        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AF86
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Comment Period on Proposed Endangered Status for Ambrosia Pumila (San Diego Ambrosia)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), reopen the comment period on the proposal to list Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia) as an endangered species. The comment period is reopened in response to a request from the public for additional time to obtain biological information regarding the plant and formulate comments on the proposed rule. In addition, reopening of the comment period will allow further opportunity for all interested parties to submit comments on the proposal, which is available (see ADDRESSES section). We are seeking comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the proposed rule. Comments already submitted on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they will be fully considered in the final determination.

          DATES:
          The reopened comment period closes May 30, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments and materials concerning this proposed rule should be sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California, 92008. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gary Wallace, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) at (760) 431-9440.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On December 29, 1999, the Service published a rule proposing endangered status for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia) in the Federal Register (64 FR 72993). The original comment period closed on February 28, 2000. The comment period now closes on May 30, 2000. Written comments should be submitted to the Service (see ADDRESSES section).

          Ambrosia pumila is a herbaceous perennial plant with underground rhizome-like roots. This wind pollinated species is restricted to San Diego and western Riverside counties and from Colonet to Lake Chapala, in Baja California, Mexico. The species is currently known from 13 extant native occurrences in the U.S. Ambrosia pumila is threatened by the following; destruction, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat by recreational and commercial development; highway construction and maintenance; construction and maintenance activities associated with utility easements; competition from non-native plants; trampling by horses and humans; off-road vehicle (ORV) use; and inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Comments from the public regarding the accuracy of this proposed rule are sought, especially regarding:
        (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
        (2) The location and condition of any additional occurrences of this species and the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act;
        (3) Aditional information concerning the range, distribution, and population size of this species;

        (4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on Ambrosia pumila or its habitat;
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is Gary D. Wallace, Ph.D. (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: March 22, 2000.
          Elizabeth H. Stevens,
          Acting Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office.

      [FR Doc. 00-7800 Filed 3-29-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 070427093-7093-01; I.D. 041807A]
        RIN 0648-AV55
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Control Date

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notification of control date; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that anyone who enters the Hawaii-based pelagic charter fishery after March 16, 2007 (the “control date”), is not guaranteed future participation in the fishery if the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommends, and NMFS approves, a program that limits entry into the fishery, or other fishery management measures. The Council is concerned about expansion of the Hawaii-based pelagic charter fishery and the potential resultant impacts on billfish and other pelagic fishes.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted in writing by July 10, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this action, identified by 0648-AV55, by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: AV55ControlCharter@noaa.gov. Include “AV55” in the subject line of the e-mail comment. Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10 megabyte file size.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bob Harman, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2234.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        At its 137th meeting held from March 13-16, 2007, the Council adopted a control date of March 16, 2007, applicable to persons who are contemplating entering the Hawaii-based charter fishery for pelagic fishes. The purpose of the control date is to notify fishermen that after March 16, 2007, they may not be guaranteed access to the fishery if the Council recommends, and NMFS approves, establishing a limited entry program or other measures to manage the fishery. The Council has not yet recommended limiting new entry or imposing any other management measures in this fishery.
        Establishment of a control date responds to the Council's concern over any significant expansion of the Hawaii-based pelagic charter fishery, and its potential to impact billfish and other pelagic fishes. This concern is focused on the Kona coast of the island of Hawaii, where there is a planned expansion of the Honokohau Harbor. A larger harbor could provide more berths for charter fishing vessels, with a resulting increase in fishing effort for pelagic fishes, such as blue marlin (Makaira mazara). State of Hawaii fishery data indicate that blue marlin catch per unit effort from Kona-based pelagic charter fishing has declined significantly over the past 20 years. Similar trends are also apparent for pelagic charter fishing data from the other Hawaiian islands.
        Pelagic charter fishing, conducted from small vessels that primarily target billfishes and tunas and are chartered for a fee, is a notable component of tourism in Hawaii. Total generated revenues were estimated at $17 million in 1990, and $16.5 million in 1992. The industry attracted an estimated 77,000 annual participants in 1994, and employed approximately 400 captains and crew members in 1997. Because at least a portion of the catch is typically sold, pelagic charter fishing in Hawaii is classified as a commercial fishery, requiring State of Hawaii commercial marine licenses and catch reporting. The State of Hawaii issued 121 commercial marine licenses to vessels for pelagic charter fishing in 2005, and the reported catch from pelagic charter vessels in 2005 was 478,650 lb (217,112 kg). In 2006, 119 licensed fishermen submitted fishing reports that reported a total of 9,535 charter trips, or an average of 80.1 trips per vessel.
        The March 16, 2007, control date adopted by the Council complements a control date of June 2, 2005, established for non-longline commercial pelagic fisheries in Hawaii (70 FR 47781, August 15, 2005) in response to concerns about overfishing of bigeye tuna Pacific-wide and yellowfin tuna in the central and western Pacific.
        Control dates are intended to discourage speculative entry into fisheries, as new participants entering the fisheries after the control date are put on notice that they are not guaranteed future participation in the fisheries. Establishment of this control date does not commit the Council or NMFS to any particular management regime or criteria for entry into the Hawaii-based pelagic charter fishery. Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery, regardless of their level of participation before or after the control date. The Council may choose a different control date, or it may choose a management regime that does not involve a control date. Other criteria, such as documentation of landings or sales, may be used to determine eligibility for participation in a limited access fishery. The Council or NMFS also may choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fishery, in which case the control date may be rescinded.
        Classification
        This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: May 7, 2007.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E7-9090 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
        Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
        27 CFR Part 9
        [Notice No. 85; Docket No. TTB-2008-0005]
        RIN 1513-AB47
        Proposed Expansion of the Paso Robles Viticultural Area (2008R-073P)

          AGENCY:
          Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to expand by 2,635 acres the existing 609,673-acre Paso Robles American viticultural area in San Luis Obispo County, California. If this change is approved, the expanded Paso Robles viticultural area would continue to lie entirely within San Luis Obispo County and within the multi-county Central Coast viticultural area. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. We invite comments on this proposed change to our regulations.

          DATES:
          We must receive written comments on or before September 15, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may send comments to one of the following addresses:
          • http://www.regulations.gov (via the online comment form for this notice as posted within Docket No. TTB-2008-0005 at “Regulations.gov,” the Federal e-rulemaking portal); or
          • Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412.
          See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing.

          You may view copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any comments we receive about this proposal at http://www.regulations.gov within Docket No. TTB-2008-0005. A link to that docket is posted on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 85. You also may view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps or other supporting materials, and any comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. Please call 202-927-2400 to make an appointment.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, CA 94952; phone 415-271-1254.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background on Viticultural Areas
        TTB Authority
        Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the regulations promulgated under the FAA Act.

        Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved American viticultural areas.

        Definition
        Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographic origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
        Requirements
        Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Petitioners may use the same procedure to request changes involving existing viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include—
        • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition;
        • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies;
        • Evidence relating to the geographic features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas;
        • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps; and
        • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked.
        Paso Robles Expansion Petition
        Background
        Previous Petitions
        On October 4, 1983, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published a final rule, T.D. ATF-148 (48 FR 45239), to establish the “Paso Robles” American viticultural area (AVA) in northern San Luis Obispo County, California (see 27 CFR 9.84). As established, the Paso Robles AVA was entirely within the Central Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.75) and, to the west, it bordered the much smaller York Mountain AVA (27 CFR 9.80). In 1983, the Paso Robles AVA contained approximately 5,000 acres of vineyards.
        As established, the Paso Robles AVA was defined by the San Luis Obispo-Monterey county line in the north, the Cholame Hills to the east, and the Santa Lucia Mountains to the south and west. According to T.D. ATF-148, the Santa Lucia Mountains largely protect the Paso Robles AVA from the intrusion of marine air and fog from the Pacific Ocean, giving the Paso Robles AVA a drier and warmer summer time climate than regions to the west and south. The Paso Robles AVA also is characterized by day to night temperature changes of 40 to 50 degrees, annual rainfall of 10 to 25 inches, 600 to 1,000 foot elevations, and well-drained alluvial soils in terrace deposits.
        Lacking a feasible way to use physical features, such as ridge lines, to define the Paso Robles AVA's boundary, the original petitioner largely used a series of township and range lines and point-to-point lines to delineate the AVA's boundary. The southern-most portion of the Paso Robles AVA was delineated to the south by the east-west T29S/T30S township boundary line and to the east by the north-south R13E/R14E range line.
        On June 13, 1996, ATF published a final rule, T.D. ATF-377 (61 FR 29952) expanding the Paso Robles AVA along a portion of its western boundary. This expansion added 52,618 acres of land similar to that found in the original AVA. The expansion added to the AVA seven vineyards planted after the Paso Robles AVA's 1983 establishment, containing 235 acres of grapes. The Paso Robles AVA, as expanded, remained entirely within San Luis Obispo County and the Central Coast AVA, and this westerly expansion did not extend into the York Mountain AVA or change the AVA's original southern boundary.
        Current Southern Expansion Petition
        In 2007, the Paso Robles AVA Committee (PRAVAC) submitted a petition to TTB requesting a 2,635-acre expansion of the Paso Robles AVA. The petition states that the PRAVAC represents a broad cross-section of the Paso Robles wine industry and notes that its 59 grape-grower and winery members collectively own or manage over 10,000 acres of vineyards within the Paso Robles AVA.
        The proposed expansion area is immediately south of the Paso Robles AVA's current southern-most boundary, which is delineated by the T29S/T30S township line, as shown on the 1:250,000-scale USGS San Luis Obispo map used to define the AVA's boundary. As noted in the petition, the Paso Robles AVA's current southern-most boundary line bisects the southern portion of the Santa Margarita Valley, leaving a significant portion of the valley's southern end outside the AVA boundary as currently defined. The proposed expansion would, therefore, bring most of the remainder of the Santa Margarita Valley within the AVA, as shown on the 1:24,000 USGS Lopez Mountain map submitted with the petition. (TTB notes that, while not used to formally define the AVA's boundary in the proposed regulatory text, the Lopez Mountain map provides significantly more geographical detail regarding the expansion area due to its smaller scale.)
        The proposed southern expansion also lies totally within San Luis Obispo County and the existing Central Coast AVA, and it would not overlap or otherwise affect any other established or currently-proposed new AVA. According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed expansion area, including its geological history, geomorphology, soils, topography, and climate, are similar to those found in the southern region of the original Paso Robles AVA.
        Name Evidence
        The petition states that the “Paso Robles” geographical name applies to the proposed southern expansion of the Paso Robles AVA due to the historic, geographic, commercial, and cultural ties between the Santa Margarita Valley and the Paso Robles region of San Luis Obispo County. This is due to that valley's northward orientation, which is enclosed to the south and west by the Santa Lucia Mountains. Historically, travel was easier going northward through the valley to the city of Paso Robles than it was going southward over the mountains to the city of San Luis Obispo. The petition also states that, due to the stated historic and other ties, local residents and members of the Paso Robles wine industry have assumed that the entire Santa Margarita Valley was within the original Paso Robles AVA boundary line and reference the area as such.

        According to the petition, other sources also show the entire Santa Margarita Valley as falling within the Paso Robles region. For example, the Paso Style Living real estate Web site (http://www.pasostyleliving.com/pages/pasoarea.htm) describes the Santa Margarita area as “the Southern edge of Paso wine country.” A 1928 soil survey map of the Paso Robles area submitted with the petition also shows the entire Santa Margarita Land Grant as being within the Paso Robles region. In addition, the “1978 General Soil Map of the Paso Robles Area—San Luis Obispo County,” published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, includes the proposed Paso Robles AVA expansion area within the Paso Robles region of the county.
        Boundary Evidence
        The proposed triangle-shaped expansion of the Paso Robles AVA would move its southern-most point approximately 2.6 miles south in order to encompass most of that portion of the Santa Margarita Valley currently not included within the AVA. Also, the proposed expansion area would increase the length of the commonly-shared eastern boundary of the Paso Robles and Central Coast AVAs by the same distance.
        The petition describes the proposed expansion area as part of the “cohesive geographical unit” of the Santa Margarita Valley. Nestled between the Santa Lucia Range and the Salinas River, the Santa Margarita Valley lies on both sides of the Paso Robles AVA's existing southern boundary line. The petition describes the original Paso Robles AVA southern-most boundary line, which follows the T29S/T30 township line and which bisects the Santa Margarita Valley, as an “imaginary, indiscernible boundary in the landscape, not defined by any topographic or other environmental parameters.”
        As explained in T.D. ATF-148, the Paso Robles AVA “is bounded on the west and south by the Santa Lucia Mountain range” which protects the AVA “from marine air intrusion and coastal fogs.” The proposed southern expansion, the petition explains, would more closely align the Paso Robles AVA's southern-most boundary with the Santa Lucia Range by encompassing most of the portion of the Santa Margarita Valley that is currently outside the AVA. The petition explains that beyond the proposed expansion area to the south is the narrowed terminus of the Santa Margarita Valley, with steep terrain on three sides and inadequate groundwater and warmth to sustain commercial viticulture.
        According to the petition, the viticultural history of the Santa Margarita Valley began with the arrival of Spanish missionaries, who, among other things, brought grapes and winemaking to the Paso Robles area over 200 years ago. Near present-day Santa Margarita, the missionaries built the Santa Margarita de Cortona Asistencia in 1787, which functioned as an outpost of the mission located at San Luis Obispo. See page 39 of the “History of San Luis Obispo County, California, with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of its Prominent Men and Pioneers” (Thompson & West, 1883), by Myron Angel, (reprinted 1966, Howell-North Books, Berkeley, California), which was included with the petition. The Santa Margarita Asistencia served as a chapel, farmstead, and storehouse for grain grown in the valley.
        In 1861, the land surrounding the Asistencia site was purchased by Mary and Martin Murphy, who also owned portions of other land grants within the Paso Robles region, according to page 68 of the Angel publication. Under the Martin's ownership, the petition states, the Santa Margarita area developed a strong attachment to the more commercialized Paso Robles area to its north. By 1889, the petition explains, an extension of the Southern Pacific Railroad ran south from Paso Robles along the Salinas River to the small settlement of Santa Margarita. See pages 34 and 75 of “Rails Across the Ranchos,” by Loren Nicholson, 1993. The USGS San Luis Obispo regional map shows the Southern Pacific Railway running south from the city of Paso Robles across the relatively flat valley to the town of Santa Margarita where it begins a twisting climb up and over the Santa Lucia Mountains to the city of San Luis Obispo.
        In 2000, the petition explains, the Robert Mondavi Winery leased more than 1,000 acres in the southern Santa Margarita Valley for commercial vineyard development. This acreage is bisected by the current southern-most boundary of the Paso Robles AVA. At the time of the petition, vineyards covered 800 of the 1,000 acres, with plantings located on both sides of the existing Paso Robles AVA boundary line, according to the petition.
        Distinguishing Features
        The proposed expansion of the Paso Robles AVA relies on the Santa Margarita Valley's uniform topography, climate, soils, geologic history, and geomorphology. These geographical features, the petition notes, are the same throughout the valley, which is currently bisected by the existing Paso Robles AVA's southern-most boundary line. The Santa Margarita Valley, which makes up the portion of the Salinas River valley containing Santa Margarita and Rinconada Creeks, extends south from the city of Atascadero, through the town of Santa Margarita, and continues south-southeastward through the proposed expansion area, according to the USGS San Luis Obispo regional map and the petition.
        Professor Deborah L. Elliott-Fisk, Ph.D, of the University of California, Davis, an expert on the geography and terroir of California and viticultural area designations, researched and provided the distinguishing features information used in the petition. According to the petition, Dr. Elliott-Fisk also coordinated the data and analyses supplied by meteorologist Donald Schukraft, Western Weather Group, LLC, and other experts.
        Climate
        The climate of the Paso Robles AVA as a whole, according to Dr. Elliott-Fisk, has smaller monthly temperature ranges and less continental influence than the inland areas further to the east, but is less influenced by Pacific marine air and fog than the coastal regions to the west due to the blocking effect of the Santa Lucia Mountains. As part of the larger Paso Robles region, the Santa Margarita Valley has climatic conditions similar to the AVA, Dr. Elliot-Fisk notes, and these conditions exist on both sides of the existing southern-most boundary of the AVA, which passes from west to east through the valley. Dr. Elliott-Fisk adds that other climate similarities found within the valley on either side of the existing AVA boundary include cold air drainage, cold air ponding under temperature inversions, and similar frost patterns, especially early in the growing season. Also, annual precipitation in the valley averages 29 inches, while regions to the east are drier and the coastal mountains to the west are wetter.
        These climate similarities also are evidenced by various climate classification systems. For example, the petition states, the global scale climate classification system of Koppen, Geiger and Pohl (1953) labels the great majority of the Paso Robles region as a Mediterranean warm summer climate (Csb), while the region to the east has a Mediterranean hot summer climate (Csa).

        Dr. Elliott-Fisk states that the Santa Margarita Valley's climate is classified as a cool region II climate of approximately 2,900 growing degree-days under the Winkler climate classification system, which is based on annual growing season heat accumulation. This classification is found on both sides of the existing southern-most Paso Robles AVA boundary. (As a measurement of heat accumulation during the growing season, 1 degree day accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees, which is the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth. In the Winkler system, climatic region I has less than 2,500 growing degree days per year; region II, 2,501 to 3,000; region III, 3,001 to 3,500; region IV, 3,501 to 4,000; and region V, 4,001 or more. See pages 61-64 of “General Viticulture,” by Albert J. Winkler, University of California Press, 1974.)
        Regarding the southern end of the Santa Margarita Valley that lies beyond the proposed expansion, Dr. Elliott-Fisk explains that the steep topography east, south and west of the narrow valley floor causes increases in relief precipitation and evening settling of cold, dense air at the valley's terminus. Local farmers, the petition explains, state that air temperatures at the far southern end of the valley are too cold to produce quality wine grapes.
        Geology
        The geological features that characterize the southern region of the Paso Robles AVA continue across the AVA's southern-most boundary line and are found throughout the Santa Margarita Valley, including the proposed expansion area. Dr. Elliott-Fisk explains that the Salinas River originally formed the Santa Margarita Valley through a process of soil erosion and deposition, while the complex faulting of the Santa Lucia Range formed a graben basin that extends along the valley floor and crosses the existing Paso Robles AVA southern-most boundary line. Later, Dr. Elliott-Fisk notes, the Salinas River carved a new channel to the east through the soft Monterey Formation shales along the Rinconada Fault as the San Andreas Fault zone became more active. Rinconada Creek, a primary Salinas River tributary in the Santa Margarita Valley area, then deposited a series of broad alluvial fans and terraces across the older Salinas River alluvial fill, Dr. Elliott-Fisk explains. She notes that these alluvial terraces extend north and south of the current Paso Robles AVA boundary line and exist throughout the proposed expansion area.
        To the east, south, and west of the proposed Paso Robles AVA expansion, Dr. Elliott-Fisk explains, the geology of the landscape is unsuitable for commercial production of wine grapes. She states that, to the east, granitic rocks on the mountainsides make the area difficult to farm, and the weathering and failure of near-surface rock makes road building difficult. Also, to the south, and at the narrowed southern terminus of the Santa Margarita Valley, Franciscan conglomerate rock underlies the shallow alluvium creating an environment lacking in adequate groundwater. To the west, the landscape includes massive units of the late Cretaceous Franciscan and Great Valley formations, consisting of hard marine sandstones and conglomerates on steep mountain slopes, making the terrain unsuitable for viticulture.
        Soils
        Similar soils exist on both sides of the current Paso Robles AVA southern boundary line, according to the current USDA soil survey for the Paso Robles Area of San Luis Obispo County (Lindsey, 1978). Climate, parent material, topography, and time, Dr. Elliott-Fisk states, all contribute to the soil type similarities that extend the length of the Santa Margarita Valley. The soils of the Santa Margarita Valley, Dr. Elliott-Fisk explains, include the deep gravelly loam soils of late-mid Quaternary age, grading into shallower clay loam soils against bedrock on the hillsides. Also, younger alluvial deposits dominate the flood plains of the valley's creeks.
        Soils and terrain to the south, east, and west of the Paso Robles AVA proposed southern expansion are, however, unsuitable for commercial viticulture, Dr. Elliott-Fisk explains. To the south, the soils of the valley floor include clay loams with low water permeability and high water capacity with moderate shrink-swell potential, while the mountain slopes to the east and west have shallow top soil, small rooting zones for grapevines, and erosion potential, making those areas unsuitable for viticulture.
        Evidence Summary
        The PRAVAC petition, including Dr. Elliott-Fisk's discussion of the proposed expansion area's distinguishing features and a detailed letter from vineyard developer and manger Neil Roberts, emphasize that similar geological, geographical, and climatic conditions extend through the Santa Margarita Valley, which encompasses a portion of the existing Paso Robles AVA as well as the proposed expansion area. The landforms, topography, and geology features that form the Santa Margarita Valley, the petition explains, are similar both north and south of the existing Paso Robles AVA southern-most boundary line. Also, the valley's climate, as reflected by Winkler's degree-day values, and its soil types, as documented in the 1978 USDA soil survey for the Paso Robles Area of San Luis Obispo County, show strong similarities on both sides of the current Paso Robles AVA southern-most boundary line. The petition adds that vineyards are farmed the same way north and south of the current Paso Robles AVA boundary line through the valley and these vineyards grow the same varietals.
        TTB Determination
        TTB concludes that the petition to expand the Paso Robles American viticultural area merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice.
        Boundary Description
        See the narrative boundary description covering the petitioned-for viticultural area expansion in the proposed regulatory text amendment published at the end of this notice.
        Maps
        The petitioner provided the required map to document the proposed boundary change, and we list that map below in the proposed regulatory text amendment.
        Impact on Current Wine Labels
        The proposed expansion of the Paso Robles viticultural area will not affect currently approved wine labels. The approval of this proposed expansion may allow additional vintners to use “Paso Robles” as an appellation of origin on their wine labels. Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be eligible to use a viticultural area name as an appellation of origin or a term of viticultural significance in a brand name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
        Public Participation
        Comments Invited

        We invite comments from interested members of the public on whether we should expand the Paso Robles viticultural area as described above. We are especially interested in comments concerning the similarity of the proposed expansion area to the currently existing Paso Robles viticultural area. Please support your comments with specific information about the proposed expansion area's name, proposed boundaries, or distinguishing features.
        Submitting Comments
        You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the following two methods:
        • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2008-0005 on “Regulations.gov,” the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available under Notice No. 85 on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on “User Guide” under “How to Use this Site.”
        • U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412.
        Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 85 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals.
        If you are commenting on behalf of an association, business, or other entity, your comment must include the entity's name as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.
        You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
        Confidentiality
        All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
        Public Disclosure

        We will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments we receive about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2008-0005 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 85. You may also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page at http://www.regulations.gov. For instructions on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on “User Guide” under “How to Use this Site.”
        All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including e-mail addresses. We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting.
        You also may view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact our information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        We certify that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
        Executive Order 12866
        This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment.
        Drafting Information
        N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice.

          List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
          Wine.

        Proposed Regulatory Amendment
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend title 27, chapter 1, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

          PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
          1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            27 U.S.C. 205.

            Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas

          2. Section 9.84 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c)(7), and (c)(8), redesignating paragraphs (c)(9) and (c)(10) as (c)(10) and (c)(11), and adding a new paragraph (c)(9). The revisions and addition read as follows:

            § 9.84
            Paso Robles.

            (b) Approved Maps. The appropriate map for determining the boundary of the Paso Robles viticultural area is the United States Geological Survey 1:250,000-scale map of San Luis Obispo, California, 1956, revised 1969, shoreline revised and bathymetry added 1979.
            (c) Boundaries. * * *

            (7) Then in an easterly direction along the T.29S. and T.30S. line for approximately 3.1 miles to its intersection with the eastern boundary line of the Los Padres National Forest;
            (8) Then in a southeasterly direction along the eastern boundary line of the Los Padres National Forest for approximately 4.1 miles to its intersection with the R.13E. and R.14E. line;
            (9) Then in a northerly direction along the R.13E. and R.14E. line for approximately 8.7 miles to its intersection with the T.28S. and T.29S. line;

            Signed: July 8, 2008.
            John J. Manfreda,
            Administrator.

      [FR Doc. E8-16167 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4810-31-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R01-OAR-2006-1018; A-1-FRL-8491-1]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Amendment to Massachusetts' State Implementation Plan for Transit System Improvements

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This revision changes completion dates of delayed transit projects, provides interim deadlines for projects, maintains interim emission reduction offsets for delays in projects, modifies the project substitution process, revises the list of required transit projects, and expands public participation and oversight of the transit transportation control measure projects. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of specific named substitution projects to the State Implementation Plan's transportation control measure projects, and approve modifications to the delay and substitution procedures for transit projects. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before December 5, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2006—1018 by one of the following methods:
          1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
          3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
          4. Mail: “Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2006-1018”, Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
          5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2006-1018. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov, or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
          In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Bureau of Waste Prevention, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Donald O. Cooke, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number (617) 918-1668, fax number (617) 918-0668, e-mail cooke.donald@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us” and “our” is used, we mean EPA.
        Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

          I. Background and Purpose
          II. Summary of Changes to 310 CMR 7.00 and 7.36

          III. Results of EOT's Demonstration of Air Quality Emission Reductions

          IV. Criteria for Approving Amendments to the Transit System Improvements Regulation into the SIP
          V. Transportation Control Measure (TCM) Substitution and SAFETEA-LU
          VI. Proposed Action
          VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. Background and Purpose
        EPA approved the Massachusetts Transit System Improvements Regulation (the Regulation), 310 CMR 7.36 (effective December 6, 1991), into the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP) on October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50495—50498). The transit system improvement projects contained in the Regulation include transportation control measures deemed necessary to mitigate the air quality impacts of the Central Artery and Third Harbor Tunnel Project in Metropolitan Boston.
        On December 13, 2006, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) submitted a revision to its SIP amending its Transit System Improvements Regulation. The revision consists of MA DEP's final amendments to 310 CMR 7.36, “Transit System Improvements,” effective December 1, 2006. MA DEP held a hearing on the amendments to the Regulation on December 21, 2005. On June 1, 2007, MA DEP supplemented its SIP revision with a letter determining that Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) had met the requirements of 310 CMR 7.36 (8), Demonstration of Air Quality Emissions Reductions, along with EOT's air quality modeling analysis (“Description of Modeling Assumptions and Analysis Methodology for the State Implementation Plan Transit Commitment Projects Current and Proposed Substitutions,” dated March 15, 2007). EOT held a public comment period on this supplemental material for a 45-day period commencing on January 2, 2007. The document was amended based on comments received and an additional two-week public comment period began on March 21, 2007, following posting in the “Environmental Monitor.” DEP submitted EOT's responses to public comments received as part of the supplemental materials.
        On August 22, 2007, we issued our determination that the Massachusetts SIP package is administratively and technically complete. In our completeness determination, we also highlighted EPA's interest in seeing that the transit projects are implemented in a timely manner and requested that MA DEP keep us apprised of the status of the replacement projects as they move forward. In addition, we specifically mentioned hearing recent reports of potential delays in the Green Line extension project and encouraged Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) to address this issue on the record at the upcoming September 6, 2007 public meeting.
        On September 6, 2007, the MA DEP held a public meeting to address EOT's annual status report on transit commitments. EOT presented the status of the uncompleted transit projects and took public comment. David Mohler, Acting Deputy Secretary for Planning, EOT, explained the Commonwealth's efforts in seeking Federal funds for the Green Line, which could delay the completion of the Green Line for up to two years. Mohler emphasized EOT's position to make up any time delay, and if a delay occurred, to propose mitigation projects and adequate emission offsets as required by the regulation. EOT also made available at the public meeting a September 4, 2007, letter from David Mohler to MA DEP's Acting Commissioner, Arlene O'Donnell, committing to accelerate the planning, design and environmental review and permitting of the project in order to meet the 2014 completion date.
        II. Summary of Changes to 310 CMR 7.00 and 7.36
        Listed below are the changes in Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's Air Pollution Control Regulations 310 CMR 7.00, “Statutory Authority; Legend; Preamble; Definitions,” and 310 CMR 7.36, “U Transit System Improvements” which went into effect on December 1, 2006 at the state level. EPA is proposing approval of these changes as a SIP revision.
        Definitions
        The following definition of “Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization” (MPO) is added and included in 310 CMR 7.00: “BOSTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION means the organization designated for maintaining a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3C) transportation planning process under Section 134 of the Federal Aid Highway Act and Section 5303 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended, in the Boston metropolitan region.”
        Revisions to the List of Required Projects
        The Green Line Arborway Restoration, the Blue Line Connection from Bowdoin Station to the Red Line at Charles Station, and the Green Line extension to Ball Square/Tufts University, will be replaced by the Fairmont Line Project (construction to be completed and opened to full public use by December 31, 2011), 1000 new park and ride parking spaces (construction to be completed and opened to full public use by December 31, 2011) and an enhanced Green Line Extension Project (construction to be completed and opened to full public use by December 31, 2014). The Green Line Arborway Restoration was originally assigned a completion date of December 31, 1997, with an extension to December 31, 2000 previously granted pursuant to the Regulation, and project emission offsets required to mitigate the delay after December 31, 2000 until project completion. The Blue Line connection and the Green Line extension to Ball Square/Tufts University were originally assigned a completion date of December 31, 2011.
        The New Replacement/Substitution Projects
        “The Fairmount Line Project.” The Fairmount commuter rail line is approximately 9.2 miles long, running from South Station to Readville, passing through the communities of Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan. Fairmount Line improvements will consist of: Enhancements of existing stations including, without limitation, platform extensions, improved lighting and improved access; a new Four Corners Station plus a new station in each of the neighborhoods of Dorchester, Mattapan and Roxbury; and bridge upgrades and other measures to improve service and increase ridership.
        “1000 new park and ride parking spaces.” These 1000 new park and ride parking spaces are in addition to those required by 310 CMR 7.36(2)(c)3 and 310 CMR 7.36(2)(d), and will serve commuter transit facilities, within the 101 cities and towns constituting the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization.
        “The Green Line Extension Project.” The Green Line extension consists of extending the Green Line from Lechmere Station to Medford Hillside and construction of a spur to Union Square.
        “The Red Line/Blue Line Connector.” The revision requires final design of the connection from the Blue Line at Government Center to the Red Line at Charles Station before December 31, 2011, but no longer commits to its construction.
        Revised Deadlines

        Old Colony Commuter Rail Extension Greenbush Line, originally assigned a completion date of December 31, 1996, must now be completed and open to full public use before December 31, 2007. Project emission offsets were required to mitigate the delay of the Greenbush spur after December 31, 1999 until project completion.
        Blue Line Platform Lengthening and Modernization, originally assigned a completion date of December 31, 1998, with an extension to December 31, 2008 previously granted pursuant to the Regulation, must now be completed and open to full public use before December 31, 2008. Project emission offsets were required to mitigate the delay after December 31, 2001 until project completion.
        Project Interim Deadlines
        MA DEP has added interim project deadlines for the Fairmount Line improvements, the Green Line extension to Medford Hillside, the Green Line Union Square spur, and the 1000 Park and Ride parking spaces. EPA believes these interim milestones, in combination with the EOT's annual reporting on the status of the transit commitments, will help keep the transit system improvements projects construction on schedule.
        New Requirements Added To Address Potential Project Delays of the New Projects
        If the Fairmount Line improvements, the Green Line extension to Medford Hillside, the Green Line Union Square spur, or 1000 Park and Ride spaces are delayed, interim air quality offset projects are required to be implemented. The revised regulation does not place a limit on the amount of time EOT may delay a project, as long as it obtains offsets for the delay.
        EOT is required to petition MA DEP to delay a project, and the petition will undergo “public review” before MA DEP acts on the petition.
        Substitution Criteria
        Projects may be substituted after completion of specified interim project deadlines. The revised Regulation no longer requires a finding that the project to be replaced is “infeasible.”
        Substitution determinations require an EOT public meeting and a public comment period.
        The proposed substitute project must achieve 110% of the emission reductions that would have been achieved by the original project to be replaced.
        EOT must implement interim emission reduction offsets to address any delay in achieving the emission reductions that would have been achieved had all components of the original project been completed on time.
        Project substitutions may proceed after MA DEP determines in writing that EOT has met the substitution provisions of the Regulation.
        Potential Future Project Substitutions
        The Green Line Extension may be substituted with transit projects in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, or Medford.
        The Fairmount Line project may be substituted with transit projects in Dorchester, Hyde Park, Mattapan, or Roxbury.
        Public Process Requirements
        EOT is required to conduct an annual public meeting to provide a thorough update and status report on each project and to disclose any need for potential or actual project delays and/or substitutions.
        EOT is required to submit an annual certification to MA DEP with a commitment to complete and fund projects and disclose project delays/substitutions/interim offset measures to be implemented.
        Development of Emission Reduction Baseline
        MA DEP added a new Subsection 8 to provide substantive public comment on the air quality modeling for the Regulation and EOT's remodeling of the revised transit projects.
        EOT must calculate baseline emission reductions by modeling the original three projects, the Green Line Arborway Restoration, the Blue Line-Red Line Connection, and the Green Line extension to Ball Square, and adding 10% to the total.
        EOT is required to demonstrate that new projects will deliver the required baseline emission reductions. If the new projects do not deliver the baseline emission reductions, EOT is required to implement additional projects in the same geographic areas.
        EOT is required to take public comment on the results of the emission analysis and respond to those comments.
        Demonstration of Emission Reductions
        When all projects required by 310 CMR 7.36 are substantially complete, EOT shall complete an analysis of the total air quality benefits of such projects. EOT shall perform such analysis in accordance with EPA requirements in effect at the time of the analysis.
        III. Results of EOT's Demonstration of Air Quality Emission Reductions
        MA DEP's supplemental SIP revision submitted to EPA on June 1, 2007, contained MA DEP's determination that EOT had met the requirements of 310 CMR 7.36(8)(d) and (e) and that the “administrative record reasonably supports the results and conclusions of the report required pursuant to 310 CMR 7.36(8)(c).” Thus, MA DEP agreed that EOT has demonstrated that the new projects achieve at least 110% of the emissions reductions that would have been achieved by the projects being replaced.

        In addition, the supplement included EOT's air quality modeling demonstration mandated by 310 CMR 7.36(8)(a) through (8)(e) entitled, “Description of Modeling Assumptions and Analysis Methodology for the State Implementation Plan Transit Commitment Projects Current and Proposed Substitutions March 15, 2007,” prepared by the Boston MPO's Central Transportation Planning Staff for the Executive Office of Transportation Office of Transportation. These documents are part of the publicly available docket materials accessible for inspection electronically in the Federal Docket Management System at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket Number EPA-R01-OAR-2006-1018.

        EOT's air quality analysis modeled the emissions reductions of: (1) The original SIP-approved package of projects; (2) the replacement/substitution package of projects; and (3) the no-build or baseline scenario. This analysis concluded that the substitution projects (Green Line to Union Square and Medford Hillside, Fairmont Line Improvements, and Additional Parking) results in reductions of 435 kilograms per day of Carbon Monoxide (CO), 11 kilograms per day of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), and 17 kilograms of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) over the no-build baseline. The package of transit projects are estimated to result in emission reductions in 2025 of 149% CO, 137.5% NOX and 154% VOC of the original SIP-approved projects, which are in excess of the 110% emission reduction required by subsection (5)(f) of the amended transit system improvements regulation. For all three pollutants, CO, NOX and VOC [MA DEP's regulations refers to hydrocarbon emissions (VOC) as non-methane hydrocarbons—NMHC], MA DEP's requirement of 110% threshold is met. Please see Table 1 “EOT Air Quality Analysis Comparison of Project Packages Benefits in the Year 2025,” below.

          Table 1.—EOT Air Quality Analysis Comparison of Project Packages Benefits in the Year 2025

            Daily emission benefits in kilograms (kg.)
            Carbonmonoxide
              (CO)

            Nitrogenoxides
              (NOX)

            Volatile organic
              compounds
              (VOC)

            SIP Approved Projects (Package):

            Arborway Restoration, Green Line Extension to Ball Square/Tufts University, and Blue Line/Red Line Connection (Bowdoin Station to Charles Station)
            292
            8
            11

            SIP Approved Projects (Package) Plus Ten Percent
            321.2
            8.8
            12.1

            Replacement/Substitution Projects (Package):

            Green Line to Union Square and Medford Hillside, Fairmont Line Improvements, and Additional Parking
            435
            11
            17

        IV. Criteria for Approving Amendments to the Transit System Improvements Regulation Into the SIP
        EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. An adequate SIP revision is one that meets the Clean Air Act's requirement under section 110(l) that a SIP revision must not interfere with attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQSs). The Commonwealth has flexibility to revise SIP-approved transportation control measures (TCMs), provided the revisions are consistent with attaining and maintaining compliance with the NAAQSs. In addition, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU) section 6011(d) amended the Clean Air Act by adding a new section 176(c)(8) that establishes specific criteria and procedures for replacing TCMs in an existing approved SIP with new TCMs and adding TCMs to an approved SIP. As discussed below, MA DEP's Regulation does not need to comply with all elements of section 176(c)(8) to be approvable as a SIP revision, but it must not conflict with any of those elements.
        The Federal executive policy on environmental justice is established by Executive Order (EO) 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)). Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Here the Clean Air Act directs EPA to approve a SIP revision unless it does not meet the Act's requirements. Although the Act does not provide EPA the authority to modify the Commonwealths' regulatory decision solely on the basis of environmental justice considerations, EPA continues to encourage EOT to consider environmental justice concerns when deciding the location of the additional Park and Ride spaces and the new stations along the Fairmount commuter rail line and the Green Line extension project. EPA also urges EOT and DEP to consider environmental justice concerns when deciding whether to meet project deadlines, to approve proposals for project delays, and to approve offset or substitute projects.
        V. Transportation Control Measure (TCM) Substitution and SAFETEA-LU

        Clean Air Act section 176(c)(8), added by SAFETEA-LU, establishes the procedures for ensuring that substitute TCMs provide equal or greater emissions reductions than the TCMs that are being replaced. It also establishes the process for EPA and state air agency concurrence on the substitution or addition of TCM projects. Finally, it ensures that the state and EPA maintain up-to-date information on the TCMs in approved SIPs so that the public is aware of the TCMs that are to be implemented. EPA and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued joint guidance on February 14, 2006, on the implementation of all of the Clean Air Act amendments made by SAFETEA-LU. This guidance clarified EPA and DOT expectations for how TCM substitutions and additions are to be carried out by state and local agencies. The guidance is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/420b06901.pdf.1

            1 EPA has proposed regulations to implement SAFETEA-LU, but specifically declined to propose regulations addressing section 176(c)(8), finding that the statute is already sufficiently detailed and that the EPA/DOT guidance would address questions that might arise about TCM substitutions. (72 FR 24472, 24485-24486; May 2, 2007).

        As explained in the guidance, section 176(c)(8) applies directly to any TCM substitution made in a SIP, whether or not the SIP already includes a substitution mechanism designed by a state and approved by EPA. The section does not eliminate the requirement to comply with any such substitution procedures in a SIP, even if the state includes requirements that go beyond the minimum elements required under section 176(c)(8). Correspondingly, complying with the substitution process in the SIP does not eliminate the requirement to meet all the elements of the process laid out in section 176(c)(8). In the unlikely event there is a conflict between section 176(c)(8) and the SIP substitution process, the substitution must comply with section 176(c)(8). See EPA/DOT Guidance at pages 20-21, section 5.2.
        Therefore, for the purposes of this SIP approval, EPA must determine whether any element of the MA DEP Transit System Improvements Regulation conflicts with section 176(c)(8). EPA sees no conflict between the requirements of the MA DEP Regulation and section 176(c)(8). There are provisions in the MA DEP Regulation that go beyond the requirements of section 176(c)(8), such as the requirement to demonstrate that the substitution achieves an extra 10% emissions reduction beyond that achieved by the projects being replaced or the specific geographic limits on substitute projects. But EPA has found no instance in which complying with the MA DEP regulation would result in a conflict with or violate any corresponding requirement of section 176(c)(8).

        In addition, EPA must work with MA DEP to ensure that any requirements in section 176(c)(8) that are not addressed in its Regulation will be met. There appear to be two requirements in section 176(c)(8) that are not provided for in the MA DEP Regulation.
        First, in addition to the state air pollution control agency, section 176(c)(8)(A)(v) specifically requires both the MPO and EPA to concur with the equivalency of the substitute TCM before the substitution can take effect. On May 3, 2007, Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation, Bernard Cohen, submitted EOT's air quality modeling analysis for the substitution projects to MA DEP. This analysis demonstrates that the required emission reductions set forth in section 7.36(8) of the Regulation will be achieved by the new projects. All that remains is for the MPO to submit evidence to EPA that the MPO concurs in that analysis. For EPA's concurrence on the substitutions included in this SIP revision, the Agency will send a letter, contemporaneous with our final action on this SIP revision, to document EPA's concurrence on the substitutions being approved with the revisions to MA DEP's regulation.2
           For any future substitutions, EPA will work with MA DEP to coordinate EPA's review with DEP's review of the proposed substitution so that the substitution can take effect as a matter of federal law if both DEP and EPA approve it.

            2 Both the authority to approve this SIP revision and the authority to concur on TCM substitutions under section 176(c)(8) have been delegated to the Regional Administrator. See EPA Delegations of Authority Nos. 7-10 (Approval/Disapproval of State Implementation Plans) and 7-158 (Transportation Control Measure Substitutions and Additions). Note that while EPA is using an informal rulemaking to act on this proposed SIP revision, we are not interpreting section 176(c)(8)(A)(v) to require a rulemaking to accomplish EPA's concurrence. See EPA/DOT Guidance at page 27, section 5.17. Indeed, section 176(c)(8) was added to the Act precisely to avoid the need for a full SIP revision to implement TCM substitutions in the routine case. In this instance, where the TCM substitution is occurring as part of a proposed SIP revision, EPA is simply acting on the SIP in a rulemaking under section 110 of the Act contemporaneous with any concurrence on the substitution in a letter to MA DEP under section 176(c)(8) of the Act.

        Second, section 176(c)(8) now requires all substitutions of TCM's to be submitted to EPA for incorporation into the codification of the SIP. For the purposes of the substitutions provided for in the revisions of the Regulation, EPA is proposing that any codification that results from our final action on this SIP revision will address this requirement. For future substitutions, although the Regulation does not specifically require MA DEP to forward to EPA the results of MA DEP's substitution determinations, it should be a routine matter for MA DEP to submit any substitution it approves under section 7.36(5)(h) so that the federally approved SIP can accurately reflect the current requirements under the Regulation.
        EPA's review of Massachusetts' SIP Revision indicates the amendments to the SIP-approved Massachusetts Transit System Improvements, with substitution projects and changes to projects timelines, adequately demonstrate continued emission reductions and do not relax current provisions in the SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the Massachusetts SIP revision for Transit System Improvements, which was submitted on December 13, 2006, and supplemented on June 1, 2007.3

           EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

            3 In addition, EPA is planning to concur pursuant to section 176(c)(8) that the substitute TCM's achieve equivalent or greater emission reductions than the measures being replaced.

        VI. Proposed Action
        EPA is proposing to approve Massachusetts' amendments to Transit System Improvements Regulation, 310 CMR 7.36, and Definition Regulation, 310 CMR 7.00 (which were filed with the Massachusetts Secretary of State on November 16, 2006 and were effective on December 1, 2006,) as a revision to the Massachusetts SIP. EPA finds that the transit measures in the revised transit system improvements regulation remain directionally sound and that all proposed substitution projects identified in the Regulation will collectively contribute to achieving the national ambient air quality standard for ozone and maintaining the carbon monoxide standard, thereby satisfying requirements set forth in Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act.
        VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
        This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), or Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

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

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

          Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

          Dated: October 25, 2007.
          Robert W. Varney,
          Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

      [FR Doc. E7-21691 Filed 11-2-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
        46 CFR Part 532
        [Docket No. 11-22]
        Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carriers Negotiated Rate Arrangements; Tariff Filing Exemption

          AGENCY:
          Federal Maritime Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of Inquiry.

          SUMMARY:
          The Federal Maritime Commission is issuing this Notice of Inquiry seeking comments on ways to make the tariff filing exemption provided to licensed non-vessel-operating common carriers in its regulations more useful, including its possible extension to foreign-based non-vessel-operating common carriers not licensed by the Federal Maritime Commission.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before March 26, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit comments to: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary,  Federal Maritime Commission,  800 North Capitol Street NW.,   Washington, DC 20573-0001, or email non-confidential comments to: Secretary@fmc.gov (email comments as attachments preferably in Microsoft Word or PDF).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 N. Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001. (202) 523-5725, Fax (202) 523-0014, Email: Secretary@fmc.gov, Rebecca A. Fenneman, General Counsel; Federal Maritime Commission, 800 N. Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001, (202) 523-5740, Fax (202) 523-5738, Email: GeneralCounsel@fmc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On July 31, 2008, the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, Inc. (NCBFAA) filed a petition (Petition) with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission), seeking an exemption from provisions of the Shipping Act of 1984 (the Act) requiring non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOCCs) “to publish and/or adhere to rate tariffs for ocean transportation in those instances where they have individually negotiated rates with their shipping customers and memorialized those rates in writing.” NCBFAA Petition at 10. Notice of the Petition was published on August 11, 2008, with comments due by September 26, 2008. Petition No. P1-08, Petition of the National Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association of America, Inc. for Exemption from Mandatory Rate Tariff Publication, 73 FR 46625-02 (August 11, 2008). The Commission considered the petition and comments at a meeting on February 18, 2010, and, by a 3-1 vote, determined to initiate a rulemaking to relieve licensed NVOCCs from the costs and burdens of rate tariff publication. On May 7, 2010, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), pursuant to its authority under sections 16 and 17 of the Act, 46 U.S.C. 40103 and 46 U.S.C. 305, seeking comments on a proposal to exempt licensed NVOCCs from the rate publication requirements of the Shipping Act, subject to certain conditions. Docket No. 10-03, 75 FR 25151 (May 7, 2010). Additionally, the Commission requested interested parties to submit comments on whether the exemption should be extended to foreign-based NVOCCs who are unlicensed but bonded pursuant to 46 CFR 515.21(a)(3). On March 2, 2011, after consideration of the comments received in response to the NPR, the Commission issued a final rule, effective April 18, 2011, promulgating 46 CFR Part 532, which exempted licensed NVOCCs from their tariff rate publication obligations when entering into a “negotiated rate arrangement” (NRA).1

            1 An NRA is defined as “a written and binding arrangement between a shipper and an eligible NVOCC to provide specific transportation service for a stated cargo quantity, from origin to destination, on and after the receipt of the cargo by the carrier or its agent (or the originating carrier in the case of through transportation).” 46 CFR 532.3(a). An NVOCC's use of NRAs is subject to several conditions, including (1) NVOCCs who use NRAs are required to continue publishing standard rules tariffs containing contractual terms and conditions governing shipments, including any accessorial charges and surcharges, and are required to make their rules tariffs available to shippers free of charge; (2) NRA rates charged by NVOCCs must be mutually agreed and memorialized in writing by the date cargo is received for shipment; and (3) NVOCCs who use NRAs must retain documentation confirming the agreed rate and terms for each shipment for a period of five years, and must make such documentation promptly upon request available to the Commission pursuant to the Commission's regulations at 46 CFR 515.31(g).

        The final rule did not extend the exemption to foreign-based unlicensed NVOCCs due to concerns by Commission Staff that to do so could harm the agency's mission to protect the shipping public. See 76 FR 11355-11357. The final rule noted that:

          At this time, Commissioners hold differing views on the concerns the Staff has raised, and on the relevance and weight those concerns should be given in the Commission's decision whether or not to extend the exemption to foreign unlicensed NVOCCs. Accordingly, the Commission will move forward with the current rule as proposed for licensed NVOCCs, but as noted above, will commence proceedings to obtain and consider additional public comment on potential modifications to the final rule, including possible extension of the exemption to include foreign unlicensed NVOCCs. The record in this proceeding will be incorporated into the new Commission proceeding. 76 FR 11357.

        NVOCCs have now been able to use NRAs for more than six months. In accordance with the statements in the final rule, the Commission now invites comment and information from all members of the interested public (whether they be located in the United States or elsewhere), including ocean common carriers, ocean transportation intermediaries, exporters, and beneficial cargo owners, on ways to make the exemption more useful, including possible extension of the exemption to include foreign unlicensed NVOCCs. Comments that are specific and provide supporting data are most helpful. The record in Docket 10-03 is incorporated into this proceeding.
        Submit Comments

        Non-confidential filings may be submitted in hard copy or by email as an attachment (preferably in Microsoft Word or PDF) addressed to secretary@fmc.gov on or before March 26, 2012. Include in the subject line: “Negotiated Rate Arrangements—Response to NOI.” Confidential filings must be submitted in the traditional manner on paper, rather than by email. Comments submitted that seek confidential treatment must be submitted in hard copy by U.S. mail or courier. Confidential filings must be accompanied by a transmittal letter that identifies the filing as “confidential” and describes the nature and extent of the confidential treatment requested. When submitting comments in response to the Notice of Inquiry that contain confidential information, the confidential copy of the filing must consist of the complete filing and be marked by the filer as “Confidential-Restricted,” with the confidential material clearly marked on each page. When a confidential filing is submitted, an original and one additional copy of the public version of the filing must be submitted. The public version of the filing should exclude confidential materials, and be clearly marked on each affected page, “confidential materials excluded.” The Commission will provide confidential treatment to the extent allowed by law for those submissions, or parts of submissions, for which confidential treatment is requested. Questions regarding filing or treatment of confidential responses to this Notice of Inquiry should be directed to the Commission's Secretary, Karen V. Gregory, at the telephone number or email provided above.

          By the Commission.
          Karen V. Gregory,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2011-33007 Filed 12-23-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6730-01-P