia that it was required to implement the contingency measures contained in the SIP approved maintenance plan” (referring to the 1-hour ozone plan). The commenter states that there were violations of the 1-hour ozone standard in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The commenter requests clarification whether contingency measures for the 1-hour ozone violations were implemented.

Response: EPA asserts that implementation of previous contingency measures for the 1-hour ozone standard is irrelevant to the approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request. The Richmond Area is currently in attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard. The redesignation of the Richmond Area for the 1-hour ozone standard (62 FR 61237, November 17, 1997) addressed the 1-hour ozone requirements adequate for redesignation of the 1-hour ozone standard. The status of contingency measures for the 1-hour maintenance plan is not an applicable Part D requirement for implementation of or redesignation for the 8-hour ozone standard and therefore is not relevant to this action.

However, in response to the request for clarification, several inaccuracies in the comment are of note. First, the commenter incorrectly references the April 12, 2007 Federal Register . The statement quoted is not found in the April 12, 2007 Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking, nor in any of the supporting documents associated with the proposed 8-hour ozone redesignation request for the Richmond Area. The statement is actually found in an unrelated proposed rule dated October 7, 2002, pertaining to revisions to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. This proposed rule was not finalized. Second, the commenter incorrectly reports the violations of the 1-hour standard. There were violations of the 1-hour NAAQS only in the years 1998, 1999 and 2002.

Regarding the implementation of contingency measures for these 1-hour ozone violations, in response to the 1998 and 1999 violations, open burning restrictions were implemented by a state regulation as a contingency measure in 2000. Also, the Commonwealth implemented additional control measures, including the NO X SIP Call, after the 2002 1-hour ozone violation.

Comment: The commenter states that the Henrico County Monitor measured exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard during the 2005 and 2006 ozone season and that EPA should either delay final approval of the redesignation request until the end of the 2007 ozone season to determine if this monitor shows a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, or EPA should conduct an evaluation on whether this monitor is projected to have no more than three exceedances during 2007.

Response: EPA acknowledges that preliminary 2006 air quality data indicates a fourth high value of 0.086 parts per million (ppm) at the Henrico County monitor. 1 However, in accordance with Appendix I to 40 CFR part 50, compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met at an ambient air 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; it is not based on the number of days which exceed the 8-hour ozone standard. 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I. The preliminary four highest 8-hour ozone monitoring values at the Henrico County, Virginia monitor (one of the monitors located in the Richmond Area) for 2006 were 0.097 ppm, 0.096 ppm, 0.086 ppm, and 0.086 ppm. The design value at the Henrico County monitor for monitoring years 2003-2005 shows attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS with a design value of 0.080 ppm. In addition, preliminary 2004-2006 air quality data indicate that the Henrico County monitor continues to show attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS with a design value of 0.081 ppm. Thus exceedances at this monitor did not prevent the area from reaching and continuing to show attainment of the 8-hour standard. Preliminary data from other monitors in the area also showed attainment. See Table 1 below for preliminary 2006 air quality monitoring data.

The Chesterfield County monitor would have an 8-hour design value for 2004-2006 of 0.076 ppm. The Henrico County monitor would have an 8-hour design value for 2004-2006 of 0.081 ppm. The Hanover County monitor would have an 8-hour design value for 2004-2006 of 0.081. The Charles City County monitor would have an 8-hour design value for 2004-2006 of 0.080. These preliminary data and design values show that the site-specific ozone design values (average fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations over the period of 2004-2006) for all monitoring sites in the Richmond Area are below 0.084 ppm. Therefore, the EPA believes that the Richmond Area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

With regard to delaying approval of the Richmond Area redesignation request and conducting an evaluation of the monitor, EPA may redesignate an Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if three years of quality assured data indicate that the Area has attained the standard. The most recent quality-assured air quality data indicates that the Area is attaining the standard and preliminary data for 2006 show that the Area is still attaining the standard at the time of the redesignation. EPA has determined that the Richmond Area has attained the 8-hour standard and has met all of the applicable requirements for redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. 2 The Commonwealth's maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area is projected to maintain the standard. Consistent with the requirements of section 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, the Commonwealth has submitted a maintenance plan for the Richmond Area for the 8-hour ozone standard which shows continued maintenance and continuing reductions in NO X and VOC emissions through 2018 further decreasing peak ozone levels and maintaining ozone attainment. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the contingency measure provisions required by section 175A(d), the CAA clearly anticipates and provides for situations where an area might monitor a violation of the NAAQS after having been redesignated to attainment. The Commonwealth has included contingency measure provisions consistent with CAA requirements in its maintenance plan to address any possible future violation of the NAAQS.

EPA believes that the contingency measures, which are a component of the maintenance plan, set forth the steps that the Commonwealth will undertake to preserve attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard if air quality indicators show that the air quality of the Richmond Area has declined to the point when contingency measures to reverse that deterioration of air quality should begin being implemented. Thus, for all the above reasons, EPA sees no reason to delay approval of the Commonwealth's redesignation request.

EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's redesignation request, maintenance plan, and 2002 base year emissions inventory because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has evaluated Virginia's redesignation request, submitted on September 20, 2006, 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 Richmond Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of the Richmond Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for the Richmond Area, submitted on September 25, 2006, as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is approving the 8-hour maintenance plan for the Richmond Area because it meets the requirements of section 175A. EPA is not taking final action in this rulemaking on the Commonwealth's request that the 8-hour maintenance plan supersede the previous 1-hour maintenance plan. EPA is approving the MVEBs submitted by Virginia in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is also approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory, submitted on September 18, 2006 and supplemented by VADEQ on November 17, 2006 and February 13, 2007, as a revision to the Virginia SIP. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for NO X and VOCs in the Richmond Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, the Cities of Petersburg, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, and the Counties of Prince George, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Charles City, Virginia 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:

Richmond is subject to the CAA's requirements for marginal ozone nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final 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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this final 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 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), nor will it 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), because it affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This final rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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. 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order.

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).

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 July 31, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action, to approve the redesignation request, maintenance plan, adequacy determination for MVEBs, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Richmond Area, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

On April 13, 2007 (72 FR 18602), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of Virginia's redesignation request, a SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Hampton Roads Area that sets forth how the Hampton Roads Area will maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11 years, and a 2002 base year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by the VADEQ on October 12, 2006, October 16, 2006, October 18, 2006, and supplemented on November 20, 2006 and February 13, 2007. Other specific requirements of Virginia's redesignation request SIP revision for the maintenance plan 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.

EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's redesignation request, maintenance plan, and 2002 base year emissions inventory because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has evaluated Virginia's redesignation request, submitted on October 16, 2006, 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 Hampton Roads Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of the Hampton Roads Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for the Hampton Roads Area, submitted on October 18, 2006, as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Hampton Roads Area because it meets the requirements of section 175A. EPA is approving the Commonwealth's request that the 8-hour maintenance plan supersede the previous 1-hour maintenance plan. EPA is approving the MVEBs submitted by Virginia in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is also approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory, submitted on October 12, 2006 supplemented by VADEQ on November 20, 2006 and February 13, 2007, as a revision to the Virginia SIP. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for NO X and VOCs in the Hampton Roads Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, the Cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg, and the Counties of Isle of Wight, James City, and York, Virginia 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:

Hampton Roads is subject to the CAA's requirements for marginal ozone nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final 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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this final 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 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), nor will it 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), because it affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This final rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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. 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order.

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).

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 July 31, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action, to approve the redesignation request, maintenance plan, adequacy determination for MVEBs, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Hampton Roads Area, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its implementing regulations, which are found at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A (general provisions), G (summer flounder), H (scup), and I (black sea bass), describe the process for specifying annual recreational management measures that apply in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The states manage these fisheries within 3 nautical miles of their coasts, under the Commission's plan for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Federal regulations govern vessels fishing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as well as vessels possessing a Federal fisheries permit, regardless of where they fish.

The 2007 coastwide recreational harvest limits, after deduction of research set-aside (RSA), are 6,689,004 lb (3,034 mt) for summer flounder, 2,744,200 lb (1,245 mt) for scup, and 2,473,500 lb (1,122 mt) for black sea bass. The 2007 quota specifications, inclusive of the recreational harvest limits, were determined to be consistent with the 2007 target fishing mortality rate (F) for summer flounder and the target exploitation rates for scup and black sea bass.

The proposed rule to implement annual Federal recreational measures for the 2007 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries was published on March 15, 2007 (72 FR 12158), and contained management measures (minimum fish sizes, possession limits, and fishing seasons) intended to keep annual recreational landings from exceeding the specified harvest limits.

Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, NMFS concluded that the summer flounder precautionary default measures, as proposed by the Council and published in the March 15, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 12158)(a 1-fish possession limit, 18.5-inch (46.99-cm) minimum fish size, with no closed season) are inconsistent with the requirements for the precautionary default measures as outlined in Framework Adjustment 2 (Framework 2) to the FMP and do not achieve the necessary level of reduction in landings set out in the proposed rule.

Framework 2 indicates that the precautionary default measures are the set of measures that would achieve the greatest reduction in landings required for any state. Further analysis conducted by NMFS subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule has shown that the combination of minimum fish size, possession limit, and season proposed as the precautionary default measures in the proposed rule will not achieve the required reduction in landings to constrain harvest within the 2007 recreational harvest for New York. Based on its 2007 recreational harvest limit, New York is required to reduce landings by 48.6-percent from 2006 to 2007, as was indicated in the proposed rule. The proposed precautionary default measures would only have reduced landings by 41.8 percent.

However, increasing the minimum fish size to 19.0 inches (48.26cm) with a 1-fish possession limit and no closed season will ensure that all states, including New York, would achieve the required reductions in landings necessary for 2007. These measures with the slightly larger minimum fish size would reduce landings in New York by 55.3-percent from 2006 levels, thereby achieving the necessary reduction in landings for 2007.

Therefore, NMFS is increasing the minimum fish size of the 2007 summer flounder precautionary default measures from 18.5 inches (46.99cm) to 19 inches (48.26 cm) to ensure the necessary reduction levels indicated in the proposed rule and to ensure consistency with the intent of Framework 2 that the precautionary default measures achieve the necessary level of reduction required for each individual state.

States that do not submit conservation equivalency proposals or for which proposals were disapproved by the Commission or NMFS, are required to adopt the precautionary default measures. Though no states are required to adopt the precautionary default measures for 2007, NMFS is modifying the precautionary default measures in this final rule from what was proposed, as outlined above, to ensure the reduction levels as outlined in Framework 2 are attained. The appropriate regulatory text modification to implement this change can be found following the classification section of this rule.

In addition, the coastwide measures for summer flounder contained in the proposed rule were analyzed by the Council for their effectiveness in constraining recreational landings to the coastwide recreational harvest limit as published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75134). Following the Council's analysis, development of measures, and vote to implement conservation equivalency in 2007, the summer flounder recreational harvest limit for 2007 was increased by emergency rule (72 FR 2458, January 19, 2007). Additional analysis conducted by NMFS following the publication of the proposed rule has shown that the proposed coastwide measures would allow only 55-percent of the increased recreational harvest limit to be landed, if implemented for 2007. Instead, as discussed below, this rule implements state-by-state conservation equivalency measures for the 2007 summer flounder fishery. As such, the summer flounder coastwide measures are superceded by the conservation equivalency measures for the 2007 fishing year. However, these coastwide measures become the default regulatory provisions effective January 1, 2008, when conservation equivalent measures expire. As such, the coastwide measures remain in place in 2008 until such time that new measures, either conservation equivalency or coastwide measures, are developed by the Council and the Commission and implemented by NMFS for the 2008 fishery. NMFS has decided to conduct separate notice and comment rulemaking for summer flounder coastwide measures that would be less restrictive than the measures of the proposed rule while still constraining landings within the increased recreational harvest limit, as published in the emergency rule (72 FR 2458, January 19, 2007). A proposed rule containing these revised coastwide measures will be published in the Federal Register as soon as possible.

Additional discussion on the development of the recreational management measures appeared in the preamble of the proposed rule and is not repeated here. All minimum fish sizes discussed below are total length measurements of the fish, i.e., the straight-line distance from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail while the fish is lying on its side. For black sea bass, total length measurement does not include the caudal fin tendril. All possession limits discussed below are per person.

Based on the recommendation of the Commission, the Regional Administrator finds that the recreational summer flounder fishing measures proposed to be implemented by the states of Massachusetts through North Carolina for 2007 are the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103, and 648.105(a), respectively. According to the regulation at § 648.107(a)(1), vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part and landing summer flounder in a state with an approved conservation equivalency program shall not be subject to the more restrictive Federal measures, and shall instead be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land. Section 648.107(a) has been amended accordingly. The management measures will vary according to the state of landing, as specified in the following table.

Table 2 contains the coastwide Federal measures for scup and black sea bass in effect for 2007 and codified. These measures are unchanged from those at 50 CFR Part 648 subparts H and I.

As has occurred in the past 5 years, the scup fishery in state waters will be managed under a regional conservation equivalency system developed through the Commission. Because the Federal FMP does not contain provisions for conservation equivalency, and states may adopt their own unique measures, the Federal and state recreational scup management measures will differ for 2007.

Eight comments were received regarding the proposed recreational management measures (72 FR 12158, March 15, 2007). One individual submitted a single question as a comment, whose relevance to the recreational management measures could not be ascertained and therefore, is not responded to in this section.

Comment 1: The commenter expressed concern about the impact of commercial fishing on the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass total stocks and supports reduction of the total allowable landings for these species by 50 percent in 2007, and by an additional 10 percent each subsequent year. This commenter also stated that the recreational harvest limit reductions for 2007 were not sufficient.

Response: This final rule implements management measures (minimum fish sizes, possession limits, and fishing seasons) intended to keep annual recreational landings from exceeding the specified harvest limits. These limits have been set for 2007 at levels that will effectively constrain harvest within the specified F for each species under the FMP. As described in the proposed rule, the FMP established Monitoring Committees (Committees) for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries, consisting of representatives from the Commission, the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and South Atlantic Councils, and NMFS. The FMP and its implementing regulations require the Committees to review scientific and other relevant information annually and to recommend management measures (i.e., minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season) necessary to achieve the recreational harvest limits established for each of the three fisheries for the upcoming fishing year. While NMFS acknowledges that consideration of total allowable landings and quota allocation are important, this final rule is not the proper mechanism to address these general issues.

Comment 2: The commenter stated that the models used to create catch limits are not accurate and are not an accurate reflection of future targets.

Response: It is assumed that this comment is in reference to the models used in the derivation of the summer flounder TAL and for the rebuilding target for the summer flounder stock, as the comment is similar to many that were received on the proposed rule for the 2007 initial specifications (71 FR 62972, October 27, 2006).

The information used to set the summer flounder TAL is the best scientific information available, consistent with National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The information used in TAL setting, including the model and methods applied to it, have undergone substantial peer review in recent years. While recommendations have been made to develop additional modeling approaches, peer reviews have confirmed the current model and modeling approaches to be statistically valid for the annual stock assessment updates that provide the foundation for establishing the TAL. None of the peer-reviewed science utilized in setting summer flounder catch limits indicates that the rebuilding target cannot be attained within the rebuilding period or that the biomass target is incorrect.

Comment 3: This commenter wrote in opposition to the non-preferred coastwide alternative, stating that implementation of the coastwide measures would have significant economic impacts on her small bait and tackle shop in New Jersey.

Response: NMFS is implementing, though this final rule, conservation equivalency measures as developed by the individual states. Under this approach, each state, including New Jersey, developed and will implement unique management measures appropriate to that state that provide equivalent conservation as the Federal coastwide measures developed to achieve the overall recreational harvest limit. For 2007, New Jersey will implement a 17.0-inch (43.18-cm) minimum fish size, an 8-fish possession limit, and a May 26 through September 10 fishing season, as compared to the proposed coastwide measures of a 1-fish possession limit, 19.0-inch (48.26-cm) minimum fish size, and no closed season. It is expected that the measures developed by and implemented in New Jersey will assist in mitigating the economic impacts that would occur under the coastwide alternative, as outlined in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) contained in the proposed rule (71 FR 12158, March 15, 2007).

Comments 4 through 7: Several commenters urged NMFS to reject state-by-state conservation equivalency in favor of coastwide measures; advocated for the implementation of coastwide measures as developed by the Commission's Technical Committee following the emergency rule to increase the 2007 TAL (72 FR 2458, January 19, 2007), not those adopted by the Council and the Board that were based on the initial 2007 TAL published on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75134); and questioned if the best available science was used in development of the 2007 recreational management measures. Specifically, one such commenterquestioned the use of applying data from the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) and For-Hire Survey (FHS) on a state-by-state rather than a coastwide (regional) basis. Another commenter indicated that the coastwide measures adopted by the Council and the Board were not based on the January 19, 2007, emergency rule (72 FR 2458) and therefore, were not the best available science.

Response: NMFS is implementing, though this final rule, the Council and Board's preferred alternative of conservation equivalency, for the reasons previously outlined in the preamble to this final rule. Further, NMFS will be conducting a separate rulemaking, as previously discussed, to address potential changes to the coastwide measures in light of the increased TAL. That rulemaking will not replace conservation equivalency with coastwide measures.

NMFS acknowledges that the timing of the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization that was passed by the 109 th Congress on December 9, 2006, and the joint December 11, 2006, meeting at which the Council and Board voted for conservation equivalency, did not permit for detailed analysis of coastwide measures to constrain recreational harvest to what would eventually be the increased TAL as published on January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2458). However, a discussion was held at the joint Council and Board meeting wherein the assembled group discussed what impacts increasing the TAL might have on coastwide measures. Consequently both the Council and Board did consider this in their decision making. The Council and Board voted to adopt conservation equivalency for 2007, in light of these discussions, and forwarded that recommendation to NMFS. Further, NMFS acknowledges that the Council's analysis of the coastwide measures was crafted on the TAL as published on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75134), and as such, would be highly conservative (i.e., would constrain landings to 55 percent of the recreational harvest limit as increased by the January 19, 2007, emergency rule (72 FR 2458)). NMFS is aware that subsequent analyses have been conducted by the Board's Technical Committee to craft more liberal coastwide measures that would still constrain recreational landings within the recreational harvest limit as increased by the January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2458), emergency rule. These alternative coastwide measures have not been forwarded, through a majority vote from their memberships, from the Council and Board as a recommendation to replace conservation equivalency for 2007. Consequently, NMFS does not have a reasonable basis upon which to disapprove the Council and Board's preferred alternative in favor of the coastwide measures analyzed by the Board's Technical Committee in this final rule. The Council and the Board have elected to utilize conservation equivalency as the means to manage the recreational summer flounder fishery each year since the implementation of Framework 2.

MRFSS and FHS-supplied data have been utilized each year since the 2001 implementation of Framework 2 to craft state-by-state conservation equivalent measures. NMFS acknowledges that a recent review of MRFSS by the National Academies of Science has made substantial recommendations for the overhaul and redesign of the survey so that the data provided will better inform the agency's management and policy decisions. However, in the interim period while these changes are being undertaken by NMFS, the MRFSS and FHS supplied data constitute the only available information to formulate recreational fisheries management advice and, as such, its use is consistent with National Standard 2. These data may be improved by using larger regional or coastwide aggregations, but their use on a state-by-state basis, as has been done for the past 6 years, is not inappropriate for creating the 2007 conservation equivalent measures.

NMFS has determined that the final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the summer founder, scup, and black sea bass fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date for the summer flounder recreational management measures contained in this rule (§ 648.107(a)). The linchpin of NMFS's decision whether to proceed with the coastwide measures or to give effect to the conservation equivalent measures is advice from the Commission as to the results of its review of the plans of the individual states. This advice has only recently been received via a letter dated May 1, 2007. The recreational summer flounder fishery has commenced in all states and participation and landings are expected to increase through late spring and early summer. The party and charter vessels from the various states are by far the largest component of the recreational fishery that fish in the EEZ. The Federal coastwide regulatory measures for the three species that were codified last year remain in effect. The Federal coastwide measures for the summer flounder fishery do not achieve the necessary reduction in recreational landings to constrain the fishery to the 2007 recreational harvest limit. It is, therefore, imperative that NMFS implement measures, as quickly as possible, for the 2007 recreational summer flounder fishery to ensure that the mortality objectives of the 2007 recreational harvest limit are not compromised. The conservation equivalent measures approved by the Commission and implemented by this rule are such measures. The state-by-state conservation equivalent measures will, upon their implementation, restrict the recreational summer flounder coastwide landings within the 2007 recreational harvest limit.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Included in this final rule is the FRFA prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a). The FRFA incorporates the economic impacts described in the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of the EA/RIR/IRFA is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES ).

A description of the reasons why this action is being taken, and the objectives of and legal basis for this final rule are explained in the preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule and are not repeated here.

Two commenters raised the issue, supported by two additional commenters, that the non-preferred coastwide measures alternative, as analyzed and proposed by the Council and subsequently published in the proposed rule by NMFS, had been designed to constrain harvest to the recreational harvest level contained in the December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75134), specification final rule, not to the recreational harvest level of the January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2458), emergency rule that increased the 2007 specifications. NMFS finds these comments compelling and is, as previously indicated, planning on conducting notice and comment rule making to re-propose coastwide measures designed to constrain landings within the increased recreational harvest limit, as published in the January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2458), emergency rule. However, as these coastwide measures serve as the backstop in 2008 once conservation equivalent measures expire on December 31, 2007, addressing these comments in a later rulemaking does not affect actions taken herein. Additional information on this change is outlined in the preamble under the “Changes from the Proposed Rule” section. No additional changes to the proposed rule were required to be made as a result of the public comments. A summary of the comments received, and the responses thereto, are contained in the “Comments and Responses” section of this preamble.

The Council estimated that the proposed measures could affect any of the 920 vessels possessing a Federal charter/party permit for summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass in 2005, the most recent year for which complete permit data are available. However, only 331 of these vessels reported active participation in the recreational summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass fisheries in 2005.

No additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are included in this final rule.

Under the conservation equivalency approach, each state may implement unique management measures appropriate to that state to achieve state-specific harvest limits, as long as the combined effect of all of the states' management measures achieves the same level of conservation as would Federal coastwide measures developed to achieve the annual recreational harvest limit. The conservation equivalency approach allows states flexibility in the specification of management measures, unlike the application of one set of uniform coastwide measures. It is not possible to further mitigate economic impacts on small entities because the specification of the recreational management measures (minimum fish size, possession limits, and fishing seasons) contained in this final rule is constrained by the conservation objectives of the FMP.

The economic analysis conducted in support of this action assessed the impacts of the various management alternatives. In the EA, the no action alternative for each species is defined as the continuation of the management measures as codified for the 2006 fishing season. For summer flounder, state-specific implications of the no-action (coastwide) alternative of a 17-inch (43.18-cm) minimum fish size, a 4-fish possession limit, and no closed season would not achieve the mortality objectives required, and, therefore, cannot be continued for the 2007 fishing season.

The implications of the no-action alternative are not substantial for scup and black sea bass. Landings of these species in 2006 were less than their respective target for black sea bass and within the percent standard error for scup, and the status quo measures are expected to constrain landings to the 2007 targets. The no-action measures were analyzed in Summer Flounder Alternative 2, Scup Alternative 1, and Black Sea Bass Alternative 1.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the economic impact of summer flounder conservation equivalency on each state. The specific measures adopted for each state were only made available to NMFS on May 1, 2007, and were unavailable for analysis during this rulemaking. However, economic impact is likely to be proportional to the level of landings reductions required for each individual state. If the conservation equivalency alternative is effective at achieving the recreational harvest limit, then it is likely to be the only alternative that minimizes economic impacts, to the extent practicable, yet achieves the biological objectives of the FMP.

Further, NMFS has no authority to dictate, prescribe, or otherwise modify the measures adopted by each state under conservation equivalency. NMFS discretion in this regard is limited to a decision on whether to allow conservation equivalency as a replacement for uniform coastwide measures, and the basis for this decision is limited to a determination of whether the measures adopted under conservation equivalency achieve the biological objectives of the FMP.

Under § 648.107, vessels landing summer flounder in any state that does not implement conservation equivalent measures are subject to the precautionary default measures, consisting of an 19-inch (48.26-cm) minimum fish size, a possession limit of one fish, and no closed season. The suites of conservation equivalent measures proposed by each state are less restrictive than the precautionary default measures. Therefore, because states have a choice as to the specific measures to apply to landings in each state, it is more rational for the states to adopt the conservation equivalent measures that they have proposed and that result in fewer adverse economic impacts than to adopt the more restrictive measures that contained in the precautionary default alternative.

For the proposed rule, average party/charter losses for each of the 18 potential combinations of alternatives were estimated for federally permitted vessels. Predicted average losses for New York were presented as an example, and ranged from $4,834 per vessel under the combined effects of Summer Flounder Alternative 1, Scup Alternative 1, and Black Sea Bass Alternative 2, to $6,122 per vessel under the combined effects of the Summer Flounder Alternative 2, Scup Alternative 2, and Black Sea Bass Alternative 3 (assuming a 25-percent reduction in effort for affected trips).

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as the small entity compliance guide was prepared and will be sent to all holders of Federal party/charter permits issued for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. In addition, copies of this final rule and the small entity compliance guide are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and at the following website: http://www.nero.noaa.gov .