Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Action: Proposed rule
Citation: FR Doc. 06-87 · EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0015; FRL-8019-8 · 40 CFR 52

Summary

This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision pertains to changes in the State's regulations that require implementation of nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) locations in Virginia.

Dates

Written comments must be received on or before February 6, 2006.

Supplementary Information

On March 28, 2005, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality submitted a SIP revision approval request entitled, “NSR in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).” The applicable regulations requiring implementation of nonattainment NSR in the Virginia portion of the OTR were adopted by the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board on September 29, 2004. I. Background The Clean Air Act requires that 13 states including the District of Columbia submit revisions to their State Implementation Plans that will require major new and major modified sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or nitrogen oxides (NO ^X ) to meet certain new source review (NSR) requirements if they are located (or are proposing to locate) in the Ozone Transport Region. Section 184 of the Act establishes the OTR, which consists of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the District of Columbia and portions of Virginia. The areas designated as in the Virginia portion of the OTR are as follows: Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City. II. Summary of SIP Revision The Commonwealth of Virginia amended its regulations to clarify that areas located in the Virginia portion of the OTR must meet the requirements of Virginia Code Article 9 VAC 5 Chapter 80 (Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Nonattainment Areas) as if they were classified as moderate nonattainment for ozone, except that the threshold for major stationary sources of VOCs would be 50 tons instead of 100 tons. The changes that are reflected in this requested SIP revision are those that identify and define the OTR locations in Virginia while providing direction to what State regulations sources will need to follow when they are either planning to locate in or are already located in the Virginia portion of the OTR. Changes were made to the State provisions at 9 VAC 5-80-2000, Applicability and 9 VAC 5-80-2010, Definitions. Sources in the Virginia portion of the OTR are also required to meet offset requirements in 9 VAC 5-80-2120 B 2 for areas classified as moderate nonattainment for ozone. These provisions require all increases of VOC and/or NO ^X emissions attributable to the new or modified source to be offset with emission reductions elsewhere in the Virginia portion of the OTR at a ratio of 1.15 to 1.00. The SIP revision will amend the SIP to add new regulatory language indicating that sources in the Virginia portion of the OTR are subject to the requirements of 9 VAC 5-80-2000, et seq. regardless of the nonattainment status of the area where the source is located. The SIP revision also provides that sources located or planning to locate in areas within the OTR that are classified as “serious” or “severe” nonattainment areas are required to meet the respective emission thresholds listed within the State's definition of a “major stationary source” at 9 VAC 5-80-2010 C Section a(1) and (2) and the more restrictive offset requirements located in 9 VAC 5-80-2120 B 3 and B 4, respectively. III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) that are required by law. On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts * * .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.” Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its NSR program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law. IV. Proposed Action EPA's review of this material indicates this action will have a beneficial effect on air quality by reducing emissions in the Ozone Transport Region. EPA is proposing to approve the Virginia SIP revision for NSR in the Ozone Transport Region, which was submitted on March 28, 2005. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This proposed rule, to approve the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality State Implementation Plan revision request requiring implementation of NSR in the Virginia portion of the Ozone Transport Region, 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, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 28, 2005. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E6-37 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0016; FRL-8019-7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Amendments to the Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision pertains to the amendments of the Commonwealth's existing ambient air quality standards. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0016 by one of the following methods: A. www.regulations.gov . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov . C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0016, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0016. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is a “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by e-mail at quinto.rose@epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In 1997, EPA adopted an 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) with a level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to provide greater protection to public health than the previous standard of 0.12 ppm averaged over a 1-hour block of time (62 FR 38894, July 18, 1997). At the same time, EPA established a new standard for fine particulate matter (PM ^2.5 ) that applies to particles 2.5 microns in diameter or less (62 FR 38711, July 18, 1997). These standards became effective on September 16, 1997 and are located in 40 CFR part 50. On September 26, 2005, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision that amends the existing Virginia Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution (9 VAC 5 Chapter 30, Ambient Air Quality Standards). This amendment includes the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone and PM ^2.5 , as well as general revisions to the Commonwealth's regulations consistent with 40 CFR part 50. II. Summary of SIP Revision The Commonwealth's revision incorporates the 1997 NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone and PM ^2.5 standards into 9 VAC 5 Chapter 30. This SIP revision provides that the 8-hour primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards are met when the average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm, averaged over three consecutive years. In addition, the SIP revision adds a new PM ^2.5 ambient air quality standard. The standards incorporated in this SIP revision are 65 micrograms per cubic meter based on a 24-hour average concentration and 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter annual arithmetic mean concentration. The other SIP revisions incorporated into 9 VAC 5 Chapter 30, are amendments to the ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone (1-hour), PM ¹⁰ , nitrogen dioxide, and lead, to make the state regulation consistent with 40 CFR part 50. III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege”' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information (1) that is generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that is prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrates a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) that is required by law. On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * ” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.” Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law. IV. Proposed Action EPA's review of this material indicates that the amendments to 9 VAC 5 Chapter 30 are consistent with 40 CFR part 50. EPA is proposing to approve the Virginia SIP revision for 9 VAC 5 Chapter 30, which was submitted on September 26, 2005. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This proposed rule pertaining to the amendments of Virginia's ambient air quality standards, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 28, 2005. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E6-30 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 122 [OW-2002-0068; FRL-8019-6] RIN 2040-AE81 Amendments to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Regulations for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration, Production, Processing, or Treatment Operations, or Transmission Facilities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: Today EPA proposes action to codify in the Agency's regulations changes to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act resulting from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This proposed action would modify National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations to provide that certain storm water discharges from field activities, including construction, associated with oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations, or transmission facilities would be exempt from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. This action also encourages voluntary application of best management practices for oil and gas field activities and operations to minimize the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff and protect water quality. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0068 by one of the following methods: • www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov • Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of three copies. • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0068. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Unit I.C of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the document. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (202) 566-2426. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Smith, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-0652; fax number: (202) 564-6431; e-mail address: smith.jeff@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? Entities potentially affected by this action include operators of oil and gas exploration, production, processing and treatment, and transmission facilities and associated construction activities at oil and gas sites that generally are defined in the following North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes and titles: 211—Oil and Gas Extraction, 213111—Drilling Oil and Gas Wells, 213112—Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations, 48611—Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil and 48621—Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas. This description is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. This description identifies the types of entities that EPA is aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not identified could also be affected. To determine whether your facility or company is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2), (b)(14)(x), (b)(15) and (e)(8). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background Information A. NPDES Program In 1972, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (more commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act or CWA) to prohibit the discharge of any pollutant to waters of the United States from a point source except in compliance with specified provisions of the CWA, including section 402. The principal means by which one may lawfully discharge pollutants into waters of the United States is by obtaining authorization in a NPDES permit issued under CWA section 402. Initial efforts to improve water quality under the NPDES program focused primarily on reducing pollutants in industrial process wastewater and municipal sewage. As pollution control measures for industrial process wastewater and municipal sewage were implemented and refined, it became increasingly evident that more diffuse sources of water pollution were also significant causes of water quality impairment. Specifically, storm water runoff draining large surface areas, such as agricultural and urban land, was found to be a major cause of water quality impairment, including the non-attainment of designated beneficial uses. As a result, in 1987, Congress added Section 402(p) of the CWA, which directs EPA to develop a two-phased approach to regulate storm water discharges under the NPDES program. The first phase of the national program for controlling storm water, commonly referred to as “Phase I,” was promulgated on November 16, 1990 (55 FR 47990). Phase I requires NPDES permits for storm water discharges from a large number of priority sources, including municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) generally serving populations of 100,000 or more and industrial activity. EPA defined the term “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” in a manner that covered a wide variety of facilities, including construction activities that disturb at least five acres of land (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x)). The second phase of the storm water program, “Phase II,” was promulgated on December 8, 1999 (64 FR 68722). Phase II expanded the existing program to include discharges of storm water from smaller municipalities in urbanized areas and from construction sites that disturb between one and five acres of land. (40 CFR 122.26(b)(15)(i)). Discharges from these sources have generally needed permit authorization since March 10, 2003 (40 CFR 122.26(e)(8)). Phase II allows certain sources to be excluded from the national program based on a demonstrable lack of impact on water quality. The Phase II rule also allows for other sources not automatically regulated on a national basis to be designated for inclusion based on increased likelihood for localized adverse impact on water quality. B. NPDES Program Provisions Specific to Oil and Gas Activities The 1987 amendments to the CWA also added language at section 402( l )(2) that exempts from NPDES permitting requirements certain storm water discharges from oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities. That provision states that “[t]he Administrator shall not require a permit under this section, nor shall the Administrator directly or indirectly require any State to require a permit, for discharges of storm water runoff from mining operations or oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities, composed entirely of flows which are from conveyances or systems of conveyances (including but not limited to pipes, conduits, ditches, and channels) used for collecting and conveying precipitation runoff and which are not contaminated by contact with, or do not come into contact with, any overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products located on the site of such operations.” On January 4, 1989, EPA promulgated a rule [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulations] that, among other actions, codified the CWA section 402( l )(2) exemption at what was then 40 CFR 122.26(a)(3). (See 54 FR 246). The preamble to that rule explained that the legislative history of CWA section 402( l )(2) suggests that, with respect to oil or grease or hazardous substances, the determination of whether storm water is contaminated by contact with such materials, as established by the Administrator, shall take into consideration whether these materials are present in such storm water runoff in excess of reportable quantities under section 311 of the CWA or section 102 of CERCLA. The 1990 NPDES Phase I storm water regulations also codified the CWA section 402( l )(2) exemption, this time moving the regulatory exemption to 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2) for uncontaminated storm water discharges from oil and gas activities while also imposing permit requirements for storm water discharges associated with industrial activities, including construction sites disturbing at least five acres (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x)). The Phase I rule re-codification of the CWA section 402( l )(2) provision also revised the regulatory language to specify that the “Director may not require a permit” rather than the section 402( l )(2) language that specifies that the “Administrator shall not require a permit under this section, nor shall the Administrator directly or indirectly require any State to require a permit” for these discharges. This change helped clarify that States may not require permits for these discharges under the NPDES program. The rule also codified at § 122.26(c)(1)(iii) the conditions which would be considered indicative of contamination by contact with overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products located on the site and would thus necessitate an NPDES storm water permit application by oil and gas exploration, production, processing or treatment operations or transmission facilities. Section 122.26(c)(1)(iii) provides as follows: (iii) The operator of an existing or new discharge composed entirely of storm water from an oil or gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operation, or transmission facility is not required to submit a permit application in accordance with paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, unless the facility: (A) Has had a discharge of storm water resulting in the discharge of a reportable quantity for which notification is or was required pursuant to 40 CFR 117.21 or 40 CFR 302.6 at anytime since November 16, 1987; or (B) Has had a discharge of storm water resulting in the discharge of a reportable quantity for which notification is or was required pursuant to 40 CFR 110.6 at any time since November 16, 1987; or (C) Contributes to a violation of a water quality standard. EPA based this interpretation of contamination on the legislative history of section 402(l)(2), which directed EPA to consider whether reportable quantities (RQs) of oil or grease or hazardous substances under either the CWA or CERCLA had been exceeded in determining whether storm water from oil and gas operations had been contaminated by contact with overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished products, byproduct, or waste products. Shortly after issuance of EPA's first general permit specific to storm water discharges associated with construction activity (Final NPDES General Permits for Storm Water Discharges From Construction Sites, September 9, 1992, 57 FR 41176), EPA Region 8 raised a question to EPA Headquarters about the applicability of the permit requirements for oil and gas-related construction activities. On December 10, 1992, EPA Headquarters sent a memorandum to EPA Region 8 stating that all construction activities that disturb five or more acres must apply for a permit, including those construction activities associated with oil and gas activities. This memorandum was legally challenged by a collection of trade associations who asserted that the memorandum was unlawful and requested that the court set it aside as inconsistent with the CWA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed this challenge on the grounds that the internal EPA memorandum itself did not constitute an action reviewable by the courts. Appalachian Energy Group v. EPA , 33 F.3d. 319, 322 (4th Cir. 1994). As noted previously, EPA promulgated the final Phase II storm water rule on December 8, 1999 with a requirement that storm water discharges from small construction activities (those disturbing between one and five acres) obtain NPDES permit coverage beginning on March 10, 2003. Based on public comments on the January 9, 1998, proposed Phase II rule, EPA had considered including oil and gas exploration sites in its economic analysis for the rulemaking, but further analysis suggested that few, if any, of these sites would actually disturb more than one acre of land. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule, October 1999 (see p 4-2). Accordingly, EPA decided that separate analysis of this sector was unnecessary. After promulgating the final Phase II rule, EPA became aware that close to 30,000 oil and gas sites annually may, in fact, be affected. EPA now believes that the majority of such sites may exceed one acre when the acreage attributed to lease roads, pipeline right-of-ways and other infrastructure facilities is apportioned to each site. In light of this new information, on March 10, 2003, EPA published a rule (the “deferral rule”) that postponed until March 10, 2005, the permit authorization deadline for NPDES storm water permits for oil and gas construction activity that disturbs one to five acres of land. This extension allowed EPA to analyze and better evaluate (1) the impact of the permit requirements on the oil and gas industry, (2) the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) for preventing contamination of storm water runoff resulting from construction associated with oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities, and (3) the scope and effect of section 402( l )(2) and other storm water provisions of the Clean Water Act. 68 FR 11325. Between 2003 and 2005, EPA gathered information on size, location and other site characteristics to better evaluate compliance costs associated with the control of storm water runoff from oil and gas construction activities. EPA met with various stakeholders and visited a number of oil and gas sites with construction-related activities, to discuss and review existing BMPs for preventing contamination of storm water runoff resulting from construction associated with these oil and gas activities. Additionally, EPA gathered economic data for the industry and initiated an economic impact analysis of the existing Phase II regulations specific to the oil and gas industry. EPA's preliminary analysis indicated that there could be significant and potentially costly administrative delays in the permitting process for oil and gas construction sites that were not considered in the original economic analysis for the 1999 Phase II rulemaking. As a result, on March 9, 2005, EPA further postponed the date for NPDES regulation for an additional 15 months until June 12, 2006, to provide additional time for the Agency to complete its evaluation of the economic and legal issues that were raised and to assess appropriate procedures and methods for controlling storm water discharges from these sources to mitigate impacts on water quality. A collection of trade associations petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review of the March 10, 2003 deferral rule. The petitioners asserted that the deferral rule represents the Agency's first acknowledgment that the NPDES regulations apply to construction activities associated with oil and gas activities, but that such regulations are inconsistent with CWA section 402( l )(2). On June 16, 2005, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition on the grounds that the issue is not ripe for review. Specifically, the Court acknowledged EPA's ongoing analysis of this issue and indicated that “any interpretation [of CWA section 402( l )(2)] we would provide would necessarily prematurely cut off EPA's interpretive process.” Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Ass'n, et al. v. EPA , 413 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 2005). III. Description of Proposed NPDES Program Modifications A. Objectives EPA Seeks To Achieve in Today's Proposal The primary purpose of today's proposed rule is to propose modifications to the NPDES regulations in 40 CFR part 122 based on changes to the Clean Water Act (CWA) resulting from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 language (See Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 694 (codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. 1362 (2005))). A second purpose is to encourage voluntary application of best management practices (BMPs) for oil and gas field activities and operations, including construction, to provide additional protection of water quality from potential storm water discharges. On August 8, 2005, the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 323 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 added a new paragraph (24) to section 502 of the CWA to define the term “oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment, or transmission facilities” to mean “all field activities or operations associated with exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations, or transmission facilities, including activities necessary to prepare a site for drilling and for the movement and placement of drilling equipment, whether or not such field activities or operations may be considered to be construction activities.” This term is used in CWA section 402( l )(2) of the CWA to identify oil and gas activities for which EPA shall not require NPDES permit coverage for certain storm water discharges. The effect of this statutory change is to make construction activities at oil and gas sites eligible for the exemption established by CWA section 402( l )(2). EPA interprets this extension of the statutory exemption to include construction of drilling sites, drilling waste management pits, and access roads as well as construction of the transportation and treatment infrastructure such as pipelines, natural gas treatment plants, natural gas pipeline compressor stations and crude oil pumping stations. The action is being published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule to provide the public and interested stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking. B. Today's Regulatory Approach 1. Requirements for Regulated Entities Under Today's Proposal Today's action proposes to codify changes to section 502, subpart (24) (“Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Defined”) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) into EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 122 (“EPA-Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES]”). Specifically, the language in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed by the President on August 8, 2005, states that section 502 of the CWA is amended by adding the following subparagraph at the end of the current section: “(24) OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION.—The term ‘oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities’ means all field activities or operations associated with exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations, or transmission facilities, including activities necessary to prepare a site for drilling and for the movement and placement of drilling equipment, whether or not such field activities or operations may be considered to be construction activities.” In extending this statutory exemption at CWA section 402( l )(2) to oil and gas construction activities, Congress did not differentiate among operations on the basis of the size of the disturbed acreage. Accordingly, there is no distinction in today's proposal as to whether the amount of disturbed acreage is less than 1 acre, between 1 and 5 acres, or greater than 5 acres. Hence, discharges from “large” construction activity (disturbing at least 5 acres) at oil and gas facilities would be eligible for the exemption from NPDES permitting requirements under today's proposal to the same extent as discharges from small construction activity at such facilities. In addition to the construction of drilling sites, drilling waste management pits, and access roads, EPA also interprets the specific phrase in the statutory language “ all field activities or operations ” [emphasis added] as being applicable to construction of in-field treatment plants and the transportation infrastructure ( e.g. , crude oil and natural gas pipelines, natural gas treatment plants and both natural gas pipeline compressor and crude oil pump stations) necessary for the operation of most producing oil and gas fields. Such construction activities would thus be eligible for the CWA section 402( l )(2) exemption from NPDES permitting requirements. This proposed regulation would implement Congress' intention, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to exclude virtually all oil and gas construction activities from regulation under the NPDES storm water program. However, consistent with the language of CWA section 402( l )(2), the proposed regulatory changes would not exclude oil and gas construction activities from regulation under the NPDES storm water program when such field activities or operations discharge storm water that has been contaminated by contact with “ * * any overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct or waste products located on the site of such operations.” [CWA section 402( l )(2)]. The legislative history of CWA section 402(l)(2) provided guidance to EPA in interpreting the phrase “contaminated by contact with.” It provides as follows: The substitute [final version of the bill] provides that permits are not required where stormwater runoff is diverted around mining operations or oil and gas operations and does not come in contact with overburden, raw material, product, or process waste. In addition, where stormwater runoff is not contaminated by contact with such materials, as determined by the Administrator, permits are also not required. With respect to oil or grease or hazardous substances, the determination of whether stormwater is ‘contaminated by contact with’ such materials, as established by the Administrator, shall take into consideration runoff in excess of reportable quantities under section 311 of the Clean Water Act or section 102 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, or in the case of mining operations, above natural background levels. Based on this language, EPA codified its interpretation of “contaminated by contact with” at § 122.26(c)(1)(iii). It provides that oil and gas operations are exempt except where their discharges contribute reportable quantities of oil or grease or hazardous substances to waters of the United States or contribute to a violation of a water quality standard. However, a plain reading of CWA section 402( l )(2) suggests that oil and gas sites where runoff is not contaminated by contact with raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct or waste products located at the site are not required to obtain NPDES permits, even in situations where the runoff might be contributing to a violation of water quality standards (the term overburden is applicable only to mining). At the time that EPA promulgated § 122.26(c)(1)(iii), EPA believed it reasonable to presume that causing or contributing to a violation of water quality standards was an indication of contamination as envisioned in the statute. However, now that Congress has explicitly extended the exemption to construction activities associated with oil and gas operations, EPA believes this presumption may no longer be valid in some instances. For example, sediment in runoff related to the clearing of ground or construction of an access road could cause or contribute to a water quality standard violation even where the runoff does not come into contact with raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct or waste products located at the site. For this reason, EPA is proposing to clarify in § 122.26(a)(2)(ii) that a water quality standard violation for sediment alone does not trigger a permitting requirement. Because most substances for which an RQ has been established are the types of materials (e.g., oil, grease, toxic or hazardous chemicals) that would likely not be present in storm water discharge from an oil or gas site other than through contact with exposed raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct or waste products, EPA would generally consider an exceedance of an RQ as indicative of contamination. This would be true whether such contact occurred during or after construction. Sediment, in contrast, could easily be present in the discharge even without such contact, and thus in and of itself would not lead to a determination of contamination through contact. Sediment could serve as a vehicle for discharges of oil or grease or hazardous substances ( e.g. , heavy metals) and if an RQ is exceeded or a water quality standard violated for such a pollutant, such contamination could trigger permitting requirements. EPA believes that this interpretation is fully consistent with Congress' intent in enacting the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which specifically included within the scope of the section 404( l )(2) exemption construction activities associated with oil and gas sites. Finally, EPA proposes to reorganize regulatory language in § 122.26(a)(2) to create two new paragraphs: (i) and (ii). EPA believes this change is consistent with the existing regulatory framework provided in § 122.26(c)(1)(iii) and (iv) which separates mining and oil and gas requirements. Proposed paragraph (i) merely recodifies existing requirements at § 122.26(c)(1)(iv) for storm water discharges from mining operations that come into contact with, any overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished products, byproduct, or waste products located on the site of such operations.” Proposed paragraph (ii) clarifies permit requirements for storm water discharges from oil and gas sites consistent with the discussion provided above. In addition, EPA is proposing to add a note to the regulations encouraging operators of oil and gas field activities or operations to implement and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharges of pollutants, including sediment, in storm water both during and after construction activities to help protect surface water quality during storm events. Additional discussion of the importance of these activities is provided in section III.B.3. Today's proposed rulemaking would apply to all States, Federal lands and Indian Country regardless of whether EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. Discharges that would be exempted from NPDES permit requirements in today's proposal would be exempted from such NPDES requirements regardless of whether EPA or a State is the permitting authority. EPA wishes to clarify, however, that today's proposal is not intended to interfere with the States' ability to regulate any discharges through a State's non-NPDES program. However, if a State were to require a permit for discharges exempt from the Clean Water Act NPDES program requirements, the State's permit requirement would not be considered part of the State's EPA-approved NPDES program. See 40 CFR 123.1(i)(2). EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposed rule. 2. Timeframe for Final Rule EPA intends to issue a final rulemaking in advance of the June 12, 2006 deadline by which oil and gas construction sites that disturb one to five acres of land are currently scheduled to obtain NPDES permits for their discharges. If finalized as proposed, EPA's final rulemaking would effectively exempt all field activities or operations associated with oil and gas exploration, production, processing or treatment and transmission construction activities from regulation under the NPDES storm water permitting program, except in accordance with § 122.26(a)(2)(ii) and (c)(1)(iii). 3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) In accordance with CWA section 402( l )(2), today's proposed rule does not require that operators select, install, and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize discharges of pollutants (including sediment) in storm water; however, the Agency is adding a note within the regulatory text encouraging operators of oil and gas field activities or operations to institute these practices both during and after construction activities whenever practicable. Installation of effective BMPs would provide additional measures to help protect surface water during storm events. Appropriate controls would be those suitable to the site conditions, both during and after the period of construction, and consistent with generally accepted engineering design criteria and manufacturer specifications. Selection of BMPs could also be affected by seasonal or climate conditions. Most storm water controls for construction activities can be grouped into three classes: (a) Erosion and sediment controls; (b) storm water management measures; and (c) good housekeeping practices. Erosion and sediment controls address pollutants ( e.g. , sediment) in storm water generated from the site during active construction-related work. Storm water management measures result in reductions of pollutants in storm water discharged from the site after the construction has been completed. Good housekeeping measures are those practices employed to manage materials on the site and control litter. While not explicitly required by regulation, some good housekeeping practices may be necessary to ensure that runoff satisfies the conditions in § 122.26(a)(2)(ii) and (c)(1)(iii) for eligibility for the permitting exemption. Effective soil erosion and sedimentation control typically is accomplished through the use of a suite of BMPs. Operators should design control measures that collectively address the multiple needs of holding soil in place, diverting storm water around active areas with bare soil, slowing water down as it crosses the site, and providing settling areas for soil that has become mobilized. The value of EPA's recommended oil and gas construction site BMPs has already been recognized by many oil and gas site operators. Under the sponsorship of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the oil and gas industry developed guidance entitled “Guidance Document: Reasonable and Prudent Practices for Stabilization (RAPPS) of Oil and Gas Construction Sites,” Horizon Environmental Services, Inc., April 2004, that describes the application of appropriate BMPs based on general geographical location and the distance, slope, and amount of vegetative cover between the construction activity and the nearest water body. This document is a relatively simple, common sense approach to mitigating environmental consequences arising from a variety of oil and gas construction activities. The document has been widely publicized and a large number of independent oil and gas operating companies have informed EPA that they have adopted the practices outlined in the document in their day-to-day field construction activities. 4. Other Federal, State, Tribal, and/or Local Controls EPA expects that operators will comply with applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and/or local controls on oil and gas construction activities. For example, today's action does not affect existing requirements established under section 404 of the CWA for discharges of dredge and fill materials to waters of the United States, including requirements as they apply to wetlands. Similarly, the proposed rule does not affect decisions made at the local level on the need for enhanced protection of local water resources. As such, this proposed rulemaking would not curtail the ability of an appropriate environmental management agency ( e.g. , State, Tribal or local government) from imposing specific discharge conditions on an oil and gas operator that would otherwise be exempted under today's proposed rule so long as these requirements are imposed pursuant to authority other than an EPA-approved NPDES program. For example, a State or tribe could choose, under its own authorities, to set limits or require that an operator meet certain discharge conditions in sensitive watersheds. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Alter materially the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined that this is a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule would not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. , as this rulemaking is deregulatory and imposes no new requirements. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information; processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business based on Small Business Administration size standards; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. Today's proposed rule, by expanding the universe of oil and gas operations eligible for the NPDES permit exemption created by CWA section 402( l )(2), would relieve the regulatory burden for certain discharges associated with construction activity at exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations, or transmission facilities to obtain an NPDES storm water permit. We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule would relieve a regulatory burden for all affected small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The proposed rule imposed no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” The phrase “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would 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. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed rule does not have any Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It would not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control. Dated: December 30, 2005. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows: Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. Subpart B—[Amended] 2. Section 122.26 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (e)(8) to read as follows: § 122.26 Storm water discharges (applicable to State NPDES programs, see 122.35). (a) * * * (2) The Director may not require a permit for discharges of storm water runoff from the following: (i) Mining operations composed entirely of flows which are from conveyances or systems of conveyances (including but not limited to pipes, conduits, ditches, and channels) used for collecting and conveying precipitation runoff and which are not contaminated by contact with or that have not come into contact with, any overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct or waste products located on the site of such operations, except in accordance with § 122.26(c)(1)(iv). (ii) All field activities or operations associated with oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations, or transmission facilities, including activities necessary to prepare a site for drilling and for the movement and placement of drilling equipment, whether or not such field activities or operations may be considered to be construction activities, except in accordance with § 122.26(c)(1)(iii). Discharges of sediment from construction activities associated with oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations, or transmission facilities are not subject to the provisions of § 122.26(c)(1)(iii)(C). Note to § 122.26(a)(2)(ii): EPA encourages operators of oil and gas field activities or operations to implement and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize discharges of pollutants, including sediment, in storm water both during and after construction activities to help ensure protection of surface water quality during storm events. Appropriate controls would be those suitable to the site conditions and consistent with generally accepted engineering design criteria and manufacturer specifications. Selection of BMPs could also be affected by seasonal or climate conditions. (e) * * * (8) For any storm water discharge associated with small construction activities identified in paragraph (b)(15)(i) of this section, see § 122.21(c)(1). Discharges from these sources require permit authorization by March 10, 2003, unless designated for coverage before then. [FR Doc. E6-36 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0252; FRL-7755-6] Iodomethane; Pesticide Chemical Not Requiring a Tolerance or an Exemption from Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to designate the use of the active ingredient, iodomethane as a non-food use pesticide when applied as a pre-plant soil fumigant for peppers, strawberries and tomatoes by adding an entry to 40 CFR 180.2020 noting the non-food use determination. This determination is based on the Agency's evaluation of data which indicates that residues of iodomethane (CH ³ I) are quickly degraded or metabolized into non-toxic degradates and subsequently incorporated into natural plant constituents. The effect of this proposed designation is that EPA does not require that a tolerance or exemption from tolerance under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, be established as a condition of registration of the pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et. seq. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0252, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal : http://www.regulations.gov/ . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Agency Website : EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system was replaced on November 25, 2005 by an enhanced federal-wide electronic docket management and comment system located at http://www.regulations.gov/ . Follow the on-line instructions. • * E-mail : Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0252. • * Mail* : Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0252. • Hand Delivery : Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0252. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0252. 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.epa.gov/edocket/ , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the regulations.gov websites are “anonymous access” systems, 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 EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102) (FRL-7181-7). Docket : All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ . 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 EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary L. Waller, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-9354; e-mail address: waller.mary@epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111) • Animal production (NAICS code 112) • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311) • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ ), you may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ . A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/ . C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the rulemaking by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background and Statutory Findings On February 4, 2002 and February 18, 2005, the Agency received applications to register pesticide products containing the new active ingredient, iodomethane as a pre-plant fumigant for peppers, strawberries, and tomatoes. The registrant, Arysta LifeScience North America, Corp. (formerly known as Arvesta Corp.) asserted that the uses should be considered non-food uses based on data submitted with the applications. EPA on its own initiative, under section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, is proposing to add an entry to 40 CFR 180.2020 noting the non-food use determination for iodomethane when used as a pre-plant fumigant for peppers, strawberries and tomatoes. This determination is based on the Agency's evaluation of metabolism and crop field trial data which included analysis for residues of iodomethane (CH ³ I) and free iodide (I-). Analytical method descriptions and validations used to measure iodomethane and free iodide were also submitted to the Agency. The Agency does not believe that there is a reasonable expectation of iodomethane residues per se in peppers, strawberries and tomatoes at harvest. Iodomethane is quickly metabolized/degraded into iodide at levels lower than those which would cause toxic effects, and into other non-toxic degradates which are incorporated into natural plant constituents. Iodide, the major degradate, is an ubiquitous, naturally-occurring component of all soils, plants, and animals, and as such, there is an existing background level of iodine and iodide in the environment which varies depending on the naturally-occurring sources of iodine chemicals in the region. As a result, enforcement of tolerances would not be possible since no iodide-free samples are available and residue field trials showed evidence of control samples with higher iodide residues than iodomethane treated samples. Additionally, iodine is an essential human dietary nutrient, and iodomethane residues must dissipate in the soil prior to planting as the chemical is phytotoxic. Therefore, the Agency concludes that tolerances are not required for iodomethane. EPA lists in 40 CFR 180.2020 pesticide chemical uses EPA has determined do not need a tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance based on EPA's finding that they are not likely to result in residues in or on food. It is under these provisions that the EPA proposes to designate the pre-plant fumigant use of iodomethane on peppers, strawberries and tomatoes as a non-food use because the use is not likely to result in residues in or on food for the reasons described in Unit II of this document. III. Conclusion A nonfood use determination is proposed for iodomethane when applied as a pre-plant soil fumigant for peppers, strawberries, and tomatoes. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This proposed rule establishes a non-food use determination under section 408(e) of the FFDCA in response to an application for registration of a pesticide product submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Listing a pesticide use as not requiring a tolerance or exemption from tolerance clarifies that regulation under the FFDCA is unnecessary as to that use and thus has no negative economic impact. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 30, 2005. Donald R. Stubbs, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. In § 180.2020 the table is amended by adding alphabetically the following entry to read as follows: § 180.2020 Non-food determinations. Pesticide Chemical CAS Reg. No. Limits Uses * * * * * * * Iodomethane (CH ³ I) 74-88-4 When applied as a pre-plant fumigant Peppers, strawberries and tomatoes * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-26 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S 71 4 Friday, January 6, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA. ACTION: Proposed collection; comments requested. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Office of Community Development's intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the program for 7 CFR part 25 Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC). DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by March 7, 2006 to be assured of consideration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvette Butler, Program Specialist, Office of Community Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 3203, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3203, or by e-mail: Yvette.Butler@wdc.usda.gov. Telephone: 202-690-4743. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC). OMB Number: 0570-0027. Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2006. Type of Request: Extension for a currently approved information collection. Abstract: USDA Rural Development's Office of Community Development administers the rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) program, an initiative designed to provide economically depressed rural areas and communities with real opportunities for growth and revitalization. Its mission: To create self-sustaining, long-term economic development in areas of pervasive poverty, unemployment, and general distress, and to demonstrate how distressed communities can achieve self-sufficiency through innovative and comprehensive strategic plans developed and implemented by alliances among private, public, and nonprofit entities. Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response. Respondents: Rural Empowerment Zones, Rural Enterprise Communities and Champion Communities. Estimated Number of Respondents: 110. Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 2. Estimated Number of Responses: 220. Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 2,402 hours. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at (202) 692-0043. Comments Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Office of the Secretary, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Office of the Secretary's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Dated: December 27, 2005. Allan Johnson, Acting Under Secretary, Rural Development. [FR Doc. E6-35 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. 05-049-1] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; National Veterinary Accreditation Program AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the National Veterinary Accreditation Program. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and, in the “Search for Open Regulations” box, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2005-0114 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. After the close of the comment period, the docket can be viewed using the “Advanced Search” function in Regulations.gov. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 05-049-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 05-049-1. Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming. Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the National Veterinary Accreditation Program, contact Ms. Lynn Thomas, Management Analyst, Surveillance and Identification Programs, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 200, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-5777. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: National Veterinary Accreditation Program. OMB Number: 0579-0032. Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection. Abstract: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for, among other things, protecting the health of our Nation's livestock and poultry populations by preventing the introduction and spread of serious diseases and pests of livestock and poultry and for eradicating such diseases and pests from the United States when feasible. To help us accomplish our mission, APHIS' Veterinary Services administers the National Veterinary Accreditation Program. This program certifies private veterinary practitioners to work cooperatively with Federal veterinarians, as well as with State animal health officials, to conduct certain activities for us. Accredited veterinarians are instrumental in increasing our capacity to perform health certifications and conduct extensive disease surveillance and monitoring. Operating this program requires a number of information gathering activities, including: • Conducting veterinary accreditation orientation and training. • Completing animal health certificates. • Applying and removing official seals. • Completing test reports. • Reviewing applications for veterinary accreditation and reaccreditation. • Recordkeeping. • Updating information on accredited veterinarians. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.477348 hours per response. Respondents: Accredited veterinarians, candidates for the National Veterinary Accreditation Program, and State animal health officials who review applications for veterinary accreditation and reaccreditation. Estimated annual number of respondents: 63,000. Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 2.095936. Estimated annual number of responses: 132,044. Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 63,031 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of December 2005. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. 06-87 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am]*