Section 19(b)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)) requires each depository institution to maintain reserves against its transaction accounts and nonpersonal time deposits, as prescribed by Board regulations, for the purpose of implementing monetary policy. Section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a)(2)) authorizes the Board to require reports of liabilities and assets from depository institutions to enable the Board to conduct monetary policy. The Board's actions with respect to each of these provisions are discussed in turn below.

Pursuant to section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act (Act), transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution are subject to reserve requirement ratios of zero, three, or ten percent. Section 19(b)(11)(A) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(11)(A)) provides that a zero percent reserve requirement shall apply at each depository institution to total reservable liabilities that do not exceed a certain amount, known as the reserve requirement exemption amount.

Section 19(b)(11)(B) provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the reserve requirement exemption amount for the next calendar year if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions increase from one year to the next. No adjustment is made to the reserve requirement exemption amount if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions should decrease during the applicable time period. The Act requires the percentage increase in the reserve requirement exemption amount to be 80 percent of the increase in total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.

Total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions increased 11.0 percent (from $3,779 billion to $4,200 billion) between June 30, 2006, and June 30, 2007. Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D to increase the reserve requirement exemption amount by $0.8 million, from $8.5 million for 2007 to $9.3 million for 2008. 1

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)), transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution over the reserve requirement exemption amount and up to a certain amount, known as the low reserve tranche, are subject to a three percent reserve requirement. Transaction account balances over the low reserve tranche are subject to a ten percent reserve requirement. Section 19(b)(2) also provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the low reserve tranche for the next calendar year. The Act requires the adjustment in the low reserve tranche to be 80 percent of the percentage increase or decrease in total transaction accounts of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.

Currently, the low reserve tranche is $45.8 million. Net transaction accounts of all depository institutions decreased 5 percent (from $681 billion to $646 billion) between June 30, 2006 and June 30, 2007. Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D (12 CFR part 204) to decrease the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts by $1.9 million, from $45.8 million for 2007 to $43.9 million for 2008.

For depository institutions that file deposit reports weekly, the new low reserve tranche and reserve requirement exemption amount will be effective for the fourteen-day reserve computation period beginning Tuesday, November 20, 2007, and for the corresponding fourteen-day reserve maintenance period beginning Thursday, December 20, 2007. For depository institutions that report quarterly, the new low reserve tranche and reserve requirement exemption amount will be effective for the seven-day reserve computation period beginning Tuesday, December 18, 2007, and for the corresponding seven-day reserve maintenance period beginning Thursday, January 17, 2008.

Section 11(b)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act authorizes the Board to require depository institutions to file reports of their liabilities and assets as the Board may determine to be necessary or desirable to enable it to discharge its responsibility to monitor and control the monetary and credit aggregates. The Board screens depository institutions each year and assigns them to one of four deposit reporting panels (weekly reporters, quarterly reporters, annual reporters, or nonreporters). The panel assignment for annual reporters is effective in June of the screening year; the panel assignment for weekly and quarterly reporters is effective in September of the screening year.

In order to ease reporting burden, the Board permits smaller depository institutions to submit deposit reports less frequently than larger depository institutions. The Board permits depository institutions with net transaction accounts above the reserve requirement exemption amount but total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits below a specified level (the “nonexempt deposit cutoff”) to report deposit data quarterly. Depository institutions with net transaction accounts above the reserve requirement exemption amount but with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits above the nonexempt deposit cutoff are required to report deposit data weekly. The Board requires certain large depository institutions to report weekly regardless of the level of their net transaction accounts if the depository institution's total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits exceeds a specified level (the “reduced reporting limit”). The nonexempt deposit cutoff level and the reduced reporting limit are adjusted annually, by an amount equal to 80 percent of the increase, if any, total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.

From June 30, 2006 to June 30, 2007, total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits at all depository institutions increased 5 percent (from $5,867 billion to $6,168 billion). Accordingly, the Board is adjusting the nonexempt deposit cutoff level to $216.2 million for 2008. The Board is also adjusting the reduced reporting limit to $1.211 billion for 2008. 2

Beginning in 2008, the boundaries of the four deposit reporting panels will be defined as follows. Those depository institutions with net transaction accounts over $9.3 million (the reserve requirement exemption amount) or with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to $1.211 billion (the reduced reporting limit) are subject to detailed reporting, and must file a Report of Transaction Accounts, Other Deposits and Vault Cash (FR 2900 report) either weekly or quarterly. Of this group, those with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to $216.2 million (the nonexempt deposit cutoff level) are required to file the FR 2900 report each week, while those with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $216.2 million are required to file the FR 2900 report each quarter. Those depository institutions with net transaction accounts less than or equal to $9.3 million (the reserve requirement exemption amount) and with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $1.211 billion (the reduced reporting limit) are eligible for reduced reporting, and must either file a deposit report annually or not at all. Of this group, those with total deposits greater than $9.3 million (but with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $1.211 billion) are required to file the Annual Report of Deposits and Reservable Liabilities (FR 2910a) report annually, while those with total deposits less than or equal to $9.3 million are not required to file a deposit report. A depository institution that adjusts reported values on its FR 2910a report in order to qualify for reduced reporting will be shifted to an FR 2900 reporting panel.

Notice and Regulatory Flexibility Act. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice of proposed rulemaking have not been followed in connection with the adoption of these amendments. The amendments involve expected, ministerial adjustments prescribed by statute and by the Board's policy concerning reporting practices. The adjustments in the reserve requirement exemption amount, the low reserve tranche, the nonexempt deposit cutoff level, and the reduced reporting limit serve to reduce regulatory burdens on depository institutions. Accordingly, the Board finds good cause for determining, and so determines, that notice in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary. Consequently, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, do not apply to these amendments.

On June 14, 2007, the FAA issued AD 2007-13-11, Amendment 39-15115 (72 FR 34363, June 22, 2007), which applies to Eclipse EA500 airplanes. AD 2007-13-11 requires you to incorporate information into the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) that will require operation only in day visual flight rules (VFR), allow only a VFR flight plan, and maintain operation with two pilots.

The published AD references an incorrect docket of Docket No. FAA-2007-28432 instead of Docket No. FAA-2007-28462.

This correction is needed to incorporate all docket information for this project into its own area in the Docket Management System (DMS).

Accordingly, the publication of June 22, 2007 (72 FR 34363), of Amendment 39-15115; AD 2007-13-11, which was the subject of FR Doc. E7-11933, is corrected as follows:

On page 34363, in the third column, in the fourth line, change “Docket No. FAA-2007-28432” to “Docket No. FAA-2007-28462.”

On page 34364, in the first column, on line 25 under ADDRESSES , change “Docket No. FAA-2007-28432” to “Docket No. FAA-2007-28462.”

On page 343645, in the third column, in the ninth and tenth lines under Comments Invited, change “Docket No. FAA-2007-28432” to “Docket No. FAA-2007-28462.”

On May 12, 2005, EPA published the CAIR in a final rule entitled, “Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to NO X SIP Call” (70 FR 25162). The CAIR requires affected States to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) that contribute significantly to nonattainment and maintenance problems in downwind States with respect to the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) and 8-hour ozone. Among other things, the rule establishes emissions reporting requirements for the affected States. On April 28, 2006, EPA amended the CAIR to include two additional States in CAIR with respect to the PM 2.5 NAAQS (71 FR 25288). On April 28, 2006, EPA published FIPs for the CAIR as part of a final rule entitled, “Rulemaking on Section 126 Petition From North Carolina to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Revisions to the Clean Air Interstate Rule; Revisions to the Acid Rain Program” (71 FR 25328).

For a detailed description of the CAIR and the CAIR FIPs, please see the rulemaking actions which are available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/cair and in the Federal Register at 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005), 71 FR 25328 (April 28, 2006), 71 FR 74792 (December 13, 2006), and 71 FR 25328 (April 28, 2006).

40 CFR 51.125 sets forth SO 2 and NO X emission reporting requirements that must be included in State SIP revisions to meet the requirements of CAIR. Section 51.125(a)(1) as promulgated in the original CAIR read as follows: “Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, must report annual (12 months) emissions of SO 2 and NO X .” (See 70 FR at 25333; May 12, 2005.) When EPA revised the CAIR in 2006 to add two additional States (Delaware and New Jersey) to the CAIR region for the PM 2.5 NAAQS, EPA revised § 51.125 to add the two States to the list of those required to report annual NO X and SO 2 emissions. However, in revising the regulatory text, EPA inadvertently deleted the phrase “must report annual (12 months) emissions of SO 2 and NO X ” (71 FR at 25302; April 28, 2006). Therefore, EPA is correcting the error and restoring the phrase as originally promulgated in CAIR. The EPA is also taking this opportunity to correct the typographical errors in the spelling of three States in the list of States in § 51.125(a)(2) of CAIR.

EPA is also correcting a typographical error in a section reference in Appendix A to subpart EEEE of part 97 in the CAIR NO X Ozone Season FIP.

The EPA is issuing this final rule without prior proposal or the opportunity for public comment because EPA finds that it is unnecessary and not in the public interest to provide such notice and opportunity for comment. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that when an Agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest, the Agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity to comment. Section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), among other things, further provides that CAA subsection 307(d) does not apply when EPA has made a good cause finding pursuant to subparagraph (B) of APA subsection 553(b). (See 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1).) In this rule, EPA finds that it is unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose for EPA to provide an opportunity for public comment because the changes to the CAIR and CAIR FIPs merely correct minor, inadvertent, and nonsubstantive errors. As explained above, the correction to 40 CFR section 51.125(a)(1) corrects a minor error that was inadvertently introduced in 2006 and restores the original language properly promulgated with significant public input in 2005. The additional spelling and citation corrections are minor, nonsubstantive corrections to eliminate errors in the regulatory text. Further, EPA provided notice, public hearings, and an opportunity to comment when promulgating the CAIR and CAIR FIPs. For these reasons, EPA finds pursuant to APA section 553 that good cause exists to promulgate this final rule without publishing notice of a proposed rule or providing an opportunity for public comment.

Section 553(d)(3) also allows an agency, upon a finding of good cause, to make a rule effective immediately. Because this action corrects inadvertent errors and helps to clarify requirements in the underlying rules, EPA finds good cause exists to make these corrections effective immediately.

This action only corrects minor, inadvertent and nonsubstantive errors in the CAIR and the CAIR FIPs promulgated in 2005 and 2006 respectively. For that reason, this rule: is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2); and does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Because EPA found that for this action it is unnecessary to issue a proposed rule and invite public comment, this action is also not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104B4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of the UMRA.

The corrections do not have substantial direct effects on the States, or 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, Federalism (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999).

This action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified in Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The corrections also are not subject to Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because this action is not economically significant.

The corrections are not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

The corrections do not involve changes to technical standards related to test methods or monitoring methods; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply.

The corrections also do not involve special consideration of environmental justice-related issues as required by Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this final action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the U.S. prior to publication of this action in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will be effective on October 1, 2007.

The EPA's compliance with the above statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying rules is discussed in Section X of the CAIR at 70 FR 25305 and in Section IX of the CAIR FIPs at 71 FR 25365.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to Alabama's SIP submitted on March 7, 2007. In its SIP revision, Alabama has met the CAIR requirements by requiring certain electric generating units (EGUs) to participate in the EPA-administered State CAIR cap-and-trade programs addressing SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. Alabama's regulations adopt by reference most of the provisions of EPA's SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season model trading rules, with certain changes discussed below. EPA has determined that the SIP as revised will meet the applicable requirements of CAIR. As a result of this action, the Administrator of EPA will also issue a final rule to withdraw the FIPs concerning SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions for Alabama. The Administrator's action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.54 and 40 CFR 52.55, relating to the CAIR FIP obligations for Alabama. The withdrawal of the CAIR FIPs for Alabama is a conforming amendment that must be made once the SIP is approved because EPA's authority to issue the FIPs was premised on a deficiency in the SIP for Alabama. Once a SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer has authority for the FIPs. Thus, EPA does not have the option of maintaining the FIPs following full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment on the withdrawal of the FIPs.

EPA proposed to approve Alabama's request to amend the SIP on July 12, 2007 (72 FR 38045). In that proposal, EPA also stated its intent to withdraw the FIP, as described above. The comment period closed on August 13, 2007. No comments were received. EPA is finalizing the approval as proposed based on the rationale stated in the proposal and in this final action.

The CAIR was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS for PM 2.5 and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind States in the eastern part of the country. As a result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their SIPs to include control measures that reduce emissions of SO 2 , which is a precursor to PM 2.5 formation, and/or NO X , which is a precursor to both ozone and PM 2.5 formation. For jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM 2.5 nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO 2 and annual State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X . Similarly, for jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X for the ozone season (May 1 to September 30). Under CAIR, States may implement these reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other control measures.

CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective on May 25, 2005, that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, three years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO 2 and NO X and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase of NO X reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014, while the first phase of SO 2 reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both NO X and SO 2 starts in 2015 and continues thereafter. CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either: (1) Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs; or (2) adopting other control measures of the State's choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with the applicable State SO 2 and NO X budgets.

The May 12, 2005, and April 28, 2006, CAIR rules provide model rules that States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.

With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One exception is for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered trading programs. The other exception is for States that include all non-EGUs from their NO X SIP Call trading programs in their CAIR NO X ozone season trading programs.

In this action, EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's SIP revision that adopts the following budgets for the State, i.e., 69,020 (2009-2014) and 57,517 (2015-thereafter) tons for NO X annual emissions, 34,510 (2009-2014) and 29,146 (2015-thereafter) tons for NO X ozone season emissions, and 157,582 (2010-2014) and 110,307 (2015-thereafter) tons for SO 2 emissions. The NO X ozone season budget properly reflects the inclusion of NO X SIP Call trading program units in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program, as discussed below. Alabama's SIP revision sets these budgets as the total amounts of allowances available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs.

The CAIR NO X annual and ozone season model trading rules both largely mirror the structure of the NO X SIP Call model trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the provisions of the NO X annual and ozone season model rules are similar, there are some differences. For example, the NO X annual model rule (but not the NO X ozone season model rule) provides for a compliance supplement pool (CSP), which is discussed below and under which allowances may be awarded for early reductions of NO X annual emissions. As a further example, the NO X ozone season model rule reflects the fact that the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program replaces the NO X SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated with the NO X SIP Call program. The NO X ozone season model rule provides incentives for early emissions reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NO X SIP Call allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program. In addition, States have the option of continuing to meet their NO X SIP Call requirement by participating in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program and including all their NO X SIP Call trading sources in that program.

The provisions of the CAIR SO 2 model rule are also similar to the provisions of the NO X annual and ozone season model rules. However, the SO 2 model rule is coordinated with the ongoing Acid Rain SO 2 cap-and-trade program under CAA title IV. The SO 2 model rule uses the title IV allowances for compliance, with each allowance allocated for 2010-2014 authorizing only 0.50 ton of emissions and each allowance allocated for 2015 and thereafter authorizing only 0.35 ton of emissions. Banked title IV allowances allocated for years before 2010 can be used at any time in the CAIR SO 2 cap-and-trade program, with each such allowance authorizing one ton of emissions. Title IV allowances are to be freely transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain Program and sources covered by the CAIR SO 2 cap-and-trade program.

EPA also used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account for Federal rather than State implementation. The CAIR model SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to work together as integrated SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs.

In the SIP revision, Alabama has chosen to implement its CAIR budgets by requiring EGUs to participate in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. Alabama has adopted a full SIP revision (with the revisions discussed above) that adopts, with certain allowed changes discussed below, the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions.

In general, the CAIR model trading rules apply to any stationary, fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990 or the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale.

States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NO X ozone season program only, those units in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR. States exercising this option need to add the applicability provisions in the State's NO X SIP Call trading rule for non-EGUs to the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 96.304 in order to include in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program all units required to be in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program that are not already included under 40 CFR 96.304. Under this option, the CAIR NO X ozone season program must cover all large industrial boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small EGUs (i.e. units serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less) that the State currently requires to be in the NO X SIP Call trading program.

Alabama has chosen to expand the applicability provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program to include all non-EGUs in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program.

Under the NO X allowance allocation methodology in the CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NO X annual and ozone season allowances are allocated to units that have operated for five years, based on heat input data from a three-year period that are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior year emissions.

States may establish in their SIP submissions a different NO X allowance allocation methodology that will be used to allocate allowances to sources in the States if certain requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative NO X allowance allocation methodologies, States have flexibility with regard to: (1) The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be distributed for free or auctioned; (2) the frequency of allocations; (3) the basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed, for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal output; and (4) the use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size.

Alabama has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO X annual and CAIR NO X ozone season model trading rules concerning the allocation of allowances with its own methodology. Alabama has chosen to distribute NO X annual allowances based upon allocation methods for existing, replacement, and new units. As explained in the proposed approval, EPA understands that the language is intended to mean that allocations will be determined by the dates and only for the years identified or described in 40 CFR 96.141 and 40 CFR 96.341. EPA did not receive any comments on this issue, and concludes that this understanding is a correct interpretation of Alabama's rules. Additionally, Alabama's CAIR NO X Annual and CAIR NO X ozone season rules establish permanent allocations for specified units designated as “existing units” or “new units” and do not include provisions of the EPA's model rules that call for adjusting the allocations for existing units to provide allocations for future, new units.

Finally, Alabama's CAIR NO X ozone season rule includes special provisions concerning the allocation of allowances for the 2009 control period. As discussed above, Alabama's rule expanded the applicability provisions of the model rule to include—as CAIR NO X ozone season units—those units in Alabama's NO X SIP Call program (i.e., Alabama's NO X Budget Trading Program) that are not covered by model rule applicability provisions. Alabama already issued NO X allowances to some of those units for 2009 under the NO X Budget Trading Program. Alabama's rule (in Rule 335-3.8-.29(3)(d)1.(i)) states that, if a unit was allocated more allowances under the NO X Budget Trading Program for 2009 than it would otherwise be allocated under Alabama's allocation provisions generally applicable to CAIR NO X ozone season units, then the Department “will allocate the same number of CAIR Ozone Season allowances” to that unit. The allocations to other units under the generally applicable allocation provisions will be reduced for 2009 in order to take account of this adjustment of the NO X Budget Trading Program unit's 2009 allocation. Further, Alabama's rule (in Rule 335-3.8-.29(2)(a)1.) states that, for the 2009 control period, the Department will submit to the Administrator, for the purpose of recording allocations, “only the difference between the CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowance allocations and the 2009 NO X Budget Trading Program allowance allocations.” In short, Alabama's rule treats each unit's 2009 NO X Budget Trading Program allocation as a 2009 CAIR NO X ozone season allocation for that unit that has been previously recorded by the Administrator. EPA therefore interprets Alabama's rule to provide that each 2009 NO X Budget Trading Program allowance is a 2009 CAIR NO X ozone season allowance, whether the NO X Budget Trading Program allowance is still held by the owners and operators of the unit or has been transferred to other parties. Consistent with this interpretation of Alabama's rule, the Administrator—in operating the CAIR NO X Ozone Season Tracking System—will treat each such allowance as usable for compliance with the allowance-holding requirements of the CAIR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program by any CAIR NO X ozone season source that holds the allowances in the source's compliance account as of the allowance transfer deadline, regardless of the State in which the source is located.

EPA is taking final action to approve the above-described variations in Alabama's rule from the model rule provisions because the changes are consistent with the flexibility that CAIR provides States with regard to allocation methodologies.

The CAIR establishes a compliance supplement pool to provide an incentive for early reductions in NO X annual emissions. The CSP consists of 200,000 CAIR NO X annual allowances of vintage 2009 for the entire CAIR region, and a State's share of the CSP is based upon the projected magnitude of the emission reductions required by CAIR in that State. States may distribute CSP allowances, one allowance for each ton of early reduction, to sources that make NO X reductions during 2007 or 2008 beyond what is required by any applicable State or Federal emission limitation. States also may distribute CSP allowances based upon a demonstration of need for an extension of the 2009 deadline for implementing emission controls.

The CAIR annual NO X model trading rule establishes specific methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances. States may choose an allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to allocate CSP allowances to sources in the States.

Alabama has chosen to modify the provisions from the CAIR NO X annual model trading rule concerning the allocation of allowances from the CSP. Alabama has chosen to distribute CSP allowances using an allocation methodology that allows the Department to allocate up to 10,166 additional CAIR NO X allowances for the control period in 2009. CAIR NO X units that achieve emissions reductions in 2007 and 2008, that are not necessary to comply with applicable emissions limitations during those years, may request early reduction credits. The units requesting CSP allocations must submit a request by May 1, 2009, to ADEM. Sources are eligible to receive CSP allowances only to the extent that that the total number of allowances issued does not exceed 15 percent of the total number of NO X allowances issued to that unit from the initial allowance allocation. Any remaining CSP allowances after the initial distribution will be allocated to eligible units on a pro rata basis, provided that no unit is issued more allowances than the early reduction credits requested by that unit in accordance with ADEM's CSP provisions.

The opt-in provisions of the CAIR SIP model trading rules allow certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015.

States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions. States may adopt the CAIR opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them but exclude one of the methodologies for allocating allowances. States may also decline to adopt the opt-in provisions at all.

Alabama has chosen to allow non-EGUs meeting certain requirements to opt into the CAIR trading programs by adopting by reference the entirety of EPA's model rule provisions for opt-in units in the CAIR SO 2 , CAIR NO X annual, and CAIR NO X ozone season trading programs.

EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's full CAIR SIP revision submitted on March 7, 2007. Under this SIP revision, Alabama is choosing to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. EPA has determined that the SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard to NO X annual and NO X ozone season emissions, and 40 CFR 51.124(o), with regard to SO 2 emissions. EPA has determined that the SIP as revised will meet the requirements of CAIR. The Administrator of EPA will also issue, without providing an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment, a final rule to withdraw the CAIR FIPs concerning SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions for Alabama. The Administrator's action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.54 and 40 CFR 52.55. EPA will take final action to withdraw the CAIR FIPs for Alabama in a separate rulemaking.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this action approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 30, 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

We are approving the Phase II Rule, submitted by Indiana on March 8, 2006 and supplemented on June 22, 2006, to control NO X emissions from IC engines in Indiana. EPA proposed to approve the Phase II Rule on May 30, 2007 (72 FR 29897), and received no comments.

Indiana's Phase II Rule is consistent with the NO X SIP Call Technical Amendments published in the Federal Register dated April 21, 2004, (69 FR 21604). The State has shown, through its budget demonstration, that it can achieve the Phase II budget increment through source compliance with the State's rules affecting IC engines and the State's permitting program. Meeting the Phase II budget increment and the Phase I increment means the State will meet its total overall ozone season NO X budget and bring about reductions in ozone concentrations in the State and downwind from Indiana.

EPA is also approving other changes to Indiana's NO X SIP. These other changes are minor clerical corrections and changes in definitions to conform to the changes made by EPA in the NO X Phase II Rule.

New rule 326 IAC 10-5 applies to any person who owns or operates a large stationary reciprocating IC engine or other smaller stationary IC engines that are included in a compliance plan. A large IC engine is defined as an engine that emits more than one ton of NO X per ozone season day, based on operation during the 1995 ozone season. Pipeline energy companies are the major users of large IC engines and the State developed its budget demonstration based on control of engines used in this energy transport industry.

The Indiana IC engine program is approvable because implementation of the program will result in reduction of NO X and meet the cap in emissions for units in this source category. The Indiana program meets the Phase II incremental difference of 4,244 tons per ozone season, as specified in the April 21, 2004 Federal Register (69 FR 21604).

The minor amendments to 326 IAC 10-3 and 326 IAC 10-4 are also approvable as they clarify regulatory language and correct various clerical errors. They also incorporate changes applicable to EGUs and non-EGUs, made in accordance with EPA's Phase II Rule, including the definitions of “EGU” and “non-EGU” as applied to co-generation units.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant regulatory action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly “Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ).

Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act (CAA).

This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 30, 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See Section 307(b)(2).)

Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? IV. What Is the Result of EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's CAIR SIP Submittal? A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs C. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGUs NO X SIP Call Sources D. NO X Allowance Allocations E. Allocation of NO X Allowances From the Compliance Supplement Pool F. Individual Opt-in Units G. Satisfying Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act V. Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Taking? CAIR SIP and 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Approval

EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to New Jersey's SIP, submitted on February 6, 2007, as revised. In response to EPA's comments provided during New Jersey's rulemaking and in the proposed approval, New Jersey adopted new rules regarding the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) NO X Trading Program on June 19, 2007. The State submitted these rules to EPA on July 9, 2007. The adoption was published in the New Jersey Register on July 16, 2007 (39 N.J.R. 2637(a)). The SIP revision modifies the application of certain provisions of the CAIR FIPs that require emission reductions of SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. This less comprehensive CAIR SIP is termed an abbreviated SIP. This revision includes a new regulation, N.J.A.C. 7:27-30, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) NO X Trading Program. As part of the revision, New Jersey has also adopted N.J.A.C. 7:27-31.23 to provide the date when New Jersey's CAIR NO X Trading Program will replace New Jersey's NO X Budget Trading Program (Subchapter 31). New Jersey has also adopted “7:27A-3.10 Civil administrative penalties for violation of the rules adopted pursuant to the Act.”

New Jersey is subject to the CAIR FIPs that implement the CAIR requirements by requiring certain Electric Generating Units (EGUs) to participate in the EPA-administered Federal CAIR SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season cap-and-trade programs. The SIP revision provides a methodology for allocating NO X allowances for the NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs. The CAIR FIPs provide that this methodology, upon approval by EPA, will be used to allocate NO X allowances to sources in New Jersey, instead of the federal allocation methodology otherwise provided in the FIPs. The SIP revision also retires rather than allocates allowances from the NO X annual Compliance Supplement Pool (CSP).

EPA has determined that New Jersey's CAIR NO X Trading Program, as finalized in the New Jersey Register on July 16, 2007 ((39 N.J.R. 2637(a)), satisfies the applicable requirements for an abbreviated CAIR SIP revision. Consistent with the flexibility provided in the FIPs, the provisions of New Jersey's CAIR NO X Trading Program will be used to replace or supplement, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions in the CAIR FIPs for New Jersey. EPA will not make any changes to the CAIR FIP, but will amend the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note approval of the New Jersey CAIR NO X Trading Program.

EPA is also approving “N.J.A.C. 7:27-31.23 Replacement of the NO X Budget Program” which establishes a transition date for the replacement of the State's NO X Budget Program (Subchapter 31), beginning with the 2009 control period, with the New Jersey CAIR program.

In addition, EPA is also approving a revision to New Jersey's SIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This section of the CAA requires each state to submit a SIP that contains adequate provisions to prohibit sources in the state from emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment of the NAAQS, (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS, (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and (4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility.

On July 3, 2007, EPA proposed full approval of New Jersey's SIP revision provided that New Jersey's final rule was consistent with the modifications provided in EPA's comments during rulemaking and in its proposal (72 FR 36406). EPA has determined that New Jersey's revised CAIR rule, adopted June 19, 2007, has addressed the concerns, discussed in its comments during rulemaking and in the proposed approval, regarding shutdown units, correction of allocations to new and existing units, and prorating for the New Source/Growth Reserve. The comment period for the EPA proposal closed on August 2, 2007. No comments were received. EPA is finalizing full approval based on the rationale stated in the proposal and in this final action.

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA determined that 28 states and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM 2.5 ) and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind states in the eastern part of the country. As a result, EPA required those upwind states to revise their SIPs to include control measures that reduce emissions of SO 2 , which is a precursor to PM 2.5 formation, and/or NO X , which is a precursor to both ozone and PM 2.5 formation. For jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM 2.5 nonattainment, CAIR sets annual state-wide emission reduction requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO 2 and annual state-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X . Similarly, for jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets state-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X for the ozone season (May 1st to September 30th). Under CAIR, states may implement these emission budgets by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other control measures.

CAIR explains to subject states what must be included in SIPs to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective May 25, 2005, that the subject states had failed to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, 3 years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. These May 25, 2005 findings started a 2-year clock for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP anytime after such findings are made and must do so within two years unless a SIP revision correcting the deficiency is approved by EPA before the FIP is promulgated. On August 17, 2006, EPA issued guidance for SIP submissions states should make to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all states covered by CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are achieved on schedule. Each CAIR state is subject to the FIPs until the state fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIPs require certain EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone-season model trading programs, as appropriate. The CAIR FIP SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements as, and are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs. The integration of the CAIR FIP and SIP trading programs means that these trading programs will work together to create effectively a single trading program for each regulated pollutant (SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season) in all states covered by a CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that pollutant. The CAIR FIPs also allow states to submit abbreviated SIP revisions that, if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or supplement the corresponding CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for allocating NO X allowances to sources in the state), while the CAIR FIP remains in place for all other provisions.

On April 28, 2006, EPA published CAIR-related final rules that added the states of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of states subject to CAIR for PM 2.5 .

CAIR establishes state-wide emission budgets for SO 2 and NO X and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase of NO X reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014, while the first phase of SO 2 reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both NO X and SO 2 starts in 2015 and continues thereafter. CAIR requires states to implement the budgets by either: (1) Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs, or (2) adopting other control measures of the State's choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with the applicable State SO 2 and NO X budgets.

The May 12, 2005 and April 28, 2006 CAIR rules provide model rules that states must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.

With two exceptions, only states that choose to meet the requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One exception is for states that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered trading programs. The other exception is for states that include all non-EGUs from their NO X SIP Call trading programs in their CAIR NO X ozone season trading programs.

The CAIR FIP established the EGU budgets for New Jersey as 12,670 tons for the years 2009-2014 (Phase I) and 10,558 tons for the years 2015 and beyond (Phase II) for NO X annual emissions; 6,654 tons for the years 2009-2014 (Phase I) and 5,545 tons for the years 2015 and beyond (Phase II) for NO X ozone season emissions; and 32,392 tons for the years 2010-2014 (Phase I) and 22,674 tons for the years 2015 and beyond (Phase II) for SO 2 emissions. New Jersey's SIP revision does not affect these budgets, which are the total amount of allowances available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program under the CAIR FIP. In short, the abbreviated SIP revision only affects allocations of allowances under the established budgets.

The CAIR NO X annual and ozone-season FIPs both largely mirror the structure of the NO X SIP Call model trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the provisions of the NO X annual and ozone-season FIPs are similar, there are some differences. For example, the NO X annual FIP (but not the NO X ozone season FIP) provides for a Compliance Supplement Pool (CSP), discussed below, under which allowances may be awarded for early reductions of NO X annual emissions. As a further example, the NO X ozone season FIP reflects the fact that the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program replaces the NO X SIP Call trading program for EGUs after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated with the NO X SIP Call program. States also have the option of continuing to meet their NO X SIP Call non-EGU reduction obligations by participating in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program and including all their NO X SIP Call trading sources in that program. In addition, the NO X ozone season FIP provides incentives for early emissions reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NO X SIP Call allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NO X ozone-season trading program.

The provisions of the CAIR SO 2 FIP are also similar to the provisions of the NO X annual and ozone season FIPs. However, the SO 2 FIP is coordinated with the ongoing Acid Rain SO 2 cap-and-trade program under CAA title IV. The SO 2 FIP uses the title IV allowances for compliance, with each allowance allocated for 2010-2014 authorizing only 0.50 ton of emissions and each allowance allocated for 2015 and thereafter authorizing only 0.35 ton of emissions. Banked title IV allowances allocated for years before 2010 can be used at any time in the CAIR SO 2 cap-and-trade program, with each such allowance authorizing 1 ton of emissions. Title IV allowances are to be freely transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain Program and sources covered by the CAIR SO 2 cap-and-trade program.

EPA used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account for federal rather than state implementation. The CAIR model SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to work together as integrated SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs.

New Jersey is subject to the CAIR FIPs for ozone and PM 2.5 and the CAIR FIP trading programs for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season apply to sources in New Jersey. Consistent with the flexibility it gives to states, the CAIR FIPs provide that states may submit abbreviated SIP revisions that will replace or supplement, as appropriate, certain provisions of the CAIR FIP trading programs. The submission by New Jersey on February 6, 2007, as subsequently revised and submitted on July 9, 2007, is such an abbreviated SIP revision.

States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NO X ozone season program only, those units in a state's NO X SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR. EPA advises states exercising this option to use provisions for applicability that are substantively identical to the provisions in 40 CFR 96.304 and add the applicability provisions in the State's NO X SIP Call trading rule for non-EGUs to the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 96.304 in order to include in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program all units required to be in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program that are not already included under 40 CFR 96.304. Under this option, the CAIR NO X ozone season program must cover all large industrial boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small EGUs (i.e. units serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less), that the State currently requires to be in the NO X SIP Call trading program.

Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the CAIR FIP, New Jersey has chosen not to expand the applicability provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program to include all non-EGUs in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program. New Jersey's non-EGUs and small electric generating units (EGUs) will be subject to Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) or state of the art rules.

Under the NO X allowance allocation methodology in the CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIPs, NO X annual and NO X ozone season allowances are allocated to units that have operated at least for five years, based on heat input data from a three-year period that are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR FIPs also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior year emissions. The CAIR FIPs provide states the flexibility to establish a different NO X allowance allocation methodology that will be used to allocate allowances to sources in the states if certain requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances allocated for each control period.

New Jersey has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO X annual and ozone season FIP concerning allowance allocations with its own methodology. New Jersey will distribute NO X annual and ozone season allowances to CAIR units based upon historical electrical and thermal output. Allowances will be distributed and not auctioned. The distribution of allowances will be based on the previous three years of data. New Jersey has established set-asides for new source/growth (“New Source/Growth Reserve”), and energy efficiency and renewable energy programs or techniques (“Incentive Reserve”). Each year, New Jersey is allocating ten percent of the State's CAIR NO X annual and CAIR NO X ozone season budgets to the New Source/Growth Reserve, and five percent of the State's CAIR NO X annual and CAIR NO X ozone season budgets to the Incentive Reserve. Additional details regarding New Jersey's NO X allocation methodology can be found in EPA's proposal to approve New Jersey's SIP revision, which was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2007 (72 FR 36406).

In the proposal published on July 3, 2007, EPA stated that several provisions of New Jersey's NO X allocation proposal were inconsistent with the NO X allocation timing requirements of the abbreviated SIP revision requirements and the CAIR FIP trading programs. EPA further stated that full approval of New Jersey's proposed regulation was contingent upon New Jersey modifying their proposed rule in order to clarify that EPA's NO X allocation timing requirements will be met under New Jersey's program. Sections 51.123(p)(1)(ii)(B) and (ee)(2)(ii)(C) of CAIR require that the State determines and notifies the Administrator of each existing unit's allowance allocation at least 3 years in advance of the CAIR FIP NO X annual and ozone season programs. Sections 51.123(p)(1)(ii)(C) and (ee)(2)(ii)(D) require that the state determines, and notifies the Administrator of each new unit's allowances by October 31 (for the CAIR NO X annual trading program) or July 31 (for the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program) of the year for which the allowances are being allocated.

As we indicated in our July 3, 2007 proposal, New Jersey's proposed regulation did not meet NO X allocation timing requirements for existing or new units that must surrender and transfer allowances to EPA for retirement for the year in which the unit shuts down and any year thereafter. As written in New Jersey's proposed rule, the owner or operator of an existing unit that is required to surrender allowances will no longer be able to buy or sell allowances, or undertake other allowance market activities, that were provided three years in advance and already recorded into their compliance account. EPA indicated that it was not clear from New Jersey's proposal what the timing would be for surrendering the allowances, and whether the State intended for recorded allowances to be surrendered.

In response to EPA's comment, New Jersey modified its rule concerning allocations for shutdown units. EPA has determined that the modification is acceptable because it terminates future allocations once a unit is permanently shut down, but does not take back any allowances that were previously allocated to the unit.

EPA also indicated, in our July 3, 2007 proposal, that New Jersey's regulation as proposed did not meet NO X allocation timing requirements with regard to the provision in New Jersey's rule that provides the state may determine that existing (or new) units for current or past years had been erroneously allocated too many or too few allowances based on inaccurate data or projections. As written in the proposed rule, it was unclear how long after determination and recordation of an allocation New Jersey may determine that the allocation was incorrect.

In response to EPA's comment, New Jersey modified its rule concerning the correction of allocations for existing and new units. EPA has determined that the modification is acceptable because it allows corrections only before, and not after, the EPA Administrator records the allocations. This removes the potential for taking back units' allocations after recordation.

EPA also indicated in our July 3, 2007 proposal that New Jersey's proposed rule also provided that if the sum of new unit allocations (determined by October 31 or July 31 of the year for which allocations are made) and the existing unit growth allocations (determined by the end of the year for which allocations are made) exceeded the total amount of the New Source/Growth Reserve for the year, all the allocations from the reserve will be reduced on a pro-rata basis so that the total amount allocated to these new and existing units does not exceed the reserve. We stated that New Jersey should clarify that the allocation-proration provisions will be applied to new unit allocations before the October 31 deadline for NO X annual submission, or before the July 31 deadline for the NO X ozone season submission of new unit allocations to EPA and applied to the existing unit growth allocations before the March 1 deadline for submission of those allocations to EPA.

New Jersey modified the proposed rule concerning allocations from the New Source/Growth Reserve so that the application of pro-rata distribution of such allocations is performed separately for new units and for existing units with growth and the process for new units is performed before new-unit allowances are allocated. EPA has determined that the modification is acceptable because it removes the potential for take back of new units' allocations.

EPA is taking final action to approve New Jersey's methodology for allocating NO X allowances for the NO X annual and NO X ozone season trading programs because the methodology is consistent with the flexibility that CAIR provides states with regard to allocation methodologies.

The Compliance Supplement Pool (CSP) provides an incentive for early reductions in NO X annual emissions. The CSP consists of 200,000 CAIR NO X annual allowances of vintage 2009 for the entire CAIR region, and a state's share of the CSP is based upon the state's share of the projected emission reductions under CAIR. The CAIR NO X annual FIP establishes specific methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances. States may choose an allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to allocate CSP allowances to sources in those states. EPA had allocated to New Jersey allowances equal to 660 tons of NO X annual emissions for possible distribution.

New Jersey has chosen to modify the provisions of the CAIR NO X annual FIP concerning the allocation of allowances from the CSP. New Jersey has chosen to retire all of the CSP allowances budgeted for New Jersey by not allocating them to CAIR units. EPA is taking final action to approve New Jersey's retirement of the CSP allowances budgeted to New Jersey since this is consistent with the flexibility provided to states under CAIR.

The opt-in provisions allow for certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015.

States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions. The rules for each of the CAIR FIP trading programs include opt-in provisions that are essentially the same as those in the respective CAIR SIP model rules, except that the CAIR FIP opt-in provisions become effective in a state only if the state's abbreviated SIP revision adopts the opt-in provisions. The state may adopt the opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them but exclude one of the allowance allocation methodologies. The state also has the option of not adopting any opt-in provisions in the abbreviated SIP revision and thereby providing for the CAIR FIP trading program to be implemented in the State without the ability for units to opt into the program.

New Jersey has chosen not to allow non-EGUs meeting the FIP specified requirements to participate in the CAIR NO X annual trading program, the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program, and the SO 2 trading program.

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that could adversely affect another state. The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts that will: (1) Contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment of the NAAQS, (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS, (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and (4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility.

EPA issued guidance on August 15, 2006, relating to SIP submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). As discussed below, New Jersey's SIP revision with respect to the statutory requirements is consistent with the guidance.

New Jersey addresses the first two of these four elements by complying with the requirements of CAIR. New Jersey satisfies these requirements either by relying on the existing CAIR FIPs, or through approval of this SIP revision.

The third element New Jersey addresses is prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). In accordance with the guidance issued on August 15, 2006, states may continue to rely on their existing Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) and PSD permitting programs to prevent significant deterioration of air quality within their own boundaries and in adjacent states. For 8-hour ozone, the state has met the obligation by confirming that the existing ozone Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting program remains in effect and applies to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the State's major stationary sources. New Jersey has noted that the State's current NNSR program retains the lower applicability levels and higher off-set ratios previously required under the states 1-hour ozone classification. EPA anticipates that the state will adopt a final attainment demonstration for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by September 8, 2007. For PM 2.5 , the State has confirmed that the state's NNSR and PSD programs are being implemented in accordance with EPA's interim guidance calling for the use of PM 10 as a surrogate for PM 2.5 . New Jersey commits to revising its NNSR program and adopting a PSD program after EPA finalizes its PM 2.5 implementation rule.

It should be noted that the entire State of New Jersey is nonattainment for 8-hour ozone, necessitating only a NNSR program (not PSD) for ozone. For PM 2.5 the State has both attainment and non-attainment areas, necessitating both NNSR and PSD programs for PM 2.5 .

Consistent with EPA's August 15, 2006 guidance, at this time, it is impossible for New Jersey to accurately determine whether there is interference with measures in another state's SIP designed to protect visibility, which is the fourth element that was addressed. New Jersey has indicated that it will address the visibility protection requirements once the regional haze SIP is completed and submitted to EPA in December of 2007.

EPA is taking final action finding that the SIP revision adequately addresses the required elements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with the exception of the requirement to protect visibility. This requirement will be re-evaluated after the regional haze SIP is completed and submitted to EPA in December 2007.

EPA is taking final action to fully approve New Jersey's abbreviated SIP revision submitted on February 6, 2007, and subsequently revised on July 9, 2007. New Jersey is covered by the CAIR FIPs, which require participation in the EPA-administered CAIR FIP cap-and-trade for SO 2 , NO X annual, NO X ozone season emissions. Under this abbreviated SIP revision and consistent with the flexibility given to states in the FIPs, New Jersey has adopted under N.J.A.C. 7:27-30, the CAIR NO X Trading Program, provisions for allocating allowances under the CAIR FIP NO X annual and ozone season trading programs. In addition, New Jersey has also adopted at N.J.A.C. 7:27-31.23 the date when New Jersey's CAIR NO X Trading Program will replace New Jersey's NO X Budget Trading Program (Subchapter 31). New Jersey has also adopted in the abbreviated SIP revision provisions that retire CSP allowances. As provided for in the CAIR FIPs, New Jersey provisions for allocating NO X annual and ozone season allowances and for retiring CSP allowances, will replace or supplement the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs in New Jersey. EPA has determined that New Jersey's abbreviated CAIR SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(p) and (ee) with regard to NO X annual and NO X ozone season emissions. EPA is not making changes to the CAIR FIP, but is amending the appropriate appendices of 40 CFR part 97 in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note approval of New Jersey's SIP revision.

EPA is also taking final action regarding the required elements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA has determined that, with the exception of the protection of visibility requirement, that the SIP revision adequately addresses the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This requirement will be re-evaluated after the regional haze SIP is completed and submitted to EPA in December 2007.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 30, 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

In FR Doc. 07-4292 of August 31, 2007 (72 FR 50214), there were errors that are identified and corrected in “Section III Correction of Errors”. The provisions in this correction notice are effective as if they had been included in the August 31, 2007 final rule. Accordingly, these corrections are effective October 1, 2007.

Table A of the Addendum lists the fiscal year (FY) 2008 urban wage index values for hospice providers by Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) designations. To ensure that hospice providers are able to identify their FY 2008 wage index value, table A contains the CBSA codes, CBSA county name (urban area), and CBSA wage index for urban geographic areas. However, for CBSA codes 29940 and 44140, on pages 50238 and 50245, respectively, we inaccurately specified the urban areas.

These errors do not represent a change in policy. In addition, these changes are consistent with the proposed rule (72 FR 24146 and 24162) and how the urban areas have been defined in the past.

FR Doc. 07-4292 of August 31, 2007 (72 FR 50214), make the following corrections:

1. On page 50238, in “TABLE A—HOSPICE WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS BY CBSA,” the urban area for CBSA code 29940 is corrected to read as follows:

2. On page 50245, in “TABLE A—HOSPICE WAGE INDEX FOR URBAN AREAS BY CBSA,” the urban area for CBSA code 44140 is corrected to read as follows:

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect, in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register . This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

The revisions contained in this document merely correct typographical errors in Table A of the Addendum. These corrections are necessary to ensure that the final rule accurately reflects the correct urban areas. Since these changes do not represent any policy changes, but are merely technical in nature, we find that public comments on these revisions are unnecessary. Therefore, we find good cause to waive notice and comment procedures and the 30-days delay in effective date.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, WT Docket No. 07-54, RM-11043, adopted September 7, 2007 and released September 10, 2007. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's Internet site at http://www.fcc.gov. It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-5563; e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. Alternate formats are available to persons with disabilities by e-mail @ FCC504@fcc.gov or by calling (202) 418-0530 or TTY (202) 418-0432.

1. In this Report and Order, in WT Docket No. 07-54, the Commission adopted amendments to 47 CFR 101.115 to permit the installation of smaller antennas by Fixed Service (FS) operators in the 10.7-11.7 GHz (11 GHz) band. The Commission also amended 47 CFR 101.115 to require any FS licensee that deploys a smaller antenna that does not comply with Category A standard in the 11 GHz band to ensure that the introduction of such an antenna into the 11 GHz band does not cause any more interference to other licensees and applicants in the band than an antenna meeting the Category A standard. The Commission found that these modifications serve the public interest by facilitating the efficient use of the 11 GHz band while protecting other users in the band from interference. Because our adoption of the subject rules permits FS licensees to deploy smaller antennas without seeking waivers, the Report and Order also dismissed, as moot, pending requests for waiver to allow the use of smaller antennas in the 11 GHz band.

2. The Commission found that allowing licensees the flexibility of using smaller antennas in the 11 GHz band serves the public interest because the lower costs and enhanced benefits associated with 0.61 meter antennas will result in a more efficient use of the 11 GHz band without harming existing users. Technology has evolved since the Commission adopted the current antenna specifications for the 11 GHz band, and actions taken by the Commission in other FS and mobile bands have increased the need for greater flexibility for FS in the 11 GHz band. Antenna standards exist for the purpose of promoting the use of the most discriminating equipment to facilitate the introduction of new transmission paths. As noted in the NPRM, the Commission has reconsidered similar technical specifications that effectively limited the size of antennas used in other bands, including those used by satellite, in light of the technological evolution of communications equipment since those specifications were first adopted. Accordingly, the Commission found amending the antenna specifications in the 11 GHz band to be consistent with actions taken in other bands, including the 10 GHz band.

3. The Commission rejected the contentions by some commenting parties that proponents of the rule change have failed to demonstrate that there is a need for additional FS operations in the 11 GHz band and that harmful interference can be avoided. The Commission found that commenting parties presented a strong record demonstrating that the proposed rule would afford FS users the flexibility necessary to more fully and efficiently utilize the 11 GHz band by deploying 0.61 meter antennas, thereby facilitating a range of fixed microwave applications, including backhaul and more innovative and emerging wireless services. The FS has a special need for flexibility in the use of their spectrum because the Commission has reallocated FS spectrum to other services in recent years and because the new spectrum available to FS is most suitable for short-range applications.

4. The Commission also rejected, as unfounded, the suggestion that the use of smaller antennas would limit the availability of 11 GHz spectrum in rural areas. No evidence was introduced to support such a contention in this proceeding. The Commission anticipated that most small antennas will be used for shorter links in urban or suburban areas. However, the Commission also noted that it is not in the public interest to make less efficient use of the spectrum solely for the convenience of one licensee.

5. The 11 GHz band is allocated within the United States on a co-primary basis to FS and Fixed Satellite Service (FSS). In this Report and Order , the Commission rejected the proposal by Intelsat, Ltd. to segment the 11 GHz band by allocating 500 megahertz of spectrum to FS and 500 megahertz of spectrum to the FSS. The Commission found that the proposal exceeds the scope of this proceeding. The Commission also found that there is no record to support such an action in this proceeding. The Commission noted that the band segmentation proposal was a radically different solution for avoiding interference between FS and FSS operators and has been offered at the comment stage in this proceeding without any study of its implications. Furthermore, the domestic use of the 11 GHz band by the FSS has been limited, to date, because it has sought to protect the use and expansion of terrestrial microwave services within the band. The Commission emphasized in the Report and Order that its rules explicitly limit satellite use of the 11 GHz band to international systems. Under those circumstances, the Report and Order found no support for denying FS operators access to half of the 11 GHz band. The Commission has designated the 11 GHz band as one of the relocation bands for emerging technologies.

6. In the Report and Order , the Commission adopted modifications to the antenna standards for FS operation in the 11 GHz band. The Commission rejected FiberTower's proposal to have two different Category A and Category B standards. Instead, the Commission revised the Category B standard and treated all antennas that do not comply with the Category A standard as Category B antennas. The Commission also adopted a special provision allowing the use of 11 GHz Category B antennas in all areas, as opposed the normal restriction limiting Category B antennas to rural areas. The Commission also rejected a proposal to impose an EIRP limitation on facilities using Category B antennas. Although the Commission generally agreed that larger antennas will be more appropriate for longer links, it found that there may be situations where an operator has no alternative to using a smaller antenna for a longer link.

7. The Commission generally concluded that allowing smaller antennas in the 11 GHz band will not harm existing users. An applicant proposing the use of a smaller antenna will need to coordinate its proposed facilities with existing users. Moreover, the record contained specific analyses submitted by proponents of the rule changes indicating that the use of smaller FS antennas in the 11 GHz band is not likely to cause significantly more interference than current antennas. Although the Commission specifically sought comment on the Alcatel White Paper in the NPRM, none of the opponents of allowing smaller antennas in the 11 GHz band addressed the White Paper or attempted to rebut its showings. In addition, the Commission further noted that none of the opponents offered any engineering analysis to show that there would be any material risk of increased interference.

8. The Commission rejected arguments by Intelsat, Ltd. that the Commission should prohibit the use of smaller antennas in the 11 GHz band because other users in the band will experience harmful interference due to the aggregate effect of several nearby FS antennas. The Commission emphasized that no opponent of the rule changes provided any engineering analysis or other evidence to support their contentions. Moreover, the Commission found that the existing coordination procedures, such as the right of existing users to raise objections in the coordination process and the practice of using different frequency channels, should be sufficient to protect existing FS and FSS operators. The Commission noted that the primary concern of opponents appears to be that allowing the use of smaller antennas in the 11 GHz band would result in increased FS use of the band and increase the possibility that aggregate interference would occur. However, the Commission emphasized that it has limited the expansion of FSS in the 11 GHz band in order protect the future use of the band for FS. Accordingly, the Commission viewed rule changes that would allow greater FS use of the 11 GHz band as beneficial to the public interest, so long as existing users would not be harmed.

9. In the Report and Order , the Commission noted that Mobile Satellite Ventures, L.P. (MSV) and Terrestar Networks, Inc. (Terrestar) identified a more specific concern about the effect of aggregate interference on its next generation, geostationary orbit (GSO) Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) gateway earth stations authorized for feeder link operations in the 11 GHz band. The Commission stated that it expected all FS applicants for new or modified facilities in the 11 GHz band to carefully coordinate their operations with the authorized feeder link operations of any licensed GSO MSS gateway earth station in the 11 GHz band so as to avoid harmful aggregate interference. Specifically, the Commission expects FS applicants to consider the possibility of aggregate interference in determining whether they must coordinate with the authorized feeder link operations of any licensed GSO MSS gateway earth station in the 11 GHz band. If an MSS licensee raises aggregate interference concerns in the coordination process, the Commission stated that the licensee and the FS applicant must work to resolve those concerns in the coordination process. If issues relating to aggregate interference are brought to the Commission's attention, either in a statement submitted with an application or in a timely petition, the Commission will carefully consider such issues.

10. The Commission rejects the unsupported contention that errors in correctly pointing antennas will occur more frequently with smaller antennas and thereby cause greater interference to other users in the band. FS licensees and equipment manufacturers demonstrated that they have a strong incentive to accurately point their antennas and routinely point antennas to a high degree of accuracy. The record demonstrated that there is no significant difference between antennas currently authorized under the Commission's Rules and smaller antennas in terms of the likelihood of pointing error. Furthermore, the parties stated that they would work quickly to correct any pointing errors that do occur, and the Commission expects all licensees to promptly remedy any errors that do exist.

11. The Commission adopted a rule that in those instances where a FS licensee deploys a smaller, Category B compliant antenna in the 11 GHz band, the FS licensee must modify the use of such antenna if another FS or FSS licensee or applicant in the 11 GHz band makes a showing (i) that it is likely to receive interference due to the use of the smaller, Category B compliant antenna and (ii) that such interference would not exist if the FS station were using a Category A compliant antenna instead. In response to such a showing, the FS licensee that had opted to deploy a smaller, Category B compliant antenna must either replace its antenna with a Category A complaint antenna or appropriately reduce EIRP. That rule will place other applicants and licensees in the 11 GHz band—whether FS or FSS—in a position no worse than if an FS licensee were using a Category A compliant antenna. The Commission rejected a proposal to place language in the rule referencing the on-axis EIRP of the station in question as unnecessary and unduly restrictive. The Commission believes that FS licensees using smaller antennas should have the flexibility to adjust their EIRP in order to resolve interference concerns, so long as FS and FSS applicants are no worse off than they were if the licensee was using an antenna meeting Category A standards.

12. The Commission also adopted a rule stating that a FS licensee that opts to deploy a Category B compliant antenna in the 11 GHz band may only object to a prior coordination notice based on interference if the predicted interference would not otherwise exist if the FS licensee were using a Category A compliant antenna instead of a Category B compliant antenna. The Commission found that the adoption of these rules serves the public interest by appropriately balancing the rights of all interested parties in the 11 GHz band, promoting the efficient use of the spectrum, and protecting the rights of existing and future users of the band.

13. The Commission also declined to establish a deadline for the resolution of interference complaints involving FS interference to FSS earth stations. The Commission has not mandated a specific deadline for resolving interference complaints in other point-to-point microwave bands, and the 11 GHz band does not have any unique characteristics that would justify a special rule for that band. In addition, proponents of the proposal failed to demonstrate that our existing rules are inadequate or that FS licensees are unwilling to resolve interference issues as they occur.

14. Nextlink Wireless, Inc., First Avenue Networks, Inc., Telecom Transport Management, Inc., and Conterra Ultra Broadband, LLC had filed waiver requests seeking permission to use smaller antennas in the 11 GHz band. The Commission dismissed the pending waiver requests as moot. The rules adopted in this Report and Order will provide the parties seeking a waiver with the opportunity to use smaller antennas in the 11 GHz band. The Commission granted FiberTower a waiver to permit it to deploy smaller antennas in the 11 GHz band subject to a condition that it must comply with the outcome of this rulemaking proceeding. The Commission will terminate the waiver granted to FiberTower on the date the rules adopted herein become effective.

15. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), we incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making ( NPRM ) in WT Docket 07-54. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM , including comment on the IRFA. Because we amend the rules in this Report and Order , we have included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). This present FRFA conforms to the RFA.

16. In this Report and Order , we adopt amendments to Section 101.115 of the Commission's rules to permit the installation of smaller antennas by Fixed Service (FS) operators in the 10.7—11.7 GHz (11 GHz) band. Section 101.115(b) of the Commission's rules establishes directional antenna standards designed to maximize the use of microwave spectrum, including the 11 GHz band, while avoiding interference between operators. More specifically, the Commission's rules set forth certain requirements, specifications, and conditions pursuant to which FS stations may use antennas that comply with either the more stringent performance standard in Category A (also known as Standard A) or the less stringent performance standard in Category B (also known as Standard B). The rule on its face does not mandate a specific size of antenna. Rather, it specifies certain technical parameters—maximum beamwidth, minimum antenna gain, and minimum radiation suppression—that, depending on the state of technology at any point in time, directly affect the size of a compliant antenna that may be deployed in the 11 GHz band. The Commission found a demonstrated need in this proceeding to reconsider and to modify the antenna standards set forth in Section 101.115 of the Commission's rules because actions taken by the Commission in other bands have increased the need for greater flexibility for FS in the 11 GHz band; because technology has significantly evolved since the Commission last considered the antenna specifications for the 11 GHz band; and because the Commission has reconsidered similar technical specifications that effectively limited the size of antennas used in other bands, including those used by satellite, in light of the technological evolution of communications equipment since those specifications were first adopted.

17. In this Report and Order , we adopt amendments to Section 101.115 of the Commission's rules to revise the Category B standards for the 11 GHz band to permit, as proposed in the NPRM, the use of FS antennas with reduced mainbeam gain, increased beamwidth, and modified sidelobe suppression. We conclude in this Report and Order that, by treating smaller antennas that do not comply with Category A standard as Category B antennas, the amended rules will afford licensees maximum flexibility in deploying FS antennas in the 11 GHz band. While licensees in the FS will now have additional options to deploy smaller antennas in the 11 GHz band that comply with the revised Category B standard, FS licensees also retain the discretion to maintain and continue to deploy Category A compliant antennas in the band. In this Report and Order , we also amend Section 101.115 of the Commission's rules to impose a duty on any FS licensee that deploys a smaller antenna in the 11 GHz band that does not comply with the Category A standard to ensure that the introduction of such antennas does not cause harmful interference to other licensees and applicants in the band. We find that the amendments we adopt in this Report and Order further the public interest and promote our goals of facilitating the efficient use of the 11 GHz band while also protecting other users in the band from interference.

18. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.

19. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

20. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

21. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. At present, there are approximately 36,708 common carrier fixed licensees and 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services. For purposes of the FRFA, we will use the SBA's definition applicable to Cellular and other Wireless Telecommunications companies—i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. We note that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number of licensees. We estimate that all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

22. Satellite Telecommunications and Other Telecommunications. There is no small business size standard developed specifically for providers of international service. The appropriate size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad census categories of “Satellite Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.” Under both categories, such a business is small if it has $13.5 million or less in average annual receipts.

23. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.

24. The second category of Other Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1) providing specialized telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or (2) providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite systems.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 259 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.

25. Space Stations (Geostationary). Commission records reveal that there are 15 space station licensees. We do not request nor collect annual revenue information, and thus are unable to estimate of the number of geostationary space stations that would constitute a small business under the SBA definition cited above, or apply any rules providing special consideration for Space Station (Geostationary) licensees that are small businesses.

26. Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Currently there are approximately 3,390 operational fixed-satellite transmit/receive earth stations authorized for use in the C- and Ku-bands. The Commission does not request or collect annual revenue information, and thus is unable to estimate the number of earth stations that would constitute a small business under the SBA definition.

27. This Report and Order adopts no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. This Report and Order adopts amendments to Part 101 of the Commission's rules to afford FS licensees in the 11 GHz band with the flexibility to deploy smaller antennas that comply with the less stringent Category B standard or to maintain as well as continue to deploy antennas that comply with the more stringent Category A standard. The proposed amendments would apply equally to large and small entities and benefit all FS licensees by reducing the burden of seeking individual waivers to permit the use of smaller antennas in the 11 GHz band.

28. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof for small entities.

29. In this Report and Order , we adopt amendments to Section 101.115 of the Commission's Rules to revise the Category B standard for the 11 GHz band to permit, as proposed in the NPRM, the use of FS antennas with reduced mainbeam gain, increased beamwidth, and modified sidelobe suppression. Licensees in the FS will now have additional options to deploy smaller antennas in the 11 GHz band that comply with the revised Category B standard while retaining the discretion to maintain and continue to deploy antennas that comply with the more stringent Category A standard, which has not been modified in this Report and Order . Smaller antennas that comply with the revised Category B standard cost less to acquire, deploy, and maintain, thereby reducing the expenditure of capital and human resources otherwise necessary to deploy and maintain Category A compliant antennas. We conclude in this Report and Order that our action serves the public interest by facilitating the efficient use of the 11 GHz band. The deployment of smaller antennas that comply with the revised Category B standard could promote a wide range of fixed microwave applications that are not currently being provided for in the 11 GHz band for financial, aesthetic, and regulatory reasons. In addition, a number of the commenting parties in this proceeding identify themselves as small business entities and express their need to deploy smaller antennas in the 11GHz band in order to open up economic opportunities and to provide for a wide range of services, including, for example, the provision of backhaul services.

30. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order , including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order , including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and the FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register .

31. Paperwork Reduction Analysis: This document contains no new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104.13.

32. Congressional Review Act: The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801 (a)(1)(A).

33. Pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333 and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333, and 706, that this Report and Order is adopted.

34. Pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and Section 1.925 of the Commission's rules, that the Petition for Waiver filed by Nextlink Wireless, Inc. on August 4, 2006, the Petition for Waiver filed by First Avenue Networks, Inc. on August 10, 2006, the Petition for Waiver and Expedited Action filed by Telecom Transport Management, Inc. on September 8, 2006, and the Petition for Expedited Waiver Pending Rulemaking filed by Conterra Ultra Broadband, LLC on January 22, 2007 are dismissed as moot.

35. Pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and Section 1.925 of the Commission's rules, that the waiver granted to FiberTower Corporation in FiberTower, Inc., Order , 21 FCC Rcd 6386 (WTB 2006) is terminated on the date the rules adopted in this Report and Order become effective, with facilities authorized pursuant to the waiver being grandfathered.

36. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order , including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

PHMSA annually reviews the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) to identify typographical and other errors, outdated addresses or other contact information, and similar errors. In this final rule, we are correcting typographical errors; incorrect CFR references and citations; inaccurate office names; inconsistent use of terminology; misstatements of certain regulatory requirements; and inadvertent omissions of information. In addition, this final rule revises the address for PHMSA to indicate the new location for the headquarters office.

Because these amendments do not impose new requirements, notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary. By making these amendments effective without the customary 30-day delay following publication, the changes will appear in the next revision of Title 49.

The following is a summary by section of the major changes made in this final rule. The summary does not include minor editorial corrections such as punctuation errors, or similar minor revisions.

This section contains general requirements for registration. In paragraph (a), we are removing the reference to § 107.616(d) for consistency with revisions made in HM-208F (72 FR 24536; May 3, 2007). The HM-208F final rule removed paragraph (d) of § 107.616.

This section lists approved collections of information required under the HMR. In the table in paragraph (b)(2), in the third column for OMB control number 2137-0557, we are removing the reference citations to §§ 178.270-3 and 178.270-13. Section 178.270-3 was removed in an earlier rulemaking, and we are removing § 178.270-13, which addresses testing requirements for IM 101 and 102 specification portable tanks in this final rule. As prescribed in § 173.32(c)(2), the manufacture of these portable tanks is no longer authorized.

This section lists material incorporated by reference into the HMR. In paragraph (a)(3), in the second column of the table of material incorporated by reference, for the entry ASME Code, Sections II (Parts A and B), V, VIII (Division 1), and IX, we are removing the reference citations, §§ 178.270-2 through 178.272-1, which contain requirements applicable to the manufacture of IM 101 and 102 portable tanks, because the manufacture of these portable tanks is no longer authorized. Additionally, we are updating a reference citation for the use of the UN Recommendations.

This section lists definitions for terms used in the HMR. In the definition for “Administrator,” we are correcting the office name “Research and Special Programs Administration” to read “Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.” In the definition for “Shipping paper,” we are removing the references to “§§ 172.202, 172.203 and 172.204” to clarify that shipping papers must be prepared in accordance with the requirements in subpart C of part 172.

This section provides transitional provisions for recently adopted regulatory changes. In paragraph (d)(6), we are correcting the citation “172.202(a)(6)” to read “172.202(a)(7)” for consistency with revisions made to § 173.202(a) in a final rule published under docket number HM-215I (71 FR 78596; December 29, 2006).

This section contains telephonic notification requirements for certain hazardous materials transportation incidents. In paragraph (b)(3), we are correcting the telephone report requirements for infectious substances by removing the term “diagnostic specimen” since that term no longer appears in the HMR.

This section contains requirements for specific materials and packages transported under the international standards. In paragraph (b)(5), we are correcting requirements by removing an inaccurate exception for Class 7 (radioactive) materials included in a final rule published under docket number HM-215F (72 FR 25162; May 3, 2007).

We are removing the entries “ Helium-oxygen mixture, see Rare gases and oxygen mixtures,” “ Nitrogen, mixtures with rare gases, see Rare gases and nitrogen mixtures,” and “ Oxygen, mixtures with rare gases, see Rare gases and oxygen mixtures.” These entries are being removed for consistency with revisions made in the final rule published under docket number HM-215I.

We are correcting entries in the HMT as follows:

• For the entries “Ammonia, anhydrous,” Division 2.3, UN1005, “Ammonia solution, relative density less than 0.880 at 15 degrees C in water, with more than 50 percent ammonia ,” Division 2.3, UN3318, and “Ammonia solutions, relative density less than 0.880 at 15 degrees C in water, with more than 35 percent but not more than 50 percent ammonia ,” UN2073, we are correcting Column (7) by adding “N87.” Special provision “N87” was inadvertently omitted. This correction appears as a “Remove/Add” in this rulemaking.

• For the entry “Articles, explosive, n.o.s.,” UN0353, in Column (6), we are correcting the label code “1.4GD” to read “1.4G.”

• For the entry “Articles, explosive, n.o.s.,” UN0467I, in Column (4), we are correcting the identification number to read “UN0467” and in Column (5), we are correcting the packing group to read “II.” This correction appears as a “Remove/Add” in this rulemaking.

• For the entry “Caesium hydroxide solution,” UN2681, PG III, in Column (8B), we are correcting the section reference to read “203.”

• For the entry “Contrivances, water-activated, with burster, expelling charge or propelling charge, ” UN0248, we are correcting Column (1) by adding “G.” Symbol “G” was inadvertently omitted.

• For the entry “Contrivances, water-activated, with burster, expelling charge or propelling charge, ” UN0249, we are correcting Column (1) by adding “G.” Symbol “G” was inadvertently omitted.

• For the entry “Hydrazine, aqueous solution, with more than 37% hydrazine, by mass, ” UN2030, PG III, in Column (8A), we are correcting the section reference to read “154.”

• For the entry “Hydrogendifluorides, solid, n.o.s.,” UN1740, PG II and III, the proper shipping name is corrected to the singular form to read “Hydrogendifluoride, solid, n.o.s.” This correction appears as a “Remove/Add” in this rulemaking.

• For the entry “Hydrogen peroxide, aqueous solutions with more than 40 percent but not more than 60 percent hydrogen peroxide (stabilized as necessary,)  ” UN2014, we are correcting Column (7) by adding “A60.” Special provision “A60” was inadvertently omitted.

• For the entry “Hydrogen peroxide, aqueous solutions with not less than 8 percent but less than 20 percent hydrogen peroxide (stabilized as necessary,)  ” UN2984, in Column (8C), we are correcting the section reference to read “241.”

• For the entry “Nitrocellulose, with not more than 12.6 percent nitrogen, by dry mass, or Nitrocellulose mixture with pigment or Nitrocellulose mixture with plasticizer or Nitrocellulose mixture with pigment and plasticizer,” UN2557, we are revising the proper shipping name in column (2) to read “Nitrocellulose, with not more than 12.6 percent, by dry mass mixture with or without plasticizer, with or without pigment.” This revision is being made for consistency with the description for UN2557 in the UN Recommendations, and appears as a “Remove/Add” in this rulemaking.

• For the entry “4-Nitrophenylhydrazine, with not less than 30% water, by mass, ” UN3376, in Column (7) we are correcting Special provision “164” to read “162.” Special provision “164” was inadvertently assigned in place of “162.” This correction appears as a “Remove/Add” in this rulemaking.

• For the entry “Organoarsenic compound, liquid, n.o.s.,” UN3280, PG I, II, and III, the information in the columns associated with PG I is corrected by aligning the hazardous material information with the appropriate columns. This correction appears as a “Remove/Add” in this rulemaking.

• For the entry “Paint or Paint related materials,” UN3066, PG II and III, the proper shipping name is corrected to the singular form to read “Paint or Paint related material.” This correction appears as a “Remove/Add” in this rulemaking.

Section 172.202 contains requirements for shipping descriptions on shipping papers. In paragraph (a)(6)(vi), we are correcting the wording “except for UN2800, UN3072, and UN3166” to read “except for UN2800, UN2807, UN3072, UN3166 and UN3171” for consistency with the preamble discussion to § 172.202(a) in the final rule published under docket number HM-215I.

This section establishes general marking requirements for bulk packaging. In paragraph (f), we are revising the last sentence to clarify the example illustrating a circumstance for which a bulk packaging need not be remarked to conform to revisions made in the shipping name of the material it contains.

This section addresses prohibited marking. In paragraph (a), we are adding the clarifying language “or any other markings indicating that the material is hazardous (e.g., RQ, INHALATION HAZARD)” for consistency with the language used elsewhere in the HMR.

This section sets forth requirements for placarding for subsidiary hazards. In paragraph (a), we are correcting the reference “§ 172.203(m)(2)” to read “§ 172.203(m).” Paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) were combined into a single paragraph (m) in a final rule published under docket number HM-189Y (70 FR 56804; September 23, 2005).

This section establishes exceptions from certain HMR requirements for materials of trade. In paragraph (a)(4), we are correcting the word “movement” to read “shifting” for consistency with the language used in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3).

This section sets forth general shipper responsibilities. In paragraph (c)(2), we are removing the acronym “PHMSA” following the wording “Associate Administrator,” because it is unnecessary. Section 171.8 defines the term “Associate Administrator” to mean the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

This section establishes requirements for the use of railroad tank cars. Paragraph (g) of this section addresses tank car loading and unloading requirements. In paragraph (g)(1), we are revising the wording “unloader” to read “each hazmat employee who is responsible for loading or unloading” to clarify that the requirements of this section apply to both loading and unloading operations. In addition, we are correcting the wording “blocked” to read “locked.” In paragraph (g)(2), we are revising the language regarding the design and display of caution signs for consistency with the language used in § 174.67(a)(4).

This section contains classification criteria for Division 6.1 materials. In the HM-215I final rule, we revised the toxicity criteria for Division 6.1 materials in § 173.133 to be consistent with the toxicity criteria adopted in the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN Recommendations). However, the Division 6.1 definition in § 173.132(a) was overlooked. Therefore, in paragraph (a), we are revising the definition of oral toxicity and inhalation toxicity to be consistent with our earlier amendments to § 173.133. Also, in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B), we are correcting the measurement unit “mL/mm 3  ” to read “mL/m 3 .”

This section contains classification criteria and establishes exceptions from certain HMR requirements for Division 6.2 materials. In paragraph (a)(8), we are correcting the wording “diagnostic specimen” to read “patient specimen” for consistency with changes made in a final rule published under docket number HM-226A (71 FR 32244; July 6, 2006).

These sections establish exceptions from certain HMR requirements for Class 3, Class 4, Division 5.1, Division 5.2, and Class 8 materials. We are revising the limited quantity provisions in each of these sections to clarify that the labeling exception is not granted to materials with a Division 6.1 subsidiary hazard. The amendments disallowing the labeling exception for limited quantities of Division 6.1 materials were included in a final rule under docket number HM-215G (69 FR 76044; December 20, 2004), but were inadvertently omitted when these provisions were revised under HM-228 (71 FR 14586; March 22, 2006).

Additionally, in § 173.150(d)(2) pertaining to the carriage of alcoholic beverages as checked or carry-on baggage, we are correcting the reference “175.10(a)(17)” to read “§ 175.10(a)(4).”

This section establishes packaging requirements for Category B infectious substances. In paragraph (a) introductory text, we are correcting an obsolete section reference.

This section sets forth packaging requirements for organic peroxides. In paragraph (c), we are removing “≥” from Note 17 of the Organic Peroxide Table and adding “≤” to correct a typographical error.

This section sets forth bulk packaging requirements for certain Division 4.2, 4.3, and 6.1 materials. We are adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (c) to clarify DOT 51 and UN portable tanks used to transport Division 6.1 liquids, Hazard Zone A or B, must be certified and stamped to the ASME Code as prescribed in § 178.273(b)(6).

This section establishes requirements for industrial packaging used to transport Class 7 materials. In paragraph (b)(5), we are removing the section citations to §§ 178.270, 178.271, and 178.272 because the manufacture of portable tanks to the IM 101 and 102 specifications is no longer authorized.

Section 174.67 prescribes procedures for conducting transloading operations involving railroad tank cars. In paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4), we are revising the wording “the unloader” to read “each hazmat employee who is responsible for unloading” for clarity. Also, in a final rule published under docket number HM-223 (68 FR 61941; October 30, 2003), we redesignated paragraph (a)(4) containing precautions when venting a tank car as paragraph (a)(6) but failed to include the newly redesignated paragraph in the regulatory text. Paragraph (a)(6) is added in this final rule.

This section contains exceptions from certain HMR requirements for operator equipment and replacement items transported by aircraft. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), we are correcting the reference “§ 175.75(a)” to read “§ 175.75(c)”.

This section establishes cargo limitation and stowage requirements for hazardous materials transported by aircraft. At the end of paragraph (e)(3), we are removing the word “and” and adding a period. The requirements in paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) are stand-alone requirements. Paragraph (e)(3), which outlines conditions for hazardous materials transported on board a cargo aircraft, includes a requirement for written approval by FAA. Paragraph (e)(4), which outlines conditions for hazardous materials transported on board a small, single pilot, cargo aircraft, does not include a requirement for FAA approval.

Also, in paragraph (e)(5), we are revising the “Quantity and Loading Tables” to correct the formatting errors.

We are reprinting the “Segregation of Cargo Transport Units on Board Hatchless Container Ships” table in § 176.83(l) to correct formatting errors.

These sections establish requirements for IM 101 and 102 portable tanks. Most sections applicable to these portable tanks were removed from the HMR in a final rule under docket number HM-189Z (71 FR 54388; September 14, 2006) because the manufacture of IM portable tanks is no longer authorized. These sections were inadvertently not omitted from that final rule.

This section sets forth requirements for approval of specification IM portable tanks and UN portable tanks. We are revising the section title and paragraph (e)(1) to remove references to the IM portable tanks because manufacture of those tanks is no longer authorized. Also, in paragraph (b)(7)(ii), we are removing the wording “§ 178.270-14 of this subchapter for IM portable tanks, § 178.245-6 for Specification 51 steel portable tanks, or”.

This section contains specifications for UN portable tanks. We are revising paragraph (b)(1) to clarify that portable tanks used for Zone A or B toxic by inhalation liquids are required to have an ASME certification and U stamp as prescribed in § 178.273(b)(6).

This section specifies pressure relief requirements for DOT 412 cargo tanks. In paragraph (d)(3), we are removing a reference to a formula in obsolete § 178.270-11(d)(3) and inserting the formula, expressed in nonmetric units, that had been contained in the referenced section. Section 178.270-11 was removed in a final rule under docket number HM-189Z.

This section establishes requirements for performing the stacking test to ensure that non-bulk packagings conform to the performance standard established in the HMR. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii), in the stacking test requirements for a packaging intended for solids, we are correcting the formula to include a constant of 2.2 (lbs/kg) to convert the units on the right side of the formula to pounds for consistency with the units of variable “A” in the formula. In addition, we are including explanations of the multipliers “2.2” and “.98” in the formula for liquids.

This section addresses inspection requirements for newly constructed rail tank cars. In paragraph (a), we are revising the wording “acceptable to the Bureau of Explosives” to read “as approved by the Associate Administrator for Safety, FRA.” These approvals are no longer handled by the Bureau of Explosives.

This section establishes requalification requirements for cylinders. In the table in paragraph (i)(1), we are correcting “3 to 20 years” to read “5 to 20 years” for the initial porous filler requalification of acetylene cylinders manufactured on or after January 1, 1991. The change from 3 years to 5 years, adopted in a final rule published under docket number HM 218B, is correctly stated in footnote 2 following the table.

This section specifies requirements for repair of seamless DOT specification and UN cylinders. In paragraph (b)(2), we are revising the wording to clarify that rethreading of cylinders may be performed by a manufacturer of the type of cylinder being rethreaded instead of limiting the work to the original manufacturer, who may no longer be in business. This revised wording is consistent with the wording used in paragraph (b)(1).

This section establishes reporting and record-retention requirements related to the qualification, maintenance, and use of cylinders. We are correcting paragraph (b) by adding the words “, if present” after “manufacturer's name or symbol” to alleviate confusion by cylinder requalifiers.

This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). This final rule does not impose new or revised requirements for hazardous materials shippers or carriers; therefore, it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory impact analysis.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not adopt any regulation that: (1) Has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; or (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. PHMSA is not aware of any State, local or Indian tribe requirements that would be preempted by correcting editorial errors and making minor regulatory changes. This final rule does not have sufficient federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not have tribal implications, does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and does not preempt tribal law, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule makes minor editorial changes which will not impose any new requirements on persons subject to the HMR; thus, there are no direct or indirect adverse economic impacts for small units of government, businesses or other organizations.

This rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $120.7 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.

There are no new information collection requirements in this final rule.

There are no environmental impacts associated with this final rule.

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

The provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) amended by this rule are based on many different statutes. The legal authority for each of those provisions was explained when the requirement was originally adopted and is summarized at the beginning of each part in title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). No further analysis is required here.

A few of the amendments made by this rule are required by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005. Because the SAFETEA-LU mandates left the Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA) no discretion, the changes (described later in the preamble) are appropriate for a technical amendment.

Title 49 CFR, subtitle B, chapter III contains all the FMCSRs.

In 2007, FMCSA moved its headquarters from 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 to 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The move makes it necessary to amend the CFR to change references to our address wherever they occur in the regulations.

This document also makes editorial changes to correct inaccurate references and citations, improve clarity, and fix errors. These minor editorial changes are set out below, in a section-by-section description of the changes.

Changes in SAFETEA-LU affected the financial responsibility requirements of both property and passenger carriers. Section 4120(b)(1) of SAFETEA-LU amended the reach of the financial responsibility statute for property carriers from “transportation of property for compensation by motor vehicle * * *” [49 U.S.C. 31139(b)(1)] to “transportation of property by commercial motor vehicle * * *” Section 4120(a)(1) changed the reach of the financial responsibility statute from “transportation of passengers for compensation by motor vehicle* * *” [49 U.S.C. 31138(a)] to “transportation of passengers by commercial motor vehicle * * *”

A commercial motor vehicle, for these purposes, means a self-propelled or towed vehicle used on the highways in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property, if the vehicle—

As a result of the change by section 4120(b)(1), the FMCSA no longer has the authority to set insurance standards for small freight vehicles with a GVW/GVR under 10,001 pounds (unless they are hauling placardable quantities of hazardous materials). We are deleting § 387.303(b)(1)(i) to remove the reference to those small freight vehicles. In addition, section 4120(a)(1) modified FMCSA's authority to set insurance standards for passenger carriers. At or below the 15-passenger threshold, FMCSA's authority is limited to passenger vehicles “designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation.” We are removing the reference in § 387.303 (b)(1)(ii) to “Any vehicle with a seating capacity of 15 passengers or less.” We are adding, instead, a reference to “Any vehicle designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation.”

These amendments do not impose any new requirements and make no substantive changes to the CFR. Notice and comment are unnecessary.

Section 381.315 . Paragraph (d)(2) is amended by replacing the old uniform resource locator (URL) for the DOT Dockets Management System with a new reference to the Federal Docket Management System at http://www.regulations.gov .

Section 385.13 . We are amending paragraph (d) by renumbering the subparagraphs and making wording changes to improve clarity.

Section 385.423 . Paragraph (c) is amended by replacing the reference to §§ 386.31 and 386.33 with a new reference to §§ 386.5, 386.6, and 386.8. Sections 386.31 and 386.33 were deleted and superseded by §§ 386.6 and 386.5, respectively, on May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28467-28486). The cross reference to § 386.8 is added for clarification.

Part 385 Appendix B , Explanation of Safety Rating Process, is changed to reflect previous amendments to the CFR that were inadvertently never incorporated in the appendix. Before part 382 was revised on August 17, 2001 (66 FR 43103), the post-accident testing requirements for alcohol and controlled substances testing were both in § 382.303(a). For clarification, the revision kept the alcohol testing requirement in paragraph (a) and put the controlled substances testing requirement in paragraph (b). The same 2001 revision of § 382.115 clarified that all the previous implementation dates had elapsed and required all motor carriers, both domestic and foreign, to implement the testing program requirements when they begin operating commercial motor vehicles in the United States. We are changing part 385 Appendix B to correctly reflect those 2001 revisions.

Section 386.2 . In the definition of “Assistant Administrator,” § 386.2 is amended by correcting the reference to the United States Code (U.S.C.). The citation, which now reads “49 U.S.C. 113(d),” is changed to read “49 U.S.C. 113(e).”

Section 386.7 . We are removing the paragraph designation (a) to correct the section.

Section 387.303. Because of the changes in SAFETEA-LU, described in the “Background” section above, paragraph (b)(1)(i) is rescinded and the table in (b)(1)(ii) is changed. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), the second entry in the table, which used to cover any passenger vehicle with “a seating capacity of 15 passengers or less,” now is limited to vehicles “designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation.” Paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is also corrected to remove an obsolete reference to effective dates.

Section 389.5 . We are clarifying paragraph (b) by renumbering and by adding a reference to the regulations.gov Web site where readers can have access to the Federal Docket Management System. We are also changing the address in paragraph (a).

Section 390.27 . The table is corrected by moving New Mexico into the Western Service Center, which now has responsibility for that State. This document also changes the addresses for the Eastern, Southern, and Western Service Centers.

Section 391.23 . Paragraph (c)(4) is corrected by changing “For a drivers” to “For drivers,” to make the sentence grammatically correct.

Section 392.9 . Paragraph (a)(1) is amended to correct the cross reference to reflect changes published in the Federal Register on September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61225). The new reference is to §§ 393.100 through 393.136

Section 395.1 . On August 25, 2005 (70 FR 50071), the Agency amended the hours of service rules but in instructing the revision of paragraph (g), the Agency inadvertently omitted paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (iv) of § 395.1 from the annual Code of Federal Regulations for October 1, 2005, and October 1, 2006. The 2005 amendment should have specified the revision of paragraph (g)(3) introductory text; the Agency never intended to remove paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (iv). We are reinstating those paragraphs to correct that omission. Therefore, amendatory instruction 39 in this rule revises paragraph (g)(3) to correctly reinstate paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (iv).

The Administrative Procedure Act provides exceptions to its notice and public comment procedures when an agency finds there is good cause on the basis that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” (See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).) As stated above, the amendments made by this final rule merely update mailing addresses, correct inadvertent errors and omissions, remove obsolete references, and make minor editorial changes to improve clarity and consistency. These amendments do not impose any new requirements, nor do they make any substantive changes to the CFR. For these reasons, the FMCSA finds good cause that notice and public comment are unnecessary. Further, the Agency finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the amendments effective upon publication.

The FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or within the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not review this document. We expect the final rule will have minimal costs; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FMCSA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities. Because the rule only makes editorial corrections and places no new requirements on the regulated industry, FMCSA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rulemaking will not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532, et seq. ), that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120 million or more in any 1 year.

This action will meet 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.

The FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. We determined that this rulemaking will not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rulemaking does 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.

The FMCSA analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking will not have a substantial direct effect on States, nor will it limit the policy-making discretion of the States. Nothing in this document will preempt any State law or regulation. The FMCSA has therefore determined this rule does not have federalism implications.

The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this action.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that FMCSA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that no new information collection requirements are associated with this final rule.

The FMCSA analyzed this final rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1, issued March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the environment. Therefore, this final rule is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

The FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity requirement since it will have no effect on the environment.

The FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Executive Order because it will not be economically significant and will not be likely to have an adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Florida through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.160.

Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), can transfer or combine bluefish commercial quota under § 648.160(f). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria set forth in § 648.160(f)(1) in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations.

Florida has agreed to transfer 309,125 lb (140,160 kg) of its 2007 commercial quota to New Jersey. The Regional Administrator has determined that the criteria set forth in § 648.160(f)(1) have been met. The revised bluefish quotas for calendar year 2007 are: New Jersey, 1,579,605 lb (716,496 kg); and Florida, 553,488 lb (251,057 kg).

This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The proposed rule for Framework 7 was published in the Federal Register on August 6, 2007 (72 FR 43587). A complete discussion of the development and rationale for the framework appeared in the preamble of the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

The current stock status determination criteria for summer flounder ( Paralichthys dentatus ), scup ( Stenotomus chrysops ), and black sea bass ( Centropristas striata ) are found in Amendment 12 to the FMP. Prior to the development of Framework 7, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) would be required to enact a framework adjustment or an amendment to the FMP to modify or replace these stock status determination criteria on a case-by-case basis.

Stock assessment information is updated annually as part of the management process that is used to derive annual catch limits (e.g., Total Allowable Landings (TAL)). The updated assessment information is utilized in the regulatory processes for these three species outlined at §§ 648.100, 648.120, and 648.140. These annual “turn of the crank” updates typically make no changes to the existing stock status determination criteria and are performed by groups with technical expertise, but are not typically subject to formal peer reviews nor are the stock status determination criteria often recommended to be changed.

Full assessments for these three stocks undergo periodic formal scientific peer review as part of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's (NEFSC) Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) and Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) process. These and other periodic formal assessments and subsequent peer reviews conducted for these stocks may result in recommendations to revise or use different stock status determination criteria as different or new approaches are applied to previously existing data, or to new, previously unexamined data. These types of assessments and peer reviews are distinguishable from the annual updates as they are often more comprehensive in nature and subject to rigorous scientific peer review that is consistent with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.

In the absence of the provisions contained in Framework 7 to more generally describe stock status determination criteria, when a full stock assessment and subsequent peer review recommended modification of existing or new stock status determination criteria for these species occurs it is likely that the new criteria would not be available for the Council's use for one or more annual management review cycles (i.e., a 1- to 2-year delay) while a framework adjustment or an amendment was developed and implemented.

The increased flexibility in defining the stock status determination criteria contained in Framework 7, consistent with National Standards 1 and 2, will allow the Council to utilize the best available peer reviewed science within the annual management measures development process, thereby improving the timeliness of incorporating the most current, best available stock status determination criteria.

Additionally, Framework 7 provides guidance on acceptable peer review practices, particularly for conducting reviews on stock assessments that generate modified or new stock status determination criteria that may not originate from the NEFSC SAW/SARC process, which is the primary stock assessment process for the Northeast Region. This guidance will help ensure that any such external review is sufficiently rigorous so that the resulting stock status determination advice may be considered by the Council as the best available science. In the unlikely circumstance that two or more sets of different but peer review accepted stock status determination criteria are available for the Council's use, the Council would still be required to adequately justify its final selection of one set over the other or others, consistent with national standard guidelines.

Framework 7 also provides guidance on how the Council may convene its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) in the unlikely event that peer reviewed stock status determination criteria recommendations are unclear (i.e., lack of consensus from the reviewers), and how such information should be used in crafting management decisions should the peer review not specify such guidance. The SSC would, in such instances, only review information that lacks clarity; in instances where a formal peer review results in a consensus recommendation for use, that information is clearly the best available information and, as such, requires no additional review or input from the SSC prior to the Council using the information. Similarly, the SSC would not be needed to review peer review recommendations that reject modified or new stock status determination criteria because such information is not the best available (i.e., if new information is rejected in peer review, the existing stock status determination criteria remains the best available information).

Two comments were received regarding the proposed rule. One comment did not address any aspect of the framework, instead raising questions about where commercial fisheries for summer flounder should be allowed to take place. As this comment is not directly related to the action of Framework 7, it is not responded to here.

Comment : The commenter asserted that implementation of Framework 7 would allow continued overfishing of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass stocks and that the framework allows an unspecified, upward adjustment to quotas that would further exacerbate overfishing.

Response : NMFS acknowledges that all three species are currently overfished. Framework 7 makes no specific adjustment to either the current biological reference points used to define the status of these three stocks, nor does the framework make any adjustment to the management measures (e.g., TALs, recreational possession and size limits, etc.) used to eliminate overfishing in this or in future years. As outlined in the preamble to the final rule, Framework 7 is an administrative change focused on the mechanism through which the best available peer-reviewed information may be incorporated into the annual management process that sets quotas and other management measures that are aimed at ending overfishing and rebuilding stocks to their maximum sustainable yield levels. Annual management measures that are part of separate rulemaking are used to eliminate overfishing.

Furthermore, Framework 7 contains no explicit adjustments to quotas for any of the three species. If, in the future, revised or new stock status determination criteria are developed and vetted for use through the peer review process outlined in Framework 7, there may be adjustments, either upward or downward, to quotas as the results of the stock status and peer review dictate.

The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, determined that Framework Adjustment 7 is necessary for the conservation and management of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.

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

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

In the 2007 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (72 FR 24539, May 3, 2007), NMFS announced the commercial fisheries in the area from the U.S.-Canada border to Cape Falcon, Oregon, and in the area from the U.S.-Canada border to Leadbetter Point, Washington. This area was open May 1 through earlier of June 30 or 10,850 Chinook quota. Beginning May 12, 2007 this area was open Saturday through Tuesday with a landing and possession limit of 60 Chinook per vessel for each four-day open period north of Leadbetter Point, for all salmon except coho.

On June 21, 2007, for Inseason action #3, and July 28, 2007 for Inseason action #4 the Regional Administrator (RA) consulted with representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Information related to catch to date, Chinook and coho catch rates, and effort data were reported. Inseason action #3 was taken because catch data indicated a reduction in the landing and possession limit would provide the opportunity for the full quota to be caught within the announced season. Eliminating the last day during the May-June open period also provided the opportunity for the next open period to begin within the quota. Inseason action #4 was taken because catch data indicated a reduction in the landing and possession limit would the opportunity for the full quota to be caught within the announced season.

As a result, on June 21, 2007, the states recommended, and the RA concurred, that Inseason action #3 would be effective in the area from Leadbetter Point to the U.S.-Canada border from Saturday June 23 through Tuesday June 26, 2007. This action made the landing and possession limit 50 Chinook per vessel per open period. This action also closed the area from the U.S.-Canada border to Cape Falcon Oregon to commercial salmon fishing on June 30. Also, on Friday July 27, 2007 the states recommended, and the RA concurred, that Inseason action #4 in the area from Leadbetter Point to the U.S.-Canada border would be effective Saturday July 28, 2007. This action reduced the landing and possession limit for Chinook to 20 fish per vessel per open period. Modification in quota and/or fishing seasons is authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

The RA determined that the best available information indicated that the catch and effort data, and projections, supported the above inseason actions recommended by the states. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with these Federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory actions was given, prior to the date the action was effective, by telephone hotline number 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz. These actions do not apply to other fisheries that may be operating in other areas.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory actions was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. These actions comply with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (72 FR 24539, May 3, 2007), the West Coast Salmon Plan, and regulations implementing the West Coast Salmon Plan 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time the fishery catch and effort data were collected to determine the extent of the fisheries, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to allow fishers access to the available fish at the time the fish were available. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in effectiveness of these actions would limit fishers appropriately controlled access to available fish during the scheduled fishing season by unnecessarily restricting the fishery. These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

In the 2007 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (72 FR 24539, May 3, 2007), NMFS announced the commercial fisheries in the area from Cape Falcon, Oregon, to the Oregon-California Border and recreational fisheries from the U.S.-Canada border to Humbug Mountain, Oregon. Commercial fisheries in the area from Humbug Mountain to the Oregon-California Border were open from August 1 through the earlier of August 29, or the attainment of a 1,800-Chinook quota. Fishing was open for all salmon except coho. The commercial non-selective coho fishery in the area from Cape Falcon, Oregon, to Humbug Mountain, Oregon, was open August 15 through the earlier of September 13 or the attainment of a 10,000 non-mark-selective coho quota. The non-selective coho quota of 10,000 includes the entire area from Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain. The recreational fishery from the U.S.-Canada border to Leadbetter Point, Washington, was open 2 days per week with the Neah Bay and La Push areas being open Tuesday through Saturday and the Westport area open Sunday through Thursday.

On August 13, 2007, for inseason action #5, August 15, 2007, for inseason action #6, and August 17, 2007 for inseason action #7 the Regional Administrator (RA) consulted with representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Game and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Information related to catch to date, Chinook and coho catch rates, and effort data were reported. Inseason action #5 was taken because the quota in the area was projected to be met and in order to operate the fishery within the 2007 regulations 2007 the fishery had to be closed. Inseason action #6 was taken because catch data indicated an increase in the number of days allowed in the fishery would attempt to provide the opportunity for the full quota to be taken within the scheduled season. Inseason action #7 was taken because the non-selective fishery was approaching the quota and to attempt to ensure the quota was not exceeded the fishery had to be closed.

As a result, on August 13, 15, and 17, 2007, the states recommended, and the RA concurred: Inseason action #5 would close the commercial fishery in the area from the Humbug Mountain, Oregon to the Oregon-California Border, effective Tuesday, August 14, 2007. Inseason action #6 in the recreational fishery would increase the number of fishing days per period from 2 to 7 days per period in the area from the U.S.-Canada Border to Leadbetter Point, Washington, effective Friday, August 17, 2007. Inseason action #7 in the commercial non-selective coho fishery would close from Cape Falcon, Oreon, to Humbug Mountain, Oregon, effective 11:59 p.m. Monday August 20, 2007. Modification in quota and/or fishing seasons is authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

The RA determined that the best available information indicated that the catch and effort data, and projections, supported the above inseason actions recommended by the states. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with these Federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory actions was given, prior to the date the action was effective, by telephone hotline number 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz. These actions do not apply to other fisheries that may be operating in other areas.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory actions was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. These actions comply with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (72 FR 24539, May 3, 2007), the West Coast Salmon Plan, and regulations implementing the West Coast Salmon Plan 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time the fishery catch and effort data were collected to determine the extent of the fisheries, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to allow fishers access to the available fish at the time the fish were available. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in effectiveness of these actions would limit fishers appropriately controlled access to available fish during the scheduled fishing season by unnecessarily restricting the fishery. These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

In the 2007 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (72 FR 24539, May 3, 2007), NMFS announced the commercial fisheries in the area from Cape Falcon, Oregon, to Humbug Mountain, Oregon, and recreational fisheries from Queets River, Washington, to Cape Falcon, Oregon. The commercial non-selective coho fishery in the area from Cape Falcon, Oregon, to Humbug Mountain, Oregon, was open August 15 through the earlier of September 13 or the attainment of a 10,000 non-mark-selective coho quota. The non-selective coho quota of 10,000 includes the entire area from Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain. The recreational fishery in the Westport subarea had a 43,510 marked coho subarea quota. The recreational fishery in the Columbia River subarea had a 58,800 marked coho subarea quota.

On August 22, 2007, for inseason action #8 and #9 the Regional Administrator (RA) consulted with representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Information related to catch to date, Chinook and coho catch rates, and effort data were reported. Inseason action #8 was taken because the coho quota in the Columbia river subarea was projected to be met and in order to operate the fishery within the 2007 regulations a transfer from the Westport area was necessary. Inseason action #9 was taken because catch data indicated there was still quota available to be taken within the scheduled season, this fishery was previously closed because the quota was projected to be met. These action attempted to provide the opportunity for the full quota to be taken within the scheduled season.

As a result, on August 22, 2007, the states recommended, and the RA concurred that inseason action #8 would be effective Thursday, August 23, 2007 with a transfer of 5,000 coho from the Westport subarea resulting in an increase in the Columbia River subarea quota of 4,250. This modified the Westport subarea quota to 38,510 and the Columbia River subarea quota to 63,050. The Columbia River subarea was also closed effective 11:59 p.m. Saturday, August 25, 2007. Inseason action #9 reopened the non-selective coho fishery effective from Saturday, August 25 to Tuesday, August 28, with a landing and possession limit of 50 coho per vessel per week, as previously announced. Modification in quota and/or fishing seasons is authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

The RA determined that the best available information indicated that the catch and effort data, and projections, supported the above inseason actions recommended by the states. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with these Federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory actions was given, prior to the date the action was effective, by telephone hotline number 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz. These actions do not apply to other fisheries that may be operating in other areas.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory actions was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. These actions comply with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (72 FR 24539, May 3, 2007), the West Coast Salmon Plan, and regulations implementing the West Coast Salmon Plan 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time the fishery catch and effort data were collected to determine the extent of the fisheries, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to allow fishers access to the available fish at the time the fish were available. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in effectiveness of these actions would limit fishers appropriately controlled access to available fish during the scheduled fishing season by unnecessarily restricting the fishery. These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

In the 2007 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (72 FR 24539, May 3, 2007), NMFS announced the recreational fisheries from Queets River, Washington, to Cape Falcon, Oregon and commercial fisheries from the Oregon-California border to Humboldt South Jetty. The recreational fishery in the Westport subarea had a 43,510 marked coho subarea quota. The recreational fishery in the Columbia River subarea had a 58,800 marked coho subarea quota. The commercial fishery in the California KMZ subarea was open September 10 through the earlier of September 30, or the attainment of the 6,000 Chinook quota.

On August 30, 2007, for inseason action #10 and September 12, 2007, for #11, the Regional Administrator (RA) consulted with representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game. Information related to catch to date, Chinook and coho catch rates, and effort data were reported. Inseason action #10 was taken because the coho quota in the Columbia river subarea was projected to be met and in order to operate the fishery within the 2007 regulations a transfer from the Westport area was necessary. Inseason action #11 was taken because catch data indicated the quota was projected to be met well before the closing date in the area. The intent of these actions was to provide the opportunity for the full quota to be taken within the scheduled season.

As a result, on August 30, 2007, for inseason #10 and September 12, 2007, for inseason #11, the states recommended, and the RA concurred that inseason action #8 would be effective Sunday, September 23, 2007, with a with a transfer of 10,000 coho from the Westport subarea resulting in an increase in the Columbia River subarea quota of 8,400. This modified the Westport subarea quota to 28,510 and the Columbia River subarea quota to 71,450. Inseason action #11 closed the area from the U.S.-Canada border to Humboldt South Jetty, California to commercial ocean salmon fishing. Modification in quota and/or fishing seasons is authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(I).

The RA determined that the best available information indicated that the catch and effort data, and projections, supported the above inseason actions recommended by the states. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with these Federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory actions was given, prior to the date the action was effective, by telephone hotline number 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz. These actions do not apply to other fisheries that may be operating in other areas.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory actions was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. These actions comply with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (72 FR 24539, May 3, 2007), the West Coast Salmon Plan, and regulations implementing the West Coast Salmon Plan 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time the fishery catch and effort data were collected to determine the extent of the fisheries, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to allow fishers access to the available fish at the time the fish were available. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in effectiveness of these actions would limit fishers appropriately controlled access to available fish during the scheduled fishing season by unnecessarily restricting the fishery. These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.