Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-06-12 · Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

35,233 words·~160 min read·/register/2006/06/12/06-5306

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 122 [EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0068; FRL-8183-3] 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: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to codify in the Agency's regulations changes to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the “Clean Water Act” or “CWA,” resulting from the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
This action modifies the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations to provide that certain storm water discharges from field activities or operations, including construction, associated with oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities are 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: This final rule is effective on June 12, 2006. For the purposes of judicial review, this final rule is promulgated as of June 12, 2006. See 40 CFR 23.2. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0068. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 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, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
(202)566-2426. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Smith, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management (4203M), 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, or treatment operations or 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 with references to industrial classification codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. This description identifies the principal 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 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2), (b)(14)(x), (b)(15), (c)(1)(iii) 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. When Does This Final Rule Take Effect? This final rule is effective on June 12, 2006. Because this final rule provides relief from permitting requirements for certain dischargers, this final rule is not subject to the general requirement for a thirty-day waiting period after publication before a final rule takes effect. By providing such relief, this final rule “relieves a restriction” on these dischargers. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Moreover, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), EPA has good cause to make this final rule effective immediately upon publication. Without this final rule, dischargers eligible for this permit exemption would, in accordance with EPA's regulations, be required to obtain permit authorization by June 12, 2006. This action eliminates this permit obligation, which would otherwise have applied during the period between the time the rule is published and the time it would take effect (ordinarily, 30 days after publication). Making this rule effective as soon as it is published will help reduce any confusion on the part of those affected by the rule regarding the necessity for obtaining permit coverage. Therefore, a thirty-day waiting period is unnecessary and would be contrary to the public interest. II. Background Information The 1987 amendments to the CWA 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 in the Act 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.” The 1990 NPDES Phase I Storm Water rule (55 FR 47990, November 16, 1990) established permit requirements for certain storm water discharges, including storm water discharges associated with construction activities that disturb five acres or greater or that disturb less than five acres when part of a larger common plan of development or sale that disturbs five acres or more. One provision of the Phase I rule codified the CWA section 402( *l* )(2) exemption at 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2). The 1990 rule also codified, at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii), the conditions that would be considered indicative of contamination by contact with raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products located on a site and would thus necessitate an NPDES storm water permit application by oil and gas exploration, production, processing or treatment operations or transmission facilities. Specifically, 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii) established permit requirements for contaminated discharges 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 any time 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 regulation on the legislative history of CWA section 402( *l* )(2), which directed EPA to consider whether reportable quantities
(RQs)of oil or hazardous substances under either the CWA or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (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. (Pub. L. 95-217, Sec. 33(c), added subsec. ( *l* )) 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 to 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. A collection of trade associations brought a lawsuit against EPA over this memorandum, asserting that it was unlawful and requesting 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). The interpretation of CWA section 402( *l* )(2) contained in that memorandum, i.e., that oil and gas-related construction activities required permit coverage, formed the basis of EPA policy on the issue. When EPA promulgated the Phase II storm water rule on December 8, 1999, EPA included a requirement that storm water discharges from small construction activities obtain NPDES permit coverage beginning on March 10, 2003. The Phase II rule defined small construction activities as those disturbing between one and five acres or those disturbing less than one acre when part of a larger common plan of development or sale that disturbs one to five acres. As part of its rulemaking, EPA analysis suggested that few, if any, oil and gas exploration 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 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 rights-of-way 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 discharges associated with small oil and gas construction activity. This extension was intended to provide EPA time 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 characteristics of oil and gas sites 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. EPA also gathered economic data for the industry and initiated an economic impact analysis of the effects of the existing Phase II regulations on the oil and gas industry. EPA's preliminary analysis indicated that there could be administrative delays in the permitting process for oil and gas construction sites which could result in substantial economic impacts, particularly in the form of lost production revenues, 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 it had identified 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 first time EPA had acknowledged in its NPDES regulations that those regulations apply to construction activities associated with oil and gas activities. Petitioners further asserted that the deferral rule was inconsistent with CWA section 402( *l* )(2). On June 16, 2005, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition on the grounds that the issue was 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). 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 operations 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 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). On January 6, 2006, EPA proposed 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 (71 FR 894) to implement the new provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This action finalizes that rule. III. Summary of This Final Rule and Statutory Basis This action implements an amendment to the Clean Water Act contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This amendment expanded the scope of oil and gas-related activities that are exempt from the requirement to obtain an NPDES permit for storm water discharges to include most storm water discharges from construction activities associated with oil and gas field operations. Under this final rule, storm water discharges from construction activity associated with oil and gas field operations are exempt from NPDES permitting requirements, except in situations when the construction-related activity results in the discharge of a hazardous substance or oil in “reportable” quantities or in situations when the discharge of a pollutant other than sediment contributes to a violation of an applicable water quality standard. See *NRDC* v. *EPA,* 966 F.2d 1292, 1307 (9th Cir.) (noting that 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii)(C) addresses “contamination with substances other than oil and hazardous substances”). Such storm water discharges continue to be subject to NPDES permitting requirements. This final rule revises 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2), which EPA promulgated in 1990 to codify the statutory exemption in CWA section 402 *(l)* (2). The features of this final rule are the same as those EPA proposed on January 6, 2006 (71 FR 894). First, EPA is creating separate subparagraphs for the purpose of distinguishing between mining operations and oil and gas operations. See 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2)(i) (mining operations) &
(ii)(oil and gas operations). Second, in new subparagraph (a)(2)(ii), which applies to oil and gas operations, this final rule incorporates the new definition of “oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities” (also referred to herein as “oil and gas field operations”) now found in CWA section 502(24) as a result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Finally, new subparagraph (a)(2)(ii) provides that sediment discharged from construction activities at oil and gas sites does not trigger the requirement for NPDES permit coverage. As described above in section II (Background), until passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPA had taken the position that storm water discharges from oil and gas construction activities were not eligible for the NPDES permit exemption in CWA section 402 *(l)* (2). In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, however, Congress squarely addressed the issue and specifically included construction activities among the types of oil and gas field operations eligible for the permitting exemption. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 achieved this by adding a new paragraph
(24)to section 502 of the CWA to define the term “oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities”—a term which appears only in section 402 *(l)* (2)—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.* ” (emphasis added). This final rule both codifies this new definition and specifically exempts from NPDES permitting storm water discharges of sediment from oil and gas construction activities. While the Energy Policy Act amendment does not specifically address sediment, that pollutant naturally falls within the newly created exemption from NPDES permitting. Indeed, singling out storm water discharges of sediment in today's rule is the best way to implement and conform the Energy Policy Act of 2005 with the preexisting text of CWA § 402 *(l)* (2). First of all, for oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations, or transmission facilities, only those discharges contaminated by contact with raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products located on the site are subject to permitting requirements under 402 *(l)* (2). (Overburden is applicable only to mining.) The presence of sediment in a discharge from a construction site is not itself indicative of contact with those materials. Oil and hazardous substances for which there is an RQ under either CERCLA or the CWA, in contrast, is indicative of such contact and are not likely to be found in runoff from oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities except as a result of such contact. Second, sediment is the pollutant most commonly associated with construction activities, whether at oil and gas sites or elsewhere. 69 FR 22475 (April 26, 2004); 67 FR 42654 (June 24, 2004). EPA's 2003 construction general permit, for example, focuses primarily on limiting discharges of sediment. In EPA's view, to codify a permitting exemption for storm water discharges from oil and gas construction activities but simultaneously to exclude from the new exemption sediment, the discharge most closely associated with construction, would not be consistent with the intent of the CWA amendments enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This view is consistent with contemporaneous interpretations of the exemption by members of Congress. Several members of Congress opposed this amendment because it would exclude oil and gas construction sites from NPDES permitting requirements. 1 Although these members opposed the amendment to CWA section 502 (which ultimately passed despite their opposition), today's rule is consistent with their descriptions of the impacts this amendment would have on NPDES permit requirements for oil and gas construction sites. 1 See 151 Cong. Rec. S9262, S9339, S9342, S9346, S9347 and E1726. CWA Section 402 *(l)*
(2)provides that EPA “shall not require” an NPDES 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.” (emphasis added). In 1990, EPA codified regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii) to implement this exemption. Specifically, 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii) provides that an NPDES permit is required for those storm water discharges from oil and gas field operations resulting in the discharge of reportable quantities
(RQs)of hazardous substances or oil that trigger notification requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 110.6, 117.21 or 302.6, or that contribute to a violation of water quality standards. The first of these two conditions, discharge of RQs, reflects specific language in the legislative history of Section 402 *(l)*
(2)directing EPA to consider exceedances of RQs in determining whether contamination through contact with raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products had occurred. The second condition reflects EPA's judgment at the time the Phase I Storm Water rule was promulgated that violation of a water quality standard would also generally be indicative of contamination through contact with raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products. However, it is important to bear in mind that EPA has historically interpreted Section 402 *(l)*
(2)as not applying to construction activities at oil and gas sites, and therefore did not previously need to consider how sediment discharges would be treated by these regulations. These regulations were upheld in *NRDC* v. *EPA,* 966 F.2d 1292, 1306-08 (9th Cir. 1992). EPA did not propose to change the requirements in 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii), and is not revising that provision in this final rule, although EPA is revising the applicability of 122.26(c)(1)(iii)(C) by including in new 122.26(a)(2)(ii) a provision that (c)(1)(iii)(C) does not apply to sediment discharges. This change reflects EPA's judgment that discharges of sediment, which may become an issue now that Congress has determined that 402 *(l)*
(2)applies to construction activities at oil and gas sites, do not necessarily indicate contamination through contact with raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products. Indeed, the only change that EPA is making to the regulations today is to modify 122.26(a)(2) to expand the NPDES permit exemption to cover storm water discharges of sediment from construction sites associated with oil and gas field operations as mandated by the CWA amendment in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, together with CWA section 402 *(l)* (2). Nothing in the Energy Policy Act amendment altered the structure of section 402 *(l)*
(2)itself or the conditional nature of that NPDES permitting exemption. Thus, storm water discharges contaminated by contact with raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products, as indicated by discharges of reportable quantities of hazardous substances or oil, or by violations of water quality standards for pollutants other than sediment from a construction site associated with oil and gas operations, would continue to be subject to NPDES permitting requirements. By specifically exempting sediment (which is not considered indicative of contact) but no other pollutant, this final rule thus honors both the precise focus of the 2005 amendment and the text of CWA section 402 *(l)*
(2)itself. IV. Response to Comments EPA received over 50 comments on its proposal to codify provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into the NPDES regulations. EPA's responses to all the comments received on the proposed rule are available in the Response to Comment document that is part of the docket for this final rule (Docket identification number: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0068). EPA's responses to significant issues raised on the proposed rule are discussed below. A. Applicability Several commenters asserted that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amendment to the CWA effectively excludes almost all oil and gas exploration, production and transmission construction activities from the NPDES permitting requirements regardless of the amount of acreage disturbed. One of these commenters also specifically supported applying the exemption to all site sizes. EPA agrees with these commenters that Congress intended to exempt discharges from the specified oil and gas activities regardless of size; under this final rule, *all* covered oil and gas-related construction activities are eligible for the NPDES permitting exemption for their uncontaminated storm water discharges without regard to the amount of acreage disturbed. Another commenter agreed with EPA that pipelines and compressor stations should be included in the exemption. One commenter identified a number of what it believed to be exempt construction activities necessary to support construction of pipeline and compressor stations as well as long term maintenance of the system. EPA generally agrees with these commenters' assessments about the applicability of this final rule to natural gas transmission pipelines and their associated infrastructure. Storm water discharges from field activities, such as the clearing, grading, and excavation associated with pipeline and pump station construction, are within the scope of activities eligible for the NPDES permit exemption under this final rule. One commenter interpreted the language in the exemption to include material mining sites ( *e.g.* , sand and gravel pits and quarried aggregate) that exist only to support pipeline and pump station construction and maintenance activities. EPA disagrees with this comment. The Agency does not believe that Congress intended the term “oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities” to include off-site operations whose only connection to such facilities is that they produce products ( *e.g.* , sand, gravel, or aggregate) that are later used by such facilities. Under this theory, producers of any product used at oil and gas sites ( *e.g.* , drilling equipment) could similarly claim entitlement to the 402 *(l)*
(2)exemption. Nothing in the definition provided in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 or Section 402 *(l)*
(2)itself suggests that Congress intended such a broad reach for this exemption. However, the Agency does consider “cut and fill” activities ( *i.e.* where excavated earth and rock at the site is used to level the surface of the site) within the project area of a well pad, access road, pipeline, etc., to be an integral part of the on-site construction activities and, thus, within the scope of activities for which storm water discharges are eligible for the NPDES permit exemption under this final rule. One commenter requested that EPA provide definitions in the rule for the terms “processing operations,” “treatment operations” and “transmission facilities.” EPA believes the terms are generally unambiguous as understood by experienced oil and gas operations personnel and most state regulators and thus the creation of a new set of definitions specific to this rule is unnecessary. These terms are discussed in Section V (Terminology). One commenter suggested that EPA define the term “facility” to mean only those areas subject to oil and gas activity under control of the owner operator. EPA does not think that such a definition is warranted or appropriate because, as used in the proposed rule, the term “facilities” simply describes the types of field activities that cannot be subject to NPDES permitting under certain circumstances and is not intended to address ownership or operational issues. One commenter noted that “the mining industry and its exemption are distinct from the oil and gas industry and its exemption, both in terms of the nature of the activities involved and the definition of ‘contamination' that applies under the statute and EPA's regulations.” Another commenter stated that the term “overburden” is applicable to mining activities only and commended EPA for providing a separate section in the regulatory language [40 CFR 122.26(a)(2)(i)] describing the mining activities eligible for exemption from storm water NPDES permit requirements. EPA acknowledges the commenter's detailed account of the legislative history of the CWA with respect to the definition of the term “overburden” and agrees that the language in the proposed rule appropriately differentiates between mining and oil and gas field activities and operations for purposes of implementing Section 402 *(l)*
(2)and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. EPA notes, however, that this final rule is not intended to make any change to NPDES permit requirements applicable at mining sites. Two commenters requested general, rather than individual, permit coverage for storm water discharges that do not qualify for the permitting exemption. This would mean, for example, that coverage of releases in excess of reportable quantities (see 40 CFR 110.6, 117.21 and 302.6) in storm water from spills or other releases during pipeline construction be available under a construction general permit or an industrial permit, such as EPA's Multi-Sector General Permit
(MSGP)for releases during other field activities or operations. EPA believes an individual permit application will generally be the most appropriate way to address such contaminated discharges and establish appropriate controls to minimize impacts from future discharges. EPA notes, however, that this final rule is not intended to modify any requirements or provisions regarding the availability of general permits in lieu of individual permits. Several commenters engaged in activities that are not related to oil and gas exploration and production suggested that their industrial sectors should also be exempt from CWA permitting requirements for discharges associated with construction activities because they believe that their construction-related activities result in no significant discharges or impairment of water quality in adjacent water bodies. One trade association, representing the geothermal energy industry, argued that its members used oilfield contractors, suppliers and equipment and constructs well pads, access roads, and pipeline rights-of-way that are virtually identical to those employed by the oil and gas exploration and production industry. This industry, however, is not engaged in oil and gas field operations or activities and, therefore, does not qualify for the exemption that is the subject of this rule. Similarly, another commenter representing home builders argued that the application of this exemption solely to the oil and gas industry, coupled with regulatory burden on the residential construction industry imposed by the existing Phase II storm water rules, constituted overregulation. This commenter urged EPA “to defer the regulation of the residential construction industry until adequate data has been collected to provide either outright support for the current regulation or to support its modification so that the impact of the rule is both fair and justified.” This commenter also provided a discussion of the regulatory burden on the residential construction industry imposed by the final Phase II storm water regulations promulgated in 1999 (64 FR 68722, December 8, 1999). EPA acknowledges comments raised by the geothermal and home building sectors but notes that this rulemaking is in response to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and any comments on the applicability of the Phase II regulations to activities other than oil and gas field activities or operations associated with exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 merely defines the term “oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities” and does not reference any other industrial sectors. Consistent with the Act, EPA's proposal and this final rulemaking are also limited to oil and gas field activities or operations that fall within the definition of this term and do not address any other industrial sectors. Therefore, these comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Several commenters stated their concerns that all oil and gas-related operations and activities will no longer be held accountable for storm water discharges. EPA acknowledges the commenters' concerns but believes they are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The final rule merely implements clear Congressional intent to exempt certain storm water discharges from NPDES permit requirements. The Agency notes, however, that this exemption is limited to discharges that are not contaminated by contact with raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products. EPA has further included in the final regulatory text a note encouraging 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. EPA further notes that the industry has developed and is promoting the use of a manual designed to assist operators in implementing such practices (see Section IV.B below). B. BMP Implementation EPA received a number of comments supporting the use of voluntary Best Management Practices
(BMPs)to control erosion and sedimentation runoff from oil and gas construction activities. Several commenters suggested that EPA's proposed approach encouraging the use of BMPs is an appropriate means for controlling runoff. Many of these commenters liked the approach outlined by the Independent Petroleum Association of America in their “Guidance Document: Reasonable and Prudent Practices for Stabilization (RAPPS) of Oil and Gas Construction Sites” (Horizon Environmental Services, Inc., April 2004). This guidance advocates the selection and practical application of BMPs based on specific physical characteristics of the site ( *e.g.* , proximity to waterbody, slope, vegetative cover, and geographic location). The guidance is presented in a straight-forward format that is appropriate for field personnel to access and understand. Additionally, one commenter indicated that EPA's proposed approach will significantly reduce paperwork and the lead time required to implement a project while still preventing adverse impacts to the environment. Several commenters suggested that not having to obtain permit coverage provides operators with more flexibility to schedule land disturbance activities in a way that minimizes erosion and sedimentation. One commenter suggested that EPA has met Congressional intent by encouraging the voluntary use of BMPs through the implementation of RAPPS or other similar approaches. Several commenters indicated that similar programs already exist to control erosion and sedimentation from oil and gas activities. Specifically, one commenter described the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC)requirements for pipeline projects. Although not specifically identified by the commenter, EPA believes that the commenter is likely referring to two documents entitled “Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan, January 2003” and “Wetland and Water Body Construction and Mitigation Procedures, January 2003” that are designed to assist pipeline license applicants by identifying “* * * baseline mitigation measures for minimizing the extent and duration of project-related disturbance of field activities.” Although less detailed than some BMP guidelines developed by states and industry, the FERC plans are a valuable addition to the information base available to oil and gas operators for minimizing environmental damage. Another commenter noted that the state of West Virginia requires BMPs, consistent with the state environmental agency's erosion and sediment control field manual, through its well drilling and well re-working permit program. Conversely, several other commenters suggested that the use of voluntary approaches is inadequate to ensure protection of water quality and also suggested that the RAPPS document is overly broad and should focus more on keeping sediment on site than keeping sediment out of nearby waterbodies. Some of these commenters suggested that NPDES permits, which would require BMP implementation, are the best approach for regulating these discharges. Several commenters believe that EPA should do more to encourage and support state efforts to control sediment from oil and gas activities. One commenter suggested that EPA should require operators to utilize BMPs and violations should be subject to enforcement. In response to comments criticizing the adequacy of the recommended BMP provisions, the Agency again notes that this final rule merely codifies Congress' clear intent to prohibit EPA from requiring an NPDES permit for certain storm water discharges associated with oil and gas construction activities. EPA believes that a “one size fits all” approach or the use of a single suite of BMP is generally inappropriate to control erosion and sedimentation from all types of oil and gas construction activities. The RAPPS document and other relevant guidance are intended to provide information to operators to assist them in selecting appropriate BMPs, and combinations of BMPs, to protect water quality. EPA believes that use of this guidance will result in practical, cost-effective approaches that are flexible enough to address the variety of situations and water quality concerns that might be encountered in the field. EPA also intends to continue to work cooperatively with industry representatives and other interested groups to further develop and refine RAPPS and other industry-specific BMPs to promote even wider acceptance and implementation of these tools for reducing potential environmental impacts associated with oil and gas field operations. Additionally, EPA encourages state regulatory agencies and others with an interest in protecting water quality to assist in this effort to further clarify appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures for oil and gas field operations. As in the proposed rule, this final rule includes a note at 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2)(ii) encouraging operators of oil and gas field activities or operations to implement and maintain BMPs to minimize discharges of pollutants, including sediment, in storm water both during and after construction activities. EPA also encourages State and local authorities to address storm water discharges of sediment from construction activities associated with oil and gas field operations through authorities other than the NPDES permit program where appropriate but, as discussed in Section IV.D, Section 402 *(l)*
(2)prohibits EPA or the States from requiring a permit for these discharges under the authority of the CWA NPDES program. C. Interpretation of Energy Policy Act Regarding Sediment EPA received a number of comments both agreeing with and disputing the Agency's interpretation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, particularly as it applies to discharges of sediment from construction activities. Several commenters stated that the Energy Policy Act simply clarified Congress' original intent with respect to the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act exempting certain oil and gas activities from the requirement to obtain NPDES permits when the activity does not involve the discharge of any raw material into waters of the United States. Others stated simply that they believed EPA's interpretation of the Energy Policy Act to be correct and reasonable. A number of commenters expressed opposition to EPA's interpretation of the Energy Policy Act. Many of these commenters simply expressed opposition to exempting the oil and gas industry from permitting requirements but did not suggest how their opposition could be reconciled with the statutory revisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which clearly exempts certain oil and gas related construction activities from NPDES permitting requirements. Others expressed their belief that EPA had failed to represent Congressional intent and suggested that storm water discharges of sediment that contribute to a violation of water quality standards should not be exempt from the requirement to obtain NPDES permit coverage. EPA notes that its interpretation of the CWA amendment found in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is consistent with contemporaneous Congressional floor statements interpreting the amendment. Even without consideration of these floor statements, however, the Agency views today's rule as adopting the best interpretation of the legislation itself. The amendment to the language in CWA section 502, together with the exemption found in CWA section 402 *(l)* (2), clearly conveys Congressional intent to provide oil and gas construction projects with relief from the potential burdens associated with NPDES permits. Accordingly, EPA views sediment from oil and gas construction activities to be the very pollutant being exempted from permitting by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under CWA section 402 *(l)* (2), storm water discharges associated with oil & gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities are exempt from NPDES permitting requirements under two scenarios. Under the first scenario, storm water discharges associated with oil & gas activities are exempt if they do not come in contact with, *i.e.* , if they are diverted around, any “raw materials, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products located on the site of such operations.” (The term “overburden” in CWA section 402 *(l)*
(2)is not commonly associated with oil and gas operations; therefore, it is not relevant to this discussion or today's regulation.) Under the second scenario, the storm water discharges are exempt even if they do come in contact with those materials, provided that the storm water is not contaminated by such contact. Under EPA's regulations, storm water is considered contaminated by contact with these materials if the discharge contains a reportable quantity of certain substances or if the discharge contributes to a violation of a water quality standard. *See* 40 CFR 122.26(c)(iii). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 did not alter this general regime. Rather, by defining “oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities” to include construction activities, the 2005 amendment simply provided that storm water discharges associated with construction at those oil and gas sites are eligible for the statutory exemption. Some commenters have questioned, however, whether Congress intended to exempt construction-related storm water discharges from NPDES permitting when those discharges contain only sediment. EPA believes the answer is yes. Nothing in the 2005 amendment altered the statutory concept that storm water (of whatever type) is exempt so long as it is not contaminated by contact with “raw materials, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products.” Further, nothing in the 2005 amendment defined “raw materials, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products”—to include naturally occurring sediment exposed or displaced as a result of construction activity, and those terms are not generally understood in the oil and gas industry to refer to such sediment. As discussed in more detail in the proposed rule (71 FR 897-898), EPA determined, consistent with the legislative history of CWA section 402 *(l)*
(2)at the time that it originally promulgated 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1) that exceedence of an RQ for pollutants such as oil and hazardous substances would generally be indicative of contamination through contact with raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct or waste products, and that violation of a water quality standard would also generally be indicative of such contact. However, now that Congress has broadened the 402 *(l)*
(2)exemption to include construction activities at oil and gas field operations, EPA believes that discharges of sediment are not necessarily indicative of such contact. Sediment is the pollutant most commonly associated with construction activity. Hence, exempting storm water discharges of sediment from oil and gas construction sites from NPDES permitting requirements reflects a reasonable (and EPA believes, the best) interpretation of Congressional intent in limiting the 402 *(l)*
(2)exemption to discharges not contaminated by contact with raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct or waste products, in the context of the new definition for oil and gas exploration, production, processing or treatment operations or transmissions facilities included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Therefore, pursuant to today's rule, discharges of storm water from oil and gas construction sites that do not come in contact with those materials are exempt under CWA section 402 *(l)*
(2)even if the storm water contains construction-related sediment, and even if those sediment discharges cause water quality impacts. Sediment could, however, serve as a vehicle for discharges of other pollutants, such as oil or grease or hazardous substances ( *e.g.* , heavy metals) and if an RQ is exceeded or a water quality standard violated for such other pollutants, such contamination would trigger permitting requirements. Several commenters suggested the goal of protecting water quality would be better served if discharges associated with small oil and gas construction activity required NPDES permit coverage. EPA believes that it is appropriate for operators of exempted oil and gas facilities to adopt BMPs that will, among other things, minimize the transport of sediments to surface waters, and has included in the final rule language encouraging voluntary adoption of such BMPs. However, the Agency's purpose in promulgating today's final rule is to implement the narrow statutory change relating to Section 402 *(l)*
(2)that is contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Agency believes that the best interpretation of this statutory change is that it excludes storm water discharges associated with oil and gas construction activities from regulation under the NPDES program, except where contamination by contact with raw materials, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products (as understood within the context of Section 402 *(l)* (2)) has occurred. One commenter thought that EPA should interpret the statutory language more narrowly—in a way that “gives the benefit of the doubt to the environment.” The commenter further suggested that the exemption is applicable only if storm water is diverted around operations to prevent contamination. EPA agrees with this commenter up to a point. One way that an operator can ensure that there is no contamination of storm water through contact with raw materials, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct, or waste products is to ensure either that all such material is covered, or that storm water is diverted around it, and EPA strongly urges operators to do this. Operators that fail to do this will not be eligible for the Section 402 *(l)*
(2)exemption if an exceedance of an RQ or a violation of a water quality standard occurs as a result of contact with such materials. However, this does not change EPA's determination that the best interpretation of Congressional intent in enacting the revised definition in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is that contact with naturally occurring sediment which is not itself contaminated with toxic or hazardous substances does not constitute “contact” for purposes of Section 402 *(l)* (2). The Agency has clearly communicated this through its proposed rule and through today's regulation which does not require an NPDES permit for uncontaminated storm water discharges but encourages the voluntary use of BMPs through a note in the regulation. D. Non-NPDES Program Authority One commenter requested clarification on a state's authority to regulate storm water discharges associated with oil and gas construction activities. This rulemaking clarifies that uncontaminated storm water discharges associated with oil and gas field activities cannot be regulated directly or indirectly by either EPA or a state under the authority of the NPDES permit program. Another commenter noted that states are not pre-empted by the CWA amendment or by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 from acting to regulate discharges pursuant to more stringent state programs. EPA agrees with this statement and affirms the fact that States and Indian Tribes have the right to regulate or otherwise reduce pollutants (including sediment) from storm water discharges associated with oil and gas field operations under State or Tribal law, but not under NPDES program authority. While EPA agrees that States and Tribes have broad discretion to use a variety of approaches in instances where water quality standards have been violated, the ability to require an NPDES permit from sites described in CWA section 402( *l* )(2) that discharge storm water from oil and gas activities is limited to those discharges that contain reportable quantities of oil or a toxic and/or hazardous substance or that contribute to a violation of water quality standards for a pollutant other than sediment. Discharges exempt from NPDES permit requirements in this final rulemaking are exempt from these requirements regardless of whether EPA, a State, or an authorized Tribe is the permitting authority. This final rule is not intended to interfere with the ability of States, Tribes, or local governments to regulate any discharges through a non-NPDES permit program. In fact, EPA expects that operators whose storm water discharges are exempt from NPDES permit requirements will comply with any other applicable Federal, State, tribal, and local controls on oil and gas field operations. This final rule does not in any way curtail the ability of an appropriate environmental management agency ( *e.g.* , State, Tribal or local government) to impose specific discharge conditions on an oil and gas operator that is exempted from NPDES requirements under this final rule so long as these requirements are imposed pursuant to authority other than an NPDES permit program. For example, a State or Tribe could choose, under its own authorities, to require that an operator meet certain discharge conditions in sensitive watersheds. However, if a State, Tribe, or local government were to require a permit for discharges exempt from the Clean Water Act NPDES program requirements, those permit requirements would not be considered part of an NPDES program. See 40 CFR 123.1(i)(2). E. Other Comments Several commenters suggested that the EPA discussion in the 1990 Phase I Storm Water Application Regulation addressing issues regarding “stale” ( *i.e.* , dated) data on releases of reportable quantities of oil and/or toxic substances is appropriate to this rulemaking as well. However, these commenters were concerned that there was no specific timetable for them to file an application for a storm water permit necessitated by a discharge of a reportable quantity that took place many months or even years prior to this rulemaking going into effect. Therefore, these commenters suggested that the requirement to seek coverage under an NPDES permit as the result of such a discharge should be limited to discharge events occurring no more than three years prior to the date of the publication of this final rulemaking. EPA finds this comment to be outside the scope of this final rulemaking. EPA notes that under CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii), an oil or gas exploration or production facility of any size that had a discharge of an RQ at any time after November 16, 1987 was already required to have obtained an NPDES storm water permit for a discharge associated with industrial activity. EPA did not propose to change 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii), and the Agency is not revisiting that provision in this final rule. Two commenters suggested that EPA's recognition of States' authority to implement their own regulatory program outside of the “umbrella” of the NPDES program should obligate EPA to provide technical expertise and resources to help States act on this authority. To the extent practicable, given its own limited resources, EPA will develop guidance to assist States, Tribes, and local governments in exercising their authority reserved for them by the CWA. EPA has always assisted States and Tribes with responses to technical inquiries relating to interpretation of NPDES program and CWA statutory requirements, and the Agency intends to continue providing such assistance. One Tribe notes in its comments that EPA did not consult with tribal governments during the rulemaking process, as called for in Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” As discussed below, EPA did not need to consult with the Tribes under Executive Order 13175 because the proposed rule would not—and this final rule does not—have any substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. This final rule does not add to the existing requirements under EPA's regulations. Rather, this final action codifies a recently-enacted amendment to the CWA which exempts certain oil and gas field activities from NPDES permitting requirements. V. Terminology As noted earlier in this document, questions have arisen regarding some of the terms used in this final rule. This section collects EPA's interpretation of these terms. Field Activities or Operations This final rule adopts in 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2)(ii) language from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. EPA interprets the specific phrase “all field activities or operations” in this language to include the construction of drilling sites, drilling waste management pits, access roads, 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 may thus be eligible for the CWA section 402(l)(2) exemption from NPDES permitting requirements. Processing The terms “processing,” “treatment,” and “transmission” are generally well understood among industry professionals and oilfield personnel engaged in oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission. These terms are described in turn below. “Processing” may be used in connection with either oil or gas field activities, but it is more commonly used to describe certain natural gas field activities. Industry professionals generally regard “processing” as applying strictly to removal of either contaminants (such as hydrogen sulfide or carbon dioxide), natural gas liquids or rare gasses (such as helium) from produced natural gas. Most produced natural gas contains over 90 percent methane by volume. “Pipeline quality” natural gas sold by intrastate and interstate transmission pipeline companies usually has been upgraded to be as much as 99 percent methane by volume. For the purposes of this final rule, EPA considers the term “processing” to refer to those field operations related to either upgrading of natural gas by removal of contaminants ( *e.g.* , carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and water) or the extraction of valuable, higher molecular weight “natural gas liquids” ( *e.g.* , ethane, propane, butane, and condensate) or rare gas constituents ( *e.g.* , helium and xenon) prior to sale of the gas to an intrastate or interstate gas transmission pipeline. Regardless of the physical size or throughput capacity of a processing facility or its geographic location (either within a single producing field or at a centralized location serving several producing fields), a gas processing plant merely serves as an intermediate step in the supply-transmission-distribution chain that transports natural gas from the producing well to the ultimate end-user. Gas processing does not physically or chemically change the basic constituent (methane) in natural gas. Gas processing is not analogous to the term “chemical processing” as is commonly used by chemical engineers to describe manufacturing operations that create finished products in the petroleum and petrochemical refining industrial sectors. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes for oil and gas extraction activities (including “natural gas processing”) are found under the designation 211 (equivalent to the older Standard Industrial Classification [SIC] code designation 1311). EPA regards the processing described above as an inherent component of natural gas extraction field activities. Treatment Similarly, the term “treatment” may be used in the context of either the oil or gas industries, but is more commonly used when referring to the removal of contaminants, such as salt water, sediment, pipe scale, rust and organic material ( *i.e.* , bacterial growths) from crude oil in the producing field. These contaminants are generally removed ( *i.e.* , the crude oil is “treated”) prior to sale and transportation of the oil via tanker truck or dedicated pipeline to a petroleum or petrochemical refinery. All crude oil contains physical and chemical contaminants that should be removed prior to sale to a refinery. The term “treatment” as used by most oil and gas field operations personnel is applied to a variety of field techniques for removing these naturally occurring contaminants from crude oil. Mature oil wells in the United States often produce large volumes of salt water along with smaller volumes of crude oil. Some oil reservoirs also yield crude oil that contains significant amounts of dissolved natural gas (predominantly methane). This mixture of crude oil, water and (sometimes) gas is treated in order to separate out the oil and gas from the contaminants. In the course of being pumped out of the well and into holding tanks, the crude oil may also pick up additional contaminants such as dirt and sediment from the producing formation, corrosive scale and rust from the steel tubing and flow lines, and bacterial growths present in the formation or the flow lines. The entrained gas, water and various contaminants are removed prior to sale of the crude oil to a refiner or intermediate buyer. The most common technique for removing these contaminants involves using a cylindrical steel tank called a separator which separates the three components of the flow—gas, oil and water. The separator can be either a vertical or a horizontal tank and configured to separate only gas from the liquid (two-phase separation) or to separate gas, oil and water (three-phase separation). This process relies primarily upon simple gravimetric separation of the gas, oil and water. Any small amounts of gas are either vented or drawn off at the top of the tank. The oil and water separates in the tank (the oil will float on top of the water column) and the heavier sediment precipitates out of the mixture and eventually settles to the bottom of the tank as sludge. In some cases chemicals may be added to cause the suspended sediment particles to aggregate and settle out more easily from the crude oil and water. In cold weather or cases where there is bacterial contamination, chemicals may be added to the oil-water mixture to assist in killing the organisms and removing or neutralizing the contaminants. “Clean” crude oil is periodically or continually withdrawn from the top of these separators and stored in “stock” tanks to await pickup by tanker truck or metered sales to a crude oil pipeline. In some cases, where rain enters a storage tank or the temperature drops precipitously, some additional water may become entrained in the crude oil and form an oil-water emulsion. If the water content is greater then the specifications set by the crude oil purchaser, the stock tank oil may be further treated using chemicals and/or heat to reduce the amount of entrained water prior to sale. All of the above activities are typically identified as “treatment” by oil and gas field operations personnel, and EPA will consider these, and similar field activities necessary to remove contaminants from crude oil, to fall within the scope of “treatment operations” as that term is used in CWA section 402( *l* )(2). Transmission EPA interprets the term “transmission facilities” to include all necessary infrastructure to deliver natural gas or crude oil from the producing fields to the final distribution center (in the case of natural gas) or the refinery (for crude oil). This interpretation is consistent with the description of “transmission facilities” EPA provided in the preamble to the March 10, 2003 “deferral rule” described earlier in this notice. See 68 FR 11327. That discussion noted that transmission lines are typically major pipelines ( *e.g.* , interstate and intrastate pipelines) that transport crude oil and natural gas over long distances through large-diameter pipes operating at relatively high pressures. “Transmission facilities” generally include all pipelines, compressor stations (for natural gas) and pump stations (for crude oil). The line of demarcation between natural gas “transmission facilities” and “distribution facilities” is generally the point where a local gas utility takes delivery of the gas (often referred to as the “city gate”) and then distributes it via lower pressure service lines to small industrial, commercial or residential customers. While crude oil pipelines that convey raw material to the refineries are generally considered “transmission facilities,” pipelines that transport *refined* petroleum products from refineries and large petrochemical manufacturing plants to storage tank “farms” are not considered “transmission facilities” for the purposes of CWA section 402( *l* )(2) and this final rule. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT)defines a transmission line as “* * * a pipeline, other than a gathering line, that transports gas from a gathering line or storage facility to a distribution center, storage facility or large volume customer that is not down-stream from a distribution center.” (49 CFR 192.3). Although EPA has not elected to codify the DOT or any other definition of “transmission line,” EPA believes that its interpretation of the term “transmission facilities” as used in CWA section 402( *l* )(2) is generally consistent with DOT's terminology and with widely accepted understanding and usage among industry professionals. VI. Best Management Practices In accordance with CWA section 402( *l* )(2), this final 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 *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 will not only help protect surface water during storm events but will also assist the operator in ensuring that there is no discharge of a reportable quantity or violation of a water quality standard that would trigger permitting requirements. 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 effective BMPs should include consideration of seasonal and climatic 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 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2)(ii) and (c)(1)(iii) for eligibility for the 402( *l* )(2) 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 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 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. VII. Post-Proposal Litigation There is already one published court decision addressing CWA section 402( *l* )(2) in light of the new language in CWA section 502(24). EPA's current NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges From Construction Activities (the “General Permit”) was issued by EPA on July 1, 2003. 68 FR 39087. The General Permit was challenged by a variety of organizations. Three weeks after proposal of this rule, the last remaining challenges to the General Permit were dismissed. *Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Ass'n, et al.* v. *EPA* , 435 F.3d 758, 767 (7th Cir. 2006). The Court of Appeals took note of the proposal EPA is finalizing today, but did not address the merits of that proposal. *Id.* at 766. The court went on to note the “limited circumstances” under which this challenge was brought: “The Oil and Gas Petitioners represent members seeking to challenge permit requirements for uncontaminated discharges. But Congress made clear in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that the EPA may not require permits for such discharges. Therefore, the Oil and Gas Petitioners cannot establish standing. Accordingly, we Dismiss this petition for lack of standing.” Id. at 767. (emphasis added). This Court had no occasion to review facts surrounding the conditions at any particular site, and did not address the issue of what constitutes contaminated storm water discharges. VIII. Statutory and Executive 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. As such, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the public record. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does 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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)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 this final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's
(SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(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 this final 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. This final rule, by expanding the scope of oil and gas operations eligible for the NPDES permit exemption under 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. I have therefore concluded that this final 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), Pub. L. 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. This final 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 final rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Rather, today's final rule codifies an amendment to the CWA by expanding the scope of oil and gas operations eligible for the NPDES permit exemption under CWA section 402 *(l)* (2), and relieves the regulatory burden for certain discharges associated with construction activity at exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities of obtaining an NPDES storm water permit. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. For the same reason, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 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 final rule does not have federalism implications. It does not have substantial, direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 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 final rule does not have any Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It does 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. This final rule does not add to the existing requirements under EPA's regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 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 final 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 final 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, 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 standards 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 action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a ”major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on June 12, 2006. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control. Dated: June 7, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 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 paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section.
(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 paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section. 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 paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C) of this section. Note to paragraph (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. E6-9079 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 704, 707, 717, 720, 721, 723, 761, 790, and 799 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0405; FRL-7336-5] Change of Official Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics' Mailing Address; Technical Amendments AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT)has discovered an error in the mailing address that appears in certain sections of 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter R. By these technical amendments, OPPT corrects those errors. DATES: This final rule is effective June 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0405. All documents in the docket are listed on the regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the OPPT Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 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, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202)566-0280. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and has particular applicability to anyone who might need or want to communicate in writing with OPPT or submit information to OPPT. Since this action may apply to anyone, OPPT has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. 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? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR parts 704, 707, 717, 720, 721, 723, 761, 790, and 799 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? In this technical amendments document, OPPT is correcting errors found in the mailing address in certain sections in 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter R. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? This document is issued by OPPT under its general rulemaking authority, the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)(15 U.S.C. 2601 *et seq* .). In addition, section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. OPPT has determined that there is good cause for making this a rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment. OPPT has determined that these amendments are technical and non-substantive. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. OPPT finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). III. Do Any of the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this Action? No. This final rule implements technical amendments to 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter R, to correctly reflect the change in OPPT's official mailing address, and it does not otherwise impose or amend any requirements. As such, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has determined that a technical correction is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by OMB under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Nor does this rule contain any information collection requirements that require review and approval by OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* .). Because this action is not economically significant as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action will not result in environmental justice related issues and does not, therefore, require special consideration under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since the Agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statute (see Unit II.B.), this action is not subject to provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. Nor does this action significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments as specified by Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). This rule will 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, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action does not involve any technical standards that require the Agency's 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). This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use. In issuing this 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, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, entitled *Civil Justice Reform* (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, entitled *Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights* (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by examining the takings implications of this 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. IV. Congressional Review Act Yes. The Congressional Review Act
(CRA)(5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* .) generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 of CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA, if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of June 12, 2006. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 704, 707, 717, 720, 721, 723, 761, 790, 799 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure. Dated: May 25, 2006. Margaret N. Schneider, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 704—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 704 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2607(a). § § 704.9 and 704.25 [Amended] 2. By removing the phrase “Document Control Office (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, ATT:” and adding in its place “Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, ATTN:” in § § 704.9 and 704.25(g). § 704.104 [Amended] 3. By removing the phrase “Document Control Office (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460” and adding in its place “Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001” in § 704.104(g). PART 707—[AMENDED] 4. The authority citation for part 707 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2611(b) and 2612. 5. By revising paragraph
(c)in § 707.65 to read as follows: § 707.65 Submission to agency.
(c)You must submit TSCA section 12(b) notices by one of the following methods:
(1)Mail to the Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, ATTN: TSCA 12(b) Notice.
(2)Hand delivery to OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, ATTN: TSCA 12(b) Notice. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is
(202)564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation. PART 717—[AMENDED] 6. The authority citation for part 717 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2607(c). § 717.17 [Amended] 7. By removing the phrase “Document Control Office (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460” and adding in its place “Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001” in § 717.17(c). PART 720—[AMENDED] 8. The authority citation for part 720 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2613. § § 720.75 and 720.102 [Amended] 9. By removing the phrase “Document Control Office (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460” and adding in its place “Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001” in § § 720.75(b)(2) and (e)(1) and 720.102(d). PART 721—[AMENDED] 10. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c). § § 721.11, 721.30, and 721.185 [Amended] 11. By removing the phrase “Document Control Office (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460” and adding in its place “Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001” in § § 721.11(b) introductory text, 721.30(b) introductory text, and 721.185(b)(1). PART 723—[AMENDED] 12. The authority citation for part 723 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604. § 723.50 [Amended] 13. Section 723.50, paragraph (e)(1) is amended as follows: a. By removing the phrase “TSCA Document Control Officer (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460” and adding in its place “TSCA Document Control Officer, Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001”. b. By removing the phrase “EPA by writing the Environmental Assistance Division, (7408), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling the TSCA Assistance Information Service at
(202)554-1404; TDD
(202)554-0551; online service modem
(202)554-5603” and adding its place “the Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* ”. § 723.175 [Amended] 14. By removing the phrase “Document Control Office (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460” and adding in its place “Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001” in § 723.175(i)(3). PART 761—[AMENDED] 15. The authority citation for part 761 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614, and 2616. § § 761.185 and 761.187 [Amended] 16. By removing the phrase “Document Control Office (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460” and adding in its place “Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001” in § § 761.185(f) and 761.187(d). PART 790—[AMENDED] 17. The authority citation for part 790 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603. § 790.5 [Amended] 18. By removing the phrase “Document Control Office (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460” and adding in its place “Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001” in § 790.5(b). PART 799—[AMENDED] 19. The authority citation for part 799 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603, 2611, 2625. § 799.5 [Amended] 20. By removing the phrase “Document Control Office (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room G-099, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460” and adding in its place “Document Control Office
(DCO)(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001” in § 799.5. [FR Doc. E6-9078 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket No. FEMA-7929] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY: Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If FEMA receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the **Federal Register** on a subsequent date. EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables. ADDRESSES: If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William H. Lesser, Mitigation Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2807. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59 *et seq.* Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the **Federal Register** . In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified. Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. *Paperwork Reduction Act.* This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64. Flood insurance, Floodplains. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows: PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376. § 64.6 [Amended] The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain Federal assistance no longer available in SFHAs Region III Virginia: Fairfax, City of, Independent City 515524 May 8, 1970, Emerg; December 17, 1971, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Region IV North Carolina: Bald Head Island, Village of, Brunswick County 370442 February 26, 1986, Emerg; May 15, 1986, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Belville, Town of, Brunswick County 370545 September 15, 2004, Emerg; June 2, 2006, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Boiling Spring Lake, City of, Brunswick County 370453 March 2, 1989, Emerg; March 2, 1989, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Bolivia, Town of, Brunswick County 370394 May 19, 2005, Emerg; June 2, 2006, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Bolton, Town of, Columbus County 370295 September 23, 1977, Emerg; July 1, 1987, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Brunswick County, Unincorporated Areas 370295 July 7, 1975, Emerg; May 15, 1987, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Calabash, Town of, Brunswick County 370395 June 9, 1986, Emerg; February 4, 1988, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Carolina Shores, Town of, Brunswick County 370517 January 26, 1999, Emerg; January 26, 1999, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Caswell Beach, Town of, Brunswick County 370391 May 6, 1976, Emerg; January 17, 1986, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Cerro Gordo, Town of, Columbus County 370311 October 10, 1975, Emerg; July 3, 1986, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Chadbourn, Town of, Columbus County 370065 July 9, 1975, Emerg; September 30, 1987, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Columbus County, Unincorporated Areas 370305 July 6, 1979, Emerg; June 3, 1991, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Fair Bluff, Town of, Columbus County 370067 April 29, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1987, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Holden Beach, Town of, Brunswick County 375352 March 19, 1971, Emerg; May 26, 1972, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Lake Waccamaw, Town of, Columbus County 370069 July 2, 1975, Emerg; June 3, 1986, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Leland, Town of, Brunswick County 370471 October 19, 1992, Emerg; October 19, 1992, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Navassa, Town of, Brunswick County 370593 May 19, 2005, Emerg; June 2, 2006, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Northwest, City of, Brunswick County 370513 November 12, 1998, Emerg; November 12, 1998, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Oak Island, Town of, Brunswick County 370523 July 1, 1999, Emerg; July 1, 1999, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Shallotte, Town of, Brunswick County 370388 July 1, 1975, Emerg; January 3, 1986, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Southport, City of, Brunswick County 370028 April 11, 1973, Emerg; April 15, 1977, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 St. James, Town of, Brunswick County 370530 June 27, 2000, Emerg; June 27, 2000, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Sunset Beach, Town of, Brunswick County 375359 October 15, 1971, Emerg; November 17, 1972, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Tabor City, Town of, Columbus County 370070 January 29, 1975, Emerg; July 17, 1986, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Varnamtown, Town of, Brunswick County 370648 May 30, 2001, Emerg; May 30, 2001, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Whiteville, City of, Columbus County 370071 September 3, 1974, Emerg; July 1, 1991, Reg; June 2, 2006, Susp 06/02/06 06/02/06 Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. Dated: May 30, 2006. Michael K. Buckley, Deputy Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E6-9051 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 [Docket No. FEMA-D-7585] Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, Mitigation Division. ACTION: Interim rule. SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents. DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for each listed community. From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety
(90)days in which to request through the community that the Director reconsider the changes. The modified elevations may be changed during the 90-day period. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., CFM, Acting Section Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Division, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided. Any request for reconsideration must be based upon knowledge of changed conditions, or upon new scientific or technical data. The modifications are made pursuant to Section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These modified elevations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, state or regional entities. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* The Mitigation Division Director certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified BFEs are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. *Regulatory Classification.* This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, floodplains, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as shown below: State and county Location Dates and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification Community No. Georgia: Gwinnett Unincorporated Areas January 5, 2006, January 12, 2006, *Gwinnett Daily Post* Mr. Charles Bannister, Chairman of the Gwinnett County, Board of Commissioners, Justice and Administration Building, 75 Langley Drive, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045-6935 April 13, 2006 130322 C (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: June 5, 2006. David I. Maurstad, Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E6-9128 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 Final Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, Mitigation Division. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). EFFECTIVE DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table below. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., CFM, Acting Section Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Division, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. This final rule is issued in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR Part 67. The Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR Part 60. Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown. *National Environmental Policy Act* . This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act* . The Mitigation Division Director certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because final or modified BFEs are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. *Regulatory Classification* . This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism* . This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform* . This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, flood insurance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.11 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: Source of flooding and location #Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet
(NGVD)*Elevation in feet
(NAVD)Pago Pago Territory of American Samoa (FEMA Docket No. D-7638) *South Pacific Ocean (Aunuu Island):* Approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the center of Aunuu Village *10 Approximately 3,500 feet northeast of the center of Aunuu Village *18 *South Pacific Ocean (Ofu Island):* Approximately 400 feet northwest of Nuupule Rock *12 Approximately 550 feet northeast of Tuumuai Point *21 *South Pacific Ocean (Olosega Island):* Approximately 1,300 feet northwest of Pouono Point *9 Approximately 770 feet southeast of Pouono Point *20 *South Pacific Ocean (Tau Island):* Approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the center of Faleasao Village *14 Approximately 1,450 feet northeast of the center of Faleasao Village *24 *South Pacific Ocean (Tutuila Island):* Approximately 300 feet southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and Rainmaker Hotel Drive *5 Approximately 330 feet southeast of the center of Fagneanea Village *42 Maps available for inspection at the American Samoa Department of Public Works, American Samoa Government Center, Pago Pago, American Samoa. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: June 5, 2006. David I. Maurstad, Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E6-9129 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 Final Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, Mitigation Division. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). EFFECTIVE DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table below. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr. CFM, Acting Section Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Division, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. This final rule is issued in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR Part 67. The Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR Part 60. Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown. *National Environmental Policy Act* . This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act* . The Mitigation Division Director certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because final or modified BFEs are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. *Regulatory Classification* . This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism* . This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, flood insurance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.11 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: Source of flooding and location #Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet
(NGVD)•Elevation in feet
(NAVD)ARIZONA Coconino County (FEMA Docket No. D-7642) *Bow and Arrow Wash:* Just downstream of Lone Tree Road •6,878 Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Lake Mary Road •6,849 City of Flagstaff *Peak View Wash:* At the confluence with Rio de Flag •7,112 Approximately 120 feet upstream of Lois Lane •7,123 *Rio de Flag:* Approximately 868 feet upstream of Townsend-Winona Road •6,617 Approximately 580 feet downstream of Hidden Hollow Road •7,148 City of Flagstaff, Coconino County (Unincorporated Areas) *Schultz Creek:* At the confluence with Rio de Flag •7,006 Approximately 125 feet upstream of North Fort Valley Road •7,140 *Switzer Canyon Wash:* Approximately 170 feet upstream of U.S. Route 66 (Santa Fe Avenue) •6,869 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of West Fir Avenue •7,030 City of Flagstaff, Coconino County (Unincorporated Areas) City of Flagstaff Maps available for inspection at the City of Flagstaff Community Development, 211 West Aspen Avenue, Flagstaff, Arizona. Coconino County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at the Coconino County Community Development, 2500 North Fort Valley Road, Flagstaff, Arizona. Yuma County (FEMA Docket No. D-7642) *Colorado River:* At the downstream county boundary •94 At the upstream county boundary •202 Yuma County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at the Yuma County Department of Development Services, 2351 West 26th Street, Yuma, Arizona. City of Yuma Maps available for inspection at the City of Yuma Community Development Department, One City Plaza, Yuma, Arizona. City of San Luis Maps available for inspection at the City of San Luis Public Works Administration Office, 751 North 4th Avenue, San Luis, Arizona. FLORIDA Flagler County (FEMA Docket No. D-7594) *Big Mulberry Branch:* Approximately 1,620 feet downstream of Palm Harbor Parkway *7 Approximately 3,500 feet upstream of Belle Terre Parkway *24 City of Palm Coast *Black Branch:* At the confluence with Haw Creek *12 Approximately 0.75 mile upstream of Old Haw Creek Road *16 Flagler County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Bunnell *Black Point Swamp:* At the confluence with Black Branch *12 At the upstream side of State Routes 20/100 *14 Flagler County (Unincorporated Areas) *Wadsworth/Korona Canal:* Approximately 75 feet downstream of Old Kings Road *12 At the upstream side of County Road 325 *27 *Bull Creek:* At the confluence with Crescent Lake *7 At the upstream side of State Route 100 *19 *Bull Creek Tributary:* At the confluence with Bull Creek *11 Approximately 20 feet upstream of County Route 305 *24 *Bulow Creek:* Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Old Kings Road *8 At the upstream side of Old Kings Road *21 *Bulow Creek Tributary:* Approximately 500 feet downstream of the confluence with Bulow Creek *13 Approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the confluence with Bulow Creek *18 *Haw Creek:* At the confluence with Crescent Lake *7 Approximately 3.48 miles upstream of County Route 305 *12 *Graham Swamp:* At the confluence with the Intracoastal Waterway *6 Approximately 1.6 miles downstream of East Highway *11 Flagler County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Palm Coast *Parker Canal:* At the confluence with Black Branch *12 At the confluence with Sweetwater Branch *23 Flagler County (Unincorporated Areas) *Atlantic Ocean:* Approximately 100 feet south of the intersection of North Shore Boulevard and Camino Del Ray Parkway *7 Approximately 475 feet east of the intersection of Deerwood Street and North Ocean Shore Boulevard *16 Flagler County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Beverly Beach, City of Flagler Beach, Town of Marineland, City of Palm Coast Town of Beverly Beach Maps available for inspection at the Beverly Beach Town Hall, 2770 North Oceanshore Boulevard, Beverly Beach, Florida. City of Bunnell Maps available for inspection at the Bunnell City Hall, 200 South Church Street, Bunnell, Florida. City of Flagler Beach Maps available for inspection at the Flagler Beach City Hall, 105 South 2nd Street, Flagler Beach, Florida. Flagler County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at the Flagler County Planning and Zoning Department, 1200 East Moody Boulevard, Suite 2, Bunnell, Florida. Town of Marineland Maps available for inspection at the Marineland Town Office, 9507 Oceanshore Boulevard, St. Augustine, Florida. City of Palm Coast Maps available for inspection at the Palm Coast City Hall, 2 Commerce Boulevard, Palm Coast, Florida. NEW JERSEY Ocean County (FEMA Docket No. D-7642) *Cedar Creek:* Approximately 0.37 mile downstream of U.S. Route 9 •5 Just upstream of the southbound lanes of Garden State Parkway •19 Township of Lacey *Jakes Branch:* Just upstream of County Route 619 •16 Approximately 0.34 mile upstream of County Route 619 •19 Township of Beachwood *North Branch Metedeconk River:* Approximately 95 feet downstream of State Route 88 •9 Township of Brick *Atlantic Ocean:* Approximately 0.31 mile southeast of the intersection of State Route 88 and County Route 604 •10 Borough of Point Pleasant *North Branch Beaverdam Creek:* Entire shoreline •5 *Barnegat Bay:* Entire shoreline •5 *Bayhead Harbor:* Entire shoreline •5 Borough of Point Pleasant Borough of Beachwood Maps available for inspection at the Beachwood Borough Municipal Building, 1600 Pinewald Road, Beachwood, New Jersey. Township of Brick Maps available for inspection at the Brick Municipal Building, 401 Chambersbridge Road, Brick, New Jersey. Township of Lacey Maps available for inspection at the Lacey Township Municipal Building, 818 Lacey Road, Forked River, New Jersey. Borough of Point Pleasant Maps available for inspection at the Point Pleasant Borough Municipal Building, 2233 Bridge Avenue, Point Pleasant, New Jersey. NEW JERSEY Union County (FEMA Docket No. D-7598) *Rahway River:* At a point immediately upstream of Lawrence Street *9 Approximately 650 feet downstream of Springfield Avenue *91 City of Rahway, Townships of Clark, Cranford, Springfield, Union, Winfield, Borough of Kenilworth *Black Brook:* At the confluence with Rahway River *75 Approximately 180 feet downstream of Springfield Road *75 Borough of Kenilworth, Township of Union *Branch 10-30-1:* At the confluence with Drainage Ditch *75 Approximately 350 feet upstream of Lafayette Place *75 Borough of Kenilworth *College Branch:* At the confluence with Rahway River *72 At a point immediately upstream of Springfield Avenue *72 Township of Cranford *Drainage Ditch:* At the confluence with Rahway River *73 At the confluence of Branch 10-30-1 *75 Borough of Kenilworth, Township of Springfield *Gallows Hill Road Branch:* At the confluence with Rahway River *68 Approximately 350 feet upstream of Pittsfield Street *71 Township of Cranford *Nomahegan Brook:* At the confluence with Rahway River *74 Approximately 580 feet downstream of Springfield Avenue *74 Townships of Cranford and Springfield, Town of Westfield *Robinsons Branch:* At the confluence with Rahway River *14 At the confluence of Robinsons Branch *50 City of Rahway, Town of Westfield, Township of Clark *South Branch Rahway River:* At the confluence with Rahway River *9 Approximately 100 feet upstream of East Inman Avenue *10 City of Rahway *Stream 10-30:* At the confluence with Drainage Ditch *74 Approximately 100 feet downstream of Willshire Drive *74 Borough of Kenilworth *Vauxhall Branch:* At the confluence with Rahway River *91 At Liberty Avenue *91 Township of Union *Cedar Brook:* At Terrill Road *131 A point immediately upstream of Willow Avenue *141 Borough of Fanwood *Vauxhall Sub Branch:* At the confluence with Vauxhall Branch *91 At Interstate 78 *91 Township of Union *West Branch:* At the confluence with Elizabeth River *42 Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Garden State Parkway entrance ramp *60 *Lightning Brook:* At the confluence with Elizabeth River *55 Approximately 950 feet downstream of Union Avenue *55 *Elizabeth River:* At Trotters Lane *18 Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of Union Avenue *68 Townships of Union and Hillside *Trotters Lane Branch:* At Morris Avenue *27 Approximately 300 feet downstream of North Avenue *28 City of Elizabeth *Kings Creek:* A point immediately upstream of Barnett Street *10 Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Lower Road to Rahway *13 City of Rahway *East Branch Rahway River:* Approximately 450 feet upstream of the confluence with Rahway River *91 Approximately 2,800 feet downstream of Vauxhall Road *91 Townships of Union and Springfield *Kings Creek:* Approximately 715 feet downstream of U.S. Route 9 *14 Just downstream of U.S. Route 9 *17 City of Linden Township of Clark Maps available for inspection at the Clark Township Engineer's Office, Municipal Building, 430 Westfield Avenue, Clark, New Jersey. Township of Cranford Maps available for inspection at the Cranford Township Engineer's Office, Municipal Building, 8 Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey. City of Elizabeth Maps available for inspection at the Elizabeth City Engineer's Office, 50 Winfield Scott Plaza, Elizabeth, New Jersey. Borough of Fanwood Maps available for inspection at the Fanwood Borough Engineer's Office, 75 North Martine Avenue, Fanwood, New Jersey. Township of Hillside Maps available for inspection at the Hillside Township Engineer's Office, JFK Plaza, Hillside and Liberty Avenue, Hillside, New Jersey. Borough of Kenilworth Maps available for inspection at the Kenilworth Borough Engineer's Office, Municipal Building, 567 Boulevard, Kenilworth, New Jersey. City of Linden Maps available for inspection at the Linden City Engineer's Office, Municipal Building, 301 North Wood Avenue, Linden, New Jersey. City of Rahway Maps available for inspection at the Rahway City Engineer's Office, 1 City Hall Plaza, Rahway, New Jersey 07065. Township of Springfield Maps available for inspection at the Springfield Township Engineer's Office, Municipal Building, 100 Mountain Avenue, Springfield, New Jersey. Township of Union Maps available for inspection at the Union Township Engineer's Office, Municipal Building, 1976 Morris Avenue, Union, New Jersey. Town of Westfield Maps available for inspection at the Westfield Town Engineer's Office, Municipal Building, 425 East Broad Street, Westfield, New Jersey. Township of Winfield Maps available for inspection at the Winfield Township Municipal Building, 12 Gulfstream Avenue, New Jersey. NORTH CAROLINA Alamance County (FEMA Docket No. D-7646) *Back Creek:* At the confluence with West Black Creek and Michaels Branch •576 At the Guilford County/Town of Gibsonville jurisdictional boundary •616 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Burlington, Town of Gibsonville *Back Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Back Creek •589 Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the Alamance/Guilford County boundary •667 *Beaver Creek:* At the confluence with Lake Macintosh •557 Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the Alamance/Guilford County boundary •572 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Big Alamance Creek:* Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence with Haw River •480 At the Alamance/Guilford County boundary •557 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), Village of Alamance, Cities of Burlington and Graham, and Town of Swepsonville *Big Branch:* Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence with Haw River •410 Approximately 0.7 mile upstream from Mandale Road •465 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Boyd Branch:* At the confluence with Little Alamance Creek •516 At Hanford Road •516 City of Burlington, City of Graham *Boyds Creek:* Approximately 0.3 mile downstream of Luckstone Road •570 Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Sandy Cross Road •653 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Boyds Creek Tributary 1:* Approximately 350 feet upstream of the confluence with Boyds Creek •512 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Lakeview Drive •677 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Haw River *Boyds Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Boyds Creek •586 Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Sandy Cross Road •636 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Burlington Reservoir:* Entire shoreline within community •579 *Buttermilk Creek:* Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence with Stony Creek •555 Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Reid Road •715 *Buttermilk Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Buttermilk Creek •601 Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Buttermilk Creek •713 *Buttermilk Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Buttermilk Creek •621 Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence with Buttermilk Creek Tributary 3 •708 *Buttermilk Creek Tributary 3:* At the confluence with Buttermilk Creek Tributary 2 •694 Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the confluence with Buttermilk Creek Tributary 2 •709 *Cane Creek (North):* Approximately 850 feet upstream of the confluence with Haw River •429 At the Alamance/Orange County boundary •429 *Cane Creek (South):* Approximately 210 feet upstream of Bethel South Fork Road •501 Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence with Well Creek •596 *Cane Creek (South) Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Cane Creek (South) •535 Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Old Dam Road •608 *Cane Creek (South) Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Cane Creek (South) Tributary 1 •586 Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Old Dam Road •595 *Cane Creek (South) Tributary 3:* At the confluence with Cane Creek (South) •558 Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Cane Creek (South) •599 *Cane Creek (North) Tributary 4:* At the confluence with Cane Creek (North) •429 Approximately 3,000 feet upstream from the confluence with Cane Creek (North) •456 *Coblebrook Creek:* At the confluence with Little Alamance Creek •606 Approximately 250 feet upstream of Edgewood Avenue •688 City of Burlington *Deep Creek:* At the confluence with Stony Creek •543 Approximately 2,800 feet upstream of Jefferies Cross Road •698 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Dry Creek:* Approximately 320 feet upstream of Power Line Road •630 Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Power Line Road •656 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Elon *East Back Creek:* Approximately 1,500 feet downstream of State Route 119 •533 At the Alamance/Orange County boundary •559 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Mebane *Eastside Creek:* Approximately 400 feet upstream of East Stage Coach Road •612 Approximately 350 feet upstream of the Alamance/Orange County boundary •655 City of Mebane *Eastside Creek Tributary:* At the confluence with Eastside Creek •617 Approximately 530 feet upstream of the confluence with Eastside Creek •621 *Foust Creek:* At the confluence with Cane Creek (South) •505 Approximately 0.7 mile upstream from Snow Camp Road •575 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Greenbriar Creek:* At the Alamance/Chatham County boundary •633 Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Staley Store Road •667 *Gunn Creek:* At the confluence with Big Alamance Creek •503 Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Big Alamance Creek •503 City of Burlington *Gunn Creek:* Approximately 150 feet downstream of Mill Pointe Way •638 Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Mill Pointe Way •684 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Burlington *Haw Creek Tributary 1:* Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of the confluence with Haw Creek •506 Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Turner Road •575 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Mebane *Haw River Tributary 2:* Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of the confluence with Haw River •435 Approximately 1.2 miles upstream from the confluence with Haw River •534 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Haw River Tributary 3:* Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of the confluence with Haw River •437 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Austin Quarter Road •609 *Haw River Tributary 4:* Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Haw River •439 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Saxaphaw Bethlehem Church Road •623 *Haw River Tributary 5:* At the confluence with Haw River Tributary 4 •472 Approximately 400 feet upstream from John Thompson Road •553 *Haw River Tributary 6:* Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of the confluence with Haw River •460 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of NC Highway 87 •539 *Haw River Tributary 8:* At the confluence with Haw River •558 Approximately 2,250 feet upstream of Atwater Road •649 *Haw River Tributary 10:* At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary to Haw River at Glencoe •573 Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Mansfield Road •670 *Haw River Tributary 11:* Approximately 750 feet upstream of the confluence with Haw River •589 Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Lonzie Foster Trail •710 *Haw River Tributary 12:* At the confluence with Haw River Tributary 11 •609 Approximately 600 feet upstream of Altamahaw Race Track Road •742 *Haw River Tributary 13:* At the upstream side of Altamahaw Union Ridge Road •608 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Mack's Chapel Road •689 *Haw River Tributary 14:* Approximately 0.4 mile upstream with the confluence of Haw River •620 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Gilliam Church Road •696 *Haw River Tributary 15:* At the Alamance/Guilford County boundary •664 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Lee Lewis Road •712 *Hughes Mill Creek:* At the confluence with Jordan Creek •603 Approximately 150 feet above the Alamance/Caswell County boundary •618 *Jones Creek:* At the confluence with Buttermilk Creek •608 Approximately 1,850 feet upstream of Altamahaw Race Track Road •684 *Jordan Creek:* Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the confluence with Stony Creek •552 Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Hughes Mill Road •635 *Laughin Creek:* At the confluence with Buttermilk Creek •589 Approximately 300 feet downstream of Alamance/Caswell County boundary •739 *Laughin Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Laughin Creek •609 Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with Laughin Creek •680 *Little Alamance Creek:* Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of Big Alamance Creek •490 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Interstates 40 and 85 •571 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Burlington *Little Alamance Creek Tributary:* At the confluence with Little Alamance Creek •565 Approximately 350 feet upstream of Maple Avenue •613 City of Burlington *Little Creek:* At the confluence with Sinking Quarter Creek •542 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Little Creek Tributary 2 •608 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Little Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Little Creek •552 Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Little Creek •591 *Little Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Little Creek •570 Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Vernon Lane •652 *Long Branch:* At the confluence with Marys Creek •461 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Stockard Road •511 *Marys Creek:* Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of the confluence with Haw River •436 Approximately 0.7 mile upstream from Snow Camp Road •578 *McAdams Creek Tributary:* Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence with McAdams Creek •588 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of 3rd Street •645 City of Mebane *Meadow Creek:* Approximately 110 feet upstream of NC Highway 54 •580 Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of NC Highway 54 •605 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Michaels Branch:* At the confluence with West Back Creek and Back Creek •576 Approximately 290 feet upstream of Long Street •692 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Burlington, Town of Elon *Michaels Branch Tributary:* At the confluence with Michaels Branch •633 Approximately 350 feet upstream of Driftwood Drive •665 Town of Elon, Town of Gibsonville *Mine Creek:* Approximately 400 feet upstream of the confluence with Stony Creek •549 Approximately 2.5 miles upstream of Mine Creek Road •658 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Motes Creek:* Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence with Haw River •441 Approximately 100 feet upstream of NC Highway 54 •569 *Motes Creek Tributary:* At the confluence with Motes Creek •517 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream from Mineral Springs Road •557 *North Prong Creek:* At the confluence with North Prong Rocky River •658 At the Alamance/Randolph County boundary •686 *North Prong Rocky River:* Approximately 800 feet downstream of the Alamance/Chatham County boundary •647 At the Alamance/Randolph County boundary •676 *North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek:* At the confluence with Stinking Quarter Creek •508 At the Alamance/Guilford County boundary •589 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), Village of Alamance *Owens Creek:* At the confluence with Jordan Creek •563 Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of Blanchard Road •647 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Parks Creek:* Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence with Reedy Fork •612 Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Shepherd Road •645 *Pine Branch:* At the confluence with Cane Creek (South) •448 Approximately 740 feet upstream of the confluence with Cane Creek (South) •448 *Pine Hill Branch:* At the confluence with South Fork •475 Approximately 1,400 feet upstream from Clark Road •547 *Pine Hill Branch Tributary:* At the confluence with Pine Hill Branch •502 Approximately 320 feet upstream from Quackenbush Road •522 *Poppaw Creek:* At the confluence with Stinking Quarter Creek •543 Approximately 4.5 miles downstream of Foster Store Road •649 *Poppaw Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Poppaw Creek •612 Approximately 100 feet upstream of Timber Ridge Lake Road •647 *Poppaw Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Poppaw Creek •613 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Poppaw Creek •660 *Quaker Creek:* Approximately 0.7 mile downstream of Dickey Mill Road •534 Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of the confluence with Quaker Creek Tributary 2 •696 *Quaker Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Quaker Creek •594 Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Cates Loop Road •676 *Quaker Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Quaker Creek •612 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Tangle Ridge Trail •673 *Reedy Branch:* At the confluence with Cane Creek (South) •509 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Clark Road •606 *Rock Creek:* Upstream side of Friendship Patterson Mill Road •538 Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Beale Road •637 *Rock Creek Tributary:* At the confluence with Rick Creek •560 Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of NC Highway 49 •594 *Serub Creek:* Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of Mebane Rogers Road •534 Approximately 1,950 feet upstream of Dickey Mill Road •595 *Servis Creek:* Approximately 1,600 feet downstream of Burch Bridge Road •611 Approximately 500 feet upstream of Cadiz Street •665 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Burlington *South Fork:* Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Cane Creek (South) •449 At the Alamance/Chatham County boundary •525 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Stagg Creek:* Approximately 0.8 mile downstream of State Route 119 •536 At the Alamance/Orange County boundary •605 *Stagg Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Stagg Creek •580 Approximately 500 feet upstream of Corbett Road •734 *Stagg Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Stagg Creek •604 At the Alamance/Orange County boundary •608 *Staley Creek:* Approximately 100 feet upstream of Rauhut Street •594 Approximately 200 feet upstream of Chestnut Street •664 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Burlington *Steelhouse Branch:* Approximately 350 feet upstream of the confluence with Town Branch •493 Approximately 650 feet upstream of East Crescent Square Drive •572 City of Graham *Stinking Quarter Creek:* Approximately 350 feet upstream of the confluence with Rock Creek •496 Approximately 100 feet upstream of the Alamance/Guilford County boundary •556 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Stony Creek:* At the confluence with Burlington Reservoir •579 At the Alamance/Orange County boundary •596 *Tickle Creek:* Approximately 200 feet downstream of the Alamance/Guilford County boundary •644 At the Alamance/Guilford County boundary •645 *Toms Creek:* At the confluence with Burlington Reservoir •579 At the Alamance/Caswell County boundary •599 *Travis Creek:* Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the confluence with Tributary A to Travis Creek •618 At the Alamance/Guilford County boundary •618 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Gibsonville *Travis Creek Tributary 2:* Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence with Travis Creek •596 Approximately 250 feet upstream of Burlington Avenue •678 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Elon, Town of Gibsonville *Tributary A to Haw Creek:* Approximately 75 feet upstream of Jones Drive •551 At the Alamance/Orange County boundary •572 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Tributary A to Travis Creek:* Approximately 500 feet downstream of the Alamance/Guilford County boundary •623 At the Alamance/Guilford County boundary •623 *Tributary to Travis Creek:* Approximately 250 feet downstream of the Alamance/Guilford County boundary •629 At the Alamance/Guilford County boundary •630 Town of Gibsonville *Unnamed Tributary to Haw River at Glencoe:* Approximately 30 feet upstream of Greenwood Drive •578 Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Isley School Road •665 Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) *Varnals Creek:* Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of Bass Mountain Road •554 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Bass Mountain Road •571 *Varnals Creek Tributary:* Approximately 275 feet upstream of the confluence with Varnals Creek •481 Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of the confluence with Varnals Creek •553 *Well Creek:* At the confluence with Cane Creek (South) •573 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Longest Acres Road •662 *Whittie Creek:* At the confluence with Buttermilk Creek •568 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Baker Bell Farm Road •655 *Willowbrook Creek:* At the confluence with Little Alamance Creek •575 Approximately 50 feet upstream of Allbright Avenue •672 City of Burlington Alamance County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at the Alamance County Annex Building, Planning Department, 124 West Elm Street, Graham, North Carolina. Village of Alamance Maps available for inspection at the Alamance Village Hall, 2879 Rob Shepard Drive, Alamance, North Carolina. City of Burlington Maps are available for inspection at the Burlington City Hall, Engineering Department, 425 South Lexington Avenue, Burlington, North Carolina. Town of Elon Maps available for inspection at the Elon Town Hall, 104 South Williamson Avenue, Elon, North Carolina. Town of Gibsonville Maps are available for inspection at the Town of Gibsonville Planning Department, 129 West Main Street, Gibsonville, North Carolina. City of Graham Maps available for inspection at the Graham City Hall, Planning Department, 201 South Main Street, Graham, North Carolina. Town of Green Level Maps available for inspection at the Green Level Town Hall, 2510 Green Level Church Road, Green Level, North Carolina. Town of Haw River Maps available for inspection at the Haw River Town Hall, 403 East Main Street, Haw River, North Carolina. City of Mebane Maps available for inspection at the Mebane City Hall, 106 East Washington Street, Mebane, North Carolina. Town of Swepsonville Maps available for inspection at the Alamance County Planning Department, Annex Building, 124 West Elm Street, Graham, North Carolina. ——— Dare County (FEMA Docket No. D-7622) *Atlantic Ocean:* Approximately 900 feet south of the intersection of Lighthouse Road and Hatteras Court •5 Approximately 1,600 feet northeast of the intersection of State Route 12 and Baum Trail •15 Dare County (Unincorporated Areas), and Towns of Duck, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk, Manteo, Nags Head, and Southern Shores *Roanoke Sound:* At the intersection of Cedar Drive and Captains Lane •9 Approximately 1,200 feet east of the intersection of Sailfish Drive and Sailfish Court •12 Dare County (Unincorporated Areas), Towns of Kill Devil Hills, and Nags Head *Pamlico Sound:* Along Oregon Inlet Channel, west of State Route 12 •9 Approximately 1,750 feet north of the intersection of Mail Landing Lane and State Route 12 •12 Dare County (Unincorporated Areas) *Croatan Sound:* Southeast corner of U.S. Route 264 and Old Ferry Dock Road •6 At the intersection of Hassell Road and Shipyard Road •7 *Currituck Sound:* Approximately 500 feet west of the intersection of North Dune Loop and Soundview Trail •7 Approximately 0.9 mile west of the intersection of Baum Trail and State Route 12 •9 Dare County (Unincorporated Areas), Towns of Duck and Southern Shores Dare County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at the Dare County Justice Center, Tax Mapping Department, 211 Budleigh Street, Manteo, North Carolina. Town of Duck Maps available for inspection at the Town of Duck Planning and Zoning Department, 1240 Duck Road, Duck, North Carolina. Town of Kill Devil Hills Maps available for inspection at the Town of Kill Devil Hills Planning and Building Directors Office, 102 Town Hall Drive, Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. Town of Kitty Hawk Maps available for inspection at the Kitty Hawk Town Hall, 101 Veterans Memorial Drive, Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Town of Manteo Maps available for inspection at the Manteo Town Hall, 407 Budleigh Street, Manteo, North Carolina. Town of Nags Head Maps available for inspection at the Town of Nags Head Planning Department, 5401 South Croatan Highway, Nags Head, North Carolina. Town of Southern Shores Maps available for inspection at the Town of Southern Shores Building Inspections Department, 6 Skyline Road, Southern Shores, North Carolina. ——— Harnett County (FEMA Docket No. D-7640) *Anderson Creek:* At the confluence with Lower Little River •103 At the confluence with North Prong Anderson Creek and South Prong Anderson Creek •137 Unincorporated Areas of Harnett County *Anderson Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Anderson Creek •129 Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Elliott Bridge Road •136 *Avents Creek:* At the confluence with Cape Fear River •141 Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Oakridge River Road •235 *Barbecue Creek:* At the confluence with Upper Little River •193 Approximately 700 feet upstream of NC State Route 27 •280 *Beaver Creek:* Approximately 500 feet downstream of the Moore/Lee/Harnett County boundary •307 Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the Harnett/Moore County boundary •409 *Big Branch (into Barbecue Creek):* At the confluence with Barbecue Creek •214 Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of McCormick Road •252 *Big Branch (into Black River):* At the confluence with Black River •206 Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Johnson Road •219 *Black River:* At the Harnett/Cumberland County boundary •139 Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of Guy Road •260 Unincorporated Areas of Harnett County, City of Dunn, Town of Angier *Buffalo Creek:* At the Harnett/Moore County boundary •218 At the confluence with Duncan Creek •251 Unincorporated Areas of Harnett County *Buffalo Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Buffalo Creek •220 Approximately 2.6 miles upstream of Hillmon Grove Road •276 *Buffalo Creek Tributary 3:* At the confluence with Buffalo Creek •239 Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of the confluence with Buffalo Creek •292 *Buffalo Meadows Creek:* At the confluence with Anderson Creek •120 Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Anderson Creek •140 *Buies Creek:* At the upstream side of Sheriff Johnson Road •176 Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Sheriff Johnson Road •184 *Camels Creek:* At the confluence with Cape Fear River •142 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Cool Springs Road •245 *Cedar Creek:* Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Cape Fear River •145 Approximately 2.9 miles upstream of the confluence with Cape Fear River •198 *Cypress Creek (into Crane Creek):* At the Moore/Harnett County boundary •226 Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of Cypress Road •265 *Cypress Creek (into Gum Swamp):* At the confluence with Gum Swamp •239 Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence with Lower Run •307 *Daniels Creek:* Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Cape Fear River •148 Approximately 5.8 miles upstream of the confluence with Cape Fear River •244 *Dry Creek:* At the confluence with Gum Swamp •232 Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Gum Swamp •249 *Duncans Creek:* At the confluence with Buffalo Creek •251 At the confluence with Duncans Creek Tributary 1 •265 *Duncans Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Duncans Creek •265 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Duncans Creek •274 *East Buies Creek:* Approximately 100 feet upstream of Sheriff Johnson Road •196 Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Sheriff Johnson Road •205 *Gum Swamp:* At the confluence with Barbeque Creek •222 Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Ponderosa Road •281 *Hector Creek (into Cape Fear River):* At the downstream side of Christian Light Road •136 Approximately 1,200 feet downstream of Rawls Church Road •240 *Hector Creek (into Little River):* At the Harnett/Cumberland/Moore County boundary •194 Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of the Harnett/Cumberland/Moore County boundary •226 *Jumping Run Creek:* Approximately 1.8 miles downstream of the Harnett/Cumberland County boundary •141 At the Reedy Swamp/McLeod Creek confluences •194 *Jumping Run Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Jumping Run Creek •176 Approximately 0.2 mile upstream of the confluence with Jumping Run Creek Tributary 2 •199 *Jumping Run Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Jumping Run Creek Tributary 1 •193 Approximately 400 feet upstream of the confluence with Jumping Run Creek Tributary 1 •195 *Juniper Creek (into Black River) Tributary:* At the confluence with Juniper Creek (into Black River) •191 Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Juniper Creek (into Black River) •197 City of Dunn *Juniper Creek (into Black River):* Approximately 600 feet upstream of the confluence with Black River •159 Approximately 340 feet upstream of Friendly Road •213 Unincorporated Areas of Harnett County *Kates Creek:* At the confluence with North Prong Anderson Creek •155 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Elliott Bridge Road •172 Unincorporated Areas of Harnett County *Kenneth Creek:* At the confluence with Neills Creek •202 At the Wake/Harnett County boundary •256 *Lower Little River:* Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Mill Road •103 Approximately 750 feet downstream of McCormick Bridge Road (At the Harnett/Cumberland County boundary) •135 *Lower Run:* At the confluence with Cypress Creek (into Gum Swamp) •272 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Cypress Creek (into Gum Swamp) •338 *McDougald Branch:* At the confluence with Cypress Creek (into Crane Creek) •234 At the confluence with McDougald Branch Tributary •249 *McDougald Branch Tributary:* At the confluence with McDougald Branch •249 Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with McDougald Branch •274 *McLeans Creek:* At the confluence with Upper Little River •136 Approximately 800 feet downstream of Thompson Road •154 *McLeod Creek:* At the confluence with Jumping Run Creek and Reedy Swamp •194 Approximately 2.8 miles upstream of the confluence with Jumping Run Creek and Reedy Swamp •247 *Mill Creek:* At the confluence with Avents Creek •152 Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Avents Creek •183 *Mingo Swamp:* At the Cumberland/Sampson/Harnett County boundary •134 Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Red Hill Church Road •255 *Mingo Swamp Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Mingo Swamp •179 Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of I-95 •234 *Mire Branch:* At the confluence with Barbeque Creek •249 Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of NC State Route 87 •279 *Muddy Creek:* At the Cumberland/Harnett County boundary •175 Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Muddy Creek Tributary 3 •244 *Muddy Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Muddy Creek •186 Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Muddy Creek •222 *Muddy Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Muddy Creek •199 Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of the confluence with Muddy Creek •222 *Muddy Creek Tributary 3:* At the confluence with Muddy Creek •207 Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with Muddy Creek •250 *Neills Creek:* Approximately 1,800 feet downstream of Route 401 •130 At the Wake/Harnett County boundary •264 *Neills Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Neills Creek •221 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Chalybeate Springs Road •242 *North Prong Anderson Creek:* At the confluence with Anderson Creek and South Prong Anderson Creek •137 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Powell Farm Road •225 *North Prong Anderson Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with North Prong Anderson Creek •152 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with North Prong Anderson Creek •158 *Parker Creek:* Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the confluence with Cape Fear River •151 Approximately 3.9 miles upstream of the confluence with Cape Fear River •237 *Reedy Branch:* At the confluence with Cypress Creek (into Crane Creek) •237 Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of Cypress Road •282 *Reedy Swamp:* At the confluence with Jumping Run Creek and McLeod Creek •194 Approximately 300 feet downstream of Buffalo Lake Road •302 *South Prong Anderson Creek:* At the confluence with Anderson Creek •137 Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Bernard Street •187 *South Prong Anderson Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with South Prong Anderson Creek •156 Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with South Prong Anderson Creek •168 *Stewarts Creek:* Approximately 100 feet upstream of Ashe Avenue •163 Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Ashe Avenue •183 *Stewarts Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Stewarts Creek •166 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Daniels Road •184 *Stony Run Tributary 1:* Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence with Stony Run •190 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Stony Run •198 *Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Little River •134 Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Rambeaut Road •170 *Tributary 2:* Approximately 800 feet downstream of Rambeaut Road •175 Approximately 100 feet downstream of Rambeaut Road •181 *Upper Little River:* Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Titan Roberts Road •110 At the Lee/Harnett County boundary •240 *Walkers Creek:* At the confluence with Upper Little River •157 Approximately 340 feet upstream of Tim Currin Road •201 *West Buies Creek:* Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of East Cornelius Harnett Boulevard •155 Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Sheriff Johnson Road •216 City of Dunn Maps are available for inspection at the Dunn Town Hall, 401 East Broad Street, Dunn, North Carolina. Town of Angier Maps are available for inspection at the Angier Town Hall, 55 North Broad West, Angier, North Carolina. Unincorporated Areas of Harnett County Maps are available for inspection at the Harnett County Planning Department, 102 East Front Street, Lillington, North Carolina. ——— Lee County (FEMA Docket No. FEMA-D-7646) *Beaver Creek:* At the Lee/Moore County boundary •307 At the Lee/Harnett County boundary •310 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County *Big Branch:* At the Lee/Moore County boundary •296 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the Lee/Moore County boundary •304 *Big Buffalo Creek:* At the confluence with Deep River •228 Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of U.S. Route 1 •289 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County, City of Sanford *Big Buffalo Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Big Buffalo Creek •253 Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Valley Road •297 City of Sanford, Unincorporated Areas of Lee County *Big Governors Creek:* At the confluence with Deep River •257 At the confluence of Little Governors Creek •257 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County *Bush Creek:* At the confluence with Cape Fear River •169 Approximately 3.7 miles upstream of the confluence with Cape Fear River •234 *Bush Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Bush Creek •170 Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Poplar Springs Church Road •239 *Cape Fear River:* At the Lee/Harnett County boundary •152 At the confluence of Deep River •177 *Cape Fear River Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Cape Fear River •172 Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Poplar Springs Church Road •256 *Carrs Creek:* At the confluence with Upper Little River •259 Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the confluence with Upper Little River •264 *Copper Mine Creek:* At the confluence with Hughes Creek and Gum Fork Creek •199 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Farrell Road •230 *Deep River:* At the confluence with Cape Fear River •177 At the confluence of Big Governors Creek •257 *Deep River Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Deep River •227 Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of the confluence of Deep River Tributary 3 •237 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County, City of Sanford *Deep River Tributary 10:* At the confluence with Deep River •255 Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Deep River •261 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County *Deep River Tributary 11:* At the confluence with Deep River •256 Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence of Tributary to Deep RiverTributary 11 •282 *Deep River Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Deep River Tributary 1 •227 Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Deep River Tributary 1 •235 *Deep River Tributary 3:* At the confluence with Deep River Tributary 1 •227 Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with Deep River Tributary 1 •247 *Deep River Tributary 9:* At the confluence with Deep River •252 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Deep River •256 *Dry Fork:* At the confluence with Pocket Creek •299 Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of Dycus Road •476 *Fall Creek:* At the confluence with Cape Fear River •156 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Copeland Road •329 *Gasters Creek West:* At the confluence with Upper Little River •312 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Minter School Road •401 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County, City of Sanford *Gasters Creek West Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Gasters Creek West •337 Approximately 520 feet upstream of Lemon Springs Road •372 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County *Gum Fork Creek:* At the confluence with Copper Mine Creek and Hughes Creek •199 Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of US-1 •269 *Hughes Creek:* At the confluence with Lick Creek •173 At the confluence of Copper Mine Creek and Gum Fork Creek •199 *Hughes Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Hughes Creek •173 Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Cletus Hall Road •194 *Juniper Creek:* At the confluence with Upper Little River •266 Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Nicholson Road •363 *Kendale Creek:* Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Hiawatha Trail •352 Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of Hiawatha Trail •353 City of Sanford, Unincorporated Areas of Lee County *Lick Creek:* At the confluence with Cape Fear River •173 Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Pumping Station Road •373 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County, City of Sanford *Lick Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Lick Creek •173 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Cletus Hall Road •225 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County *Lick Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Lick Creek •239 Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of the confluence with Lick Creek •325 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County, City of Sanford *Lick Creek Tributary 3:* At the confluence with Lick Creek •296 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Lick Creek •338 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County *Little Buffalo Creek:* At the confluence with Deep River •222 Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Highway 421/Highway 87 •406 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County, City of Sanford *Little Crane Creek Tributary 2:* Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of the confluence with Little Crane Creek •332 Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Little Crane Creek •384 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County *Little Crane Creek Tributary 3:* Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence with Little Crane Creek •347 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Little Crane Creek •370 *Little Crane Creek Tributary 4A:* At the confluence with Little Crane Creek Tributary 4 •363 Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of Eakes Road •425 *Little Crane Creek Tributary 4B:* At the confluence with Little Crane Creek Tributary 4 •370 Approximately 750 feet upstream of White Meadows Drive •411 *Little Crane Tributary 4:* Approximately 600 feet upstream of the confluence with Little Crane Creek •349 Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of the confluence of Little Crane Creek Tributary 4B •428 *Little Governors Creek:* At the confluence with Big Governors Creek •257 Approximately 8.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Big Governors Creek •360 *Little Juniper Creek:* At the confluence with Upper Little River and Mulatto Branch •332 Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Rocky Fork Church Road •403 *Little Juniper Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Little Juniper Creek •347 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Little Juniper Creek •369 *Little Juniper Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Little Juniper Creek •357 Approximately 600 feet upstream of Lemon Springs Road •408 *Little Juniper Creek Tributary 3:* At the confluence with Little Juniper Creek •360 Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Willett Road •457 *Little Juniper Creek Tributary 4:* At the confluence with Little Juniper Creek •366 Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the confluence with Little Juniper Creek •376 *Little Lick Creek:* At the confluence with Lick Creek •193 Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Kids Lane •365 *Little Lick Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Little Lick Creek •206 Just downstream of Womack Lake Circle •351 *Little Lick Creek Tributary 1A:* At the confluence with Little Lick Creek Tributary 1 •226 Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the confluence with Little Lick Creek Tributary 1 •365 *Little Lick Creek Tributary 1B:* At the confluence with Little Lick Creek Tributary 1 •247 Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of NC 42 (Avents Ferry Road) •390 *Little Pocket Creek:* At the confluence with Pocket Creek •238 Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of McPherson Road •383 *Little Shaddox Creek:* At the confluence with Cape Fear River •175 Approximately 450 feet upstream of Lower Moncure Road •196 *Long Branch:* At the confluence with Juniper Creek •311 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of John Godfrey Road •341 *Lonnie Wombles Creek:* At the confluence with Cape Fear River •175 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of US-1 •329 *Lonnie Wombles Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Lonnie Wombles Creek •182 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of US-1 •324 *Lonnie Wombles Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Lonnie Wombles Creek Tributary 1 •206 Approximately 770 feet upstream of US-1 •266 *Mare Branch:* At the confluence with Juniper Creek •306 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Landfill Road •380 *Mulatto Branch:* At the confluence with Upper Little River and Little Juniper Creek •332 Approximately 830 feet upstream of Minter School Road •368 *Patchet Creek:* At the confluence with Upper Little River •245 Approximately 630 feet upstream of John Rosser Road •325 *Patterson Creek:* At the confluence with Deep River •236 Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of Wicker Street •391 *Persimmon Creek:* At the confluence with Big Buffalo and Skunk Creeks •289 Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Carthage Street •411 *Pocket Creek:* At the confluence with Deep River •238 Approximately 250 feet upstream of Chris Cole Road •342 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County *Purgatory Branch:* At the confluence with Big Buffalo Creek •235 Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Forestwood Park Road •305 *Racoon Creek:* At the confluence with Pocket Creek •271 Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of South Franklin Drive •476 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County, City of Sanford *Racoon Creek Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Racoon Creek •295 Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Racoon Creek •361 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County *Racoon Creek Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Racoon Creek •317 Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the confluence with Racoon Creek •338 *Reedy Branch:* At the confluence with Juniper Creek •321 Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of Blacks Chapel Road •378 *Roberts Creek:* At the confluence with Hughes Creek •175 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Railroad •271 *Run Branch:* At the confluence with Reedy Branch •324 Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of the confluence with Reedy Branch •400 *Skunk Creek:* Approximately 10 feet upstream of West Garden Street •320 Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of West Garden Street •343 City of Sanford, Unincorporated Areas of Lee County *Smith Creek:* At the confluence with Deep River •244 Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Carbonton Road •269 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County *Stony Creek:* At the confluence with Lick Creek •191 Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of Poplar Springs Church Road •358 *Sugar Creek:* At the confluence with Pocket Creek •308 Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Pocket Creek •337 *Tributary to Deep River Tributary 11:* At the confluence with Deep River Tributary 11 •256 Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Deep River Tributary 11 •275 *Upper Little River:* At the Lee/Harnett County boundary •240 At the confluence of Mulatto Branch and Little Juniper Creek •332 *Upper Little River Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Upper Little River •290 Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Holder Road •355 *Wallace Branch:* At the confluence with Lick Creek •217 Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of F.L. Dowdy Lane •268 *Wallace Branch Tributary 1:* At the confluence with Wallace Branch •218 Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Riddle Road •279 *Wallace Branch Tributary 2:* At the confluence with Wallace Branch •220 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Riddle Road •246 *Wallace Branch Tributary 3:* At the confluence with Wallace Branch •222 Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Riddle Road •317 *Whitehorse Branch:* At the confluence with Mulatto Branch •358 Approximately 0.2 mile upstream of Hickory House Road •382 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County City of Sanford Maps are available for inspection at the City of Sanford Planning Department, 900 Woodland Avenue, Sanford, North Carolina. Unincorporated Areas of Lee County Maps are available for inspection at the Lee County Planning Department, 900 Woodland Avenue, Sanford, North Carolina. WEST VIRGINIA Raleigh County (FEMA Docket No. D-7642) *Breckenridge Creek:* Approximately 90 feet upstream of the confluence with Marsh Fork •1,762 Approximately 0.2 mile upstream of State Route 99 •1,991 Raleigh County (Unincorporated Areas) *Clear Fork:* Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Clear Fork Road •1,126 Approximately 250 feet upstream of CR 119 •1,602 *Crab Orchard Creek:* Approximately 250 feet upstream of the confluence with Piney Creek •2,231 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Route 54/24 •2,320 *Cranberry Creek:* At the confluence of Piney Creek •1,679 Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of the upstream side of Stanford Road •2,311 *Raleigh County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Beckley* *North Sand Branch:* Approximately 40 feet upstream of the confluence with Sand Branch •1,767 Approximately 3.9 miles upstream of the confluence with Sand Branch •2,280 Raleigh County (Unincorporated Areas) *Sycamore Creek:* At the confluence with Clear Fork •1,021 Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Clear Fork •1,230 *Tributary 1 to Breckenridge Creek:* At the confluence with Breckenridge Creek •1,973 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Breckenridge Creek •1,990 *Tributary 2 to Breckenridge Creek:* At the confluence with Breckenridge Creek •1,976 Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence with Breckenridge Creek •1,983 *Tributary 3 to Breckenridge Creek:* At the confluence with Breckenridge Creek •1,981 Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence with Breckenridge Creek •1,987 *White Oak Creek:* Approximately 650 feet upstream of the confluence with Clear Fork •1,336 Approximately 3.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Clear Fork •1,827 Raleigh County (Unincorporated Areas) City of Beckley Maps available for inspection at the Beckley City Municipal Building, 409 South Kanawha Street, Beckley, West Virginia. Raleigh County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at the Raleigh County Commission Building, 16 1/2 North Herber Street, Beckley, West Virginia. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: June 5, 2006. David I. Maurstad, Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E6-9127 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P 71 112 Monday, June 12, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA 2006-24983; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-196-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The existing AD currently requires a one-time inspection to determine the serial number of both main landing gear
(MLG)sliding tubes, repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the affected MLG sliding tubes, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would retain these inspections and add new repetitive inspections for cracking of the MLG sliding tubes. This proposed AD would also require eventual replacement of both MLG shock absorbers. Doing this replacement would terminate the repetitive inspection requirements of this proposed AD. This proposed AD results from a determination that additional inspections and mandatory replacement of the MLG shock absorbers are necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking in an MLG sliding tube, which could result in failure of the sliding tube, loss of one axle, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)227-2141; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-24983; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-196-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On May 28, 2004, we issued AD 2004-11-13, amendment 39-13659 (69 FR 31867, June 8, 2004), for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. That AD currently requires a one-time inspection to determine the serial number (S/N) of both main landing gear
(MLG)sliding tubes, repetitive inspections for cracking of the MLG sliding tubes, and corrective actions if necessary. That AD resulted from a report that a linear crack was found in a MLG sliding tube at the intersection of the cylinder and the axle due to a non-metallic inclusion in the base metal, and another report that the number of MLG sliding tubes subject to the identified unsafe condition had expanded. We issued that AD to detect and correct cracking in an MLG sliding tube, which could result in failure of the sliding tube, loss of one axle, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued The preamble to AD 2004-11-13 specified that we considered the requirements “interim action” and that the manufacturer was developing a modification to address the unsafe condition. That AD explained that we may consider further rulemaking if a modification is developed, approved, and available. We have now determined that additional detailed inspections and magnetic particle inspections
(MPI)and eventual sliding tube replacement are necessary to ensure safe operation and has issued revised service information. Therefore, we have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary; this proposed AD follows from that determination. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-32A1273, Revision 02, including Appendix 01; dated May 26, 2005, to replace All Operators Telex
(AOT)32A1273, Revision 01, dated May 6, 2004. (AD 2004-11-13 refers to Revision 01 of the AOT as the appropriate source of service information for certain actions.) The service bulletin retains the one-time general visual inspection to determine the S/N of both MLG sliding tubes and the repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the sliding tube of the MLG shock absorber described by the AOT. The service bulletin also describes procedures for new repetitive detailed inspections and new MPIs of the sliding tube, and eventual replacement of both MLG shock absorbers with new or serviceable MLG shock absorbers equipped with sliding tubes having S/Ns not listed in the service information. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The service bulletin refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletins 201-32-43, Revision 1 (for Airbus Model A321 airplanes), and 200-32-286, Revision 1 (for Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 airplanes); both dated May 1, 2005, as additional sources of service information for accomplishing the detailed inspections and MPIs. The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile
(DGAC)mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-115, dated July 6, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. French airworthiness directive F-2005-115 replaces French airworthiness directive UF-2004-065, dated May 11, 2004, which was referenced in AD 2004-11-13. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2004-11-13 and would continue to require a one-time general visual inspection to determine the S/N of both MLG sliding tubes and the repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the sliding tube of the MLG shock absorber. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32A1273, Revision 02, described previously. Changes to Existing AD Due to the new requirements of this proposed AD, paragraphs (h), (i), and
(j)of AD 2004-11-13 have been revised as applicable and incorporated as new paragraphs (l), (m), and
(n)of this proposed AD. Clarification of Inspection Terminology In this proposed AD, the “detailed visual inspection” specified in French airworthiness directive F-2005-115 is referred to as a “detailed inspection.” We have included the definition for a detailed inspection in a note in the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 720 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD at an estimated cost of $80 per work hour. Operators should note that, although all U.S.-registered airplanes are subject to the requirements of the existing AD, there are only 297 possible affected MLG sliding tubes in the worldwide fleet. We have no way of knowing how many affected MLG sliding tubes, if any, are installed in U.S.-registered airplanes. Therefore, the estimated costs to perform the new requirements of this proposed AD apply only to individual sliding tubes; no fleet cost can be determined for these actions. Estimated Costs to Perform Requirements of Existing AD 2004-11-13 Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost General visual inspection to determine serial number 1 None $80 $57,600 Estimated Costs to Perform New Requirements of This Proposed AD Action Work hours Parts Cost per sliding tube Detailed inspection 1 None $80, per inspection cycle. Detailed inspection and MPI 9 None $720, per inspection cycle. Replacement of sliding tube. 8 $38,278 to $45,310 $39,918 to $45,950 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13659 (69 FR 31867, June 8, 2004) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24983; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-196-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 12, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2004-11-13. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a determination that additional inspections and mandatory replacement of the MLG shock absorbers are necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in an MLG sliding tube, which could result in failure of the sliding tube, loss of one axle, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Information References
(f)The term “service information,” as used in this AD, means Airbus All Operators Telex
(AOT)A320-32A1273, Revision 01, dated May 6, 2004; or the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32A1273, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated May 26, 2005. After the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32A1273, Revision 02, may be used. **Note 1:** Airbus AOT A320-32A1273, Revision 01, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32A1273, Revision 02, refer to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletins 201-32-43 and 200-32-286, both currently at Revision 1, dated May 1, 2005, as additional sources of service information for accomplishing the detailed inspections and magnetic particle inspections (MPI). Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 2004-11-13 Serial Number (S/N) Identification
(g)For all airplanes: Within 30 days after June 23, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-11-13), do a one-time general visual inspection to determine the S/N of both MLG sliding tubes, in accordance with the service information. Instead of inspecting the MLG sliding tubes, reviewing the airplane maintenance records is acceptable if the S/N of the MLG sliding tubes can be positively determined from that review.
(1)If the S/N of the MLG sliding tube is not listed in the service information: No further action is required by this paragraph for that sliding tube.
(2)If the S/N of the MLG sliding tube is listed in the service information: Do the actions in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i)For any MLG not inspected before June 23, 2004: Before further flight, do a detailed inspection of the MLG for cracking in accordance with the service information.
(A)If no cracking is found in any MLG sliding tube: Repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 days, until the MLG replacement specified by paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B), (h), or
(i)of this AD has been accomplished.
(B)If any cracking is found in any MLG sliding tube: Before further flight replace the part with a new or serviceable part in accordance with a method approved by either the FAA or the Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile
(DGAC)(or its delegated agent). Chapter 32 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual
(AMM)is one approved method. Installing an MLG sliding tube having an S/N that is not listed in the service information terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph
(h)of this AD for that MLG sliding tube only.
(ii)For any MLG that has been inspected before June 23, 2004: Within 10 days after that inspection, do the detailed inspection required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD. New Requirements of This AD Detailed Inspection and MPI
(h)For any airplane equipped with any MLG having a sliding tube installed that is identified with a S/N listed in the service information: Within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, perform a detailed inspection and an MPI of the MLG sliding tube for cracking in accordance with the service information. Repeat these inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,200 flight cycles until paragraph
(i)of this AD has been accomplished. If any cracking is discovered during any inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, replace the cracked sliding tube with a new or serviceable sliding tube in accordance with the service information. Replacing the MLG sliding tube with a sliding tube having a S/N not listed in the service information terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph and paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) of this AD for that sliding tube only. Terminating Action
(i)Within 41 months after the effective date of this AD, replace all MLG shock absorbers equipped with sliding tubes having S/Ns listed in the service information with new or serviceable MLG shock absorbers equipped with sliding tubes having S/Ns not listed in the service information, using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the DGAC (or its delegated agent). Chapter 32, page block 401, of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AMM is one approved method. Replacing the MLG shock absorbers in accordance with this paragraph terminates all repetitive inspections required by this AD. Submission of Cracked Parts Not Required
(j)The service information has instructions to send any cracked part to Messier-Dowty. This AD does not include such a requirement. Reporting Requirement
(k)Prepare a report of any crack found during any inspection required by paragraph
(g)or
(h)of this AD. Submit the report to Airbus Customer Services, Engineering and Technical Support, Attention: M.Y. Quimiou, SEE33, fax +33+
(0)5.6193.32.73, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD. The report must include the MLG sliding tube P/N and S/N, date of inspection, a description of any cracking found, the airplane serial number, and the number of flight cycles on the MLG at the time of inspection. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(1)For any inspection done after June 23, 2004, but before the effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after the inspection or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes first.
(2)For any inspection done after the effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after the inspection. Parts Installation
(l)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, any sliding tube, or MLG shock absorber having a sliding tube installed, if the sliding tube has a S/N identified in the service information, unless the sliding tube has been inspected, and any applicable corrective actions have been done, in accordance with paragraph (g)(2)(i), (h), or
(i)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(n)French airworthiness directive F-2005-115, dated July 6, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 31, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-9062 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24990; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-013-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if the stiff part of the girt and girt bar position of the forward left-hand and right-hand passenger doors is incorrect, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD results from cases of girt bar disengagement from the floor fitting during deployment tests of slide rafts at the forward passenger doors. We are proposing this AD to prevent disengagement of the telescopic girt bar from the airplane when the door is opened in emergency situations, which could result in the inability to open the passenger door and to use the escape slide/raft at that door during an emergency evacuation of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)227-2125; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-24990; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-013-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The DGAC advises that, during deployment tests of slide rafts at the forward passenger doors, cases of girt bar disengagement from the floor fitting were reported. Investigations have demonstrated that the girt bar disengagements were due to incorrect position of the stiff part of the girt bar during installation of the slide raft on airplanes. This may cause inboard-directed loads on the girt bar, preventing a correct engagement in the floor fittings. This condition, if not corrected, could result in disengagement of the telescopic girt bar from the airplane when the door is opened in emergency situations, which could result in the inability to open the passenger door and to use the escape slide/raft at that door during an emergency evacuation of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-25-1394, Revision 01, dated December 12, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for a general visual inspection to determine whether the stiff part of the girt and girt bar position of the forward left-hand and right-hand passenger doors is incorrect, and repair if necessary. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005- 172 on December 21, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 719 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $57,520, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24990; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-013-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 12, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, certificated in any category; on which Airbus Modification 20233, 25902, or 24365 (installation of slide raft) has been done in production; excluding those airplanes having manufacturer's serial numbers 1794, 2155, 2195, 2204, 2231, 2239, 2244, 2246, 2247, 2252, 2254, 2255, 2257, 2259, 2261, 2263, 2267, 2273, 2274, 2275, 2278, 2280, 2282, 2284, 2286, 2288, 2297, 2301, 2307, 2310, 2314, 2327, 2369, and subsequent. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from cases of girt bar disengagement from the floor fitting during deployment tests of slide rafts at the forward passenger doors. We are issuing this AD to prevent disengagement of the telescopic girt bar from the airplane when the door is opened in emergency situations, which could result in the inability to open the passenger door and to use the escape slide/raft at that door during an emergency evacuation of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection and Repair
(f)Within 200 days after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection to determine if the stiff part of the girt and girt bar position of the forward left-hand and right-hand passenger doors is incorrect, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1394, Revision 01, dated December 12, 2005. If the stiff part of the girt or the girt bar position is incorrect, before further flight, repair in accordance with the service bulletin. **Note 1:** For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(g)Inspecting and repairing if necessary before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1394, dated July 23, 2004, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(f)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(i)French airworthiness directive F-2005-172, issued December 21, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 31, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-9061 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24999; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-060-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F Airplanes; and Model MD-10-10F Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes; and Model MD-10-10F airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacing the clamp bases for the fuel vent pipe with improved clamp bases. This proposed AD results from reports that the foil wrapping on existing plastic clamp bases has migrated out of position, which compromises the bonding of the fuel vent pipes to the airplane structure. We are proposing this AD to ensure that the fuel vent pipes are properly bonded to the airplane structure. Improper bonding could prevent electrical energy from a lightning strike from dissipating to the airplane structure, and create an ignition source, which could result in a fuel tank explosion. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5254; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-24999; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-060-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (67 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design ( *i.e.* , type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Foil-wrapped plastic clamp bases are used to bond the fuel vent pipes to the airplane structure in parts of the fuel vent system on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes; and Model MD-10-10F airplanes. We have received reports that the foil wrapping on existing plastic clamp bases has migrated out of position on several airplanes, which compromises the bonding of the fuel vent pipes to the airplane structure. (Bonding of the fuel vent pipes to the airplane structure is critical to ensure that the electrical energy from a lightning strike dissipates to the airplane structure.) This condition, if not corrected, could create an ignition source and result in a fuel tank explosion. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-243, dated February 22, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing existing foil-wrapped plastic clamp bases for the fuel vent pipe with improved metal clamp bases. These replacement procedures include verifying the electrical conductivity of the structural bracket and vent pipe surfaces and performing corrective action if necessary. The corrective action includes prepping and applying chemical conversion coating to the surface of the structural bracket and/or vent pipe, as applicable. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 12 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 12 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $502 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $7,944, or $662 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24999; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-060-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 27, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes; and Model MD-10-10F airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-243, dated February 22, 2005. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports that the foil wrapping on existing plastic clamp bases has migrated out of position, which compromises the bonding of the fuel vent pipes to the airplane structure. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the fuel vent pipes are properly bonded to the airplane structure. Improper bonding could prevent electrical energy from a lightning strike from dissipating to the airplane structure, and create an ignition source, which could result in a fuel tank explosion. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Clamp Base Replacement
(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace the existing plastic clamp bases for the fuel vent pipe with improved metal clamp bases, by doing all of the applicable actions as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-243, dated February 22, 2005. All corrective actions that are required following the conductivity verification, which is included in the replacement procedures, must be done before further flight. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 5, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-9063 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24317; Airspace Docket No. 06-AEA-006] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Robert Packer Hospital, Sayre, PA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish Class E airspace at Robert Packer Hospital, Sayre, PA. The development of an Area Navigation
(RNAV)Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP)and Helicopter RNAV
(GPS)135 approach for the Robert Packer Hospital to serve flights operating into the airport during Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR)conditions makes this action necessary. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level
(AGL)is needed to contain aircraft executing an approach. The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager, Airspace Branch, AEA-520, Docket No. FAA-2006-24317; Airspace Docket No. 06-AEA-006, FAA Eastern Region, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, NY 11434-4809. The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Regional Counsel, AEA-7, FAA Eastern Region, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, NY 11434-4809. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours in the Airspace Branch, AEA-520, FAA Eastern Region, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, NY 11434-4809. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Francis T. Jordan, Jr., Airspace Specialist, Airspace Branch, AEA-520, FAA Eastern Region, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, NY, 11434-4809; telephone:
(718)553-4521. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2006-24317; Airspace Docket No. 06-AEA-006”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Rules Docket closing both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with the FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)by submitting a request to the Office of the Regional Counsel, AEA-7, FAA Eastern Region, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, NY 11434-4809. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace area at Robert Packer Hospital, PA. The development of SIAPs to serve flights operating into the airport during IFR conditions makes this action necessary. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL is needed to accommodate the SIAPs. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9N, dated September 1, 2005, and effective September 16, 2005, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation
(1)is not a “significant regulatory action”under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulation Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that would affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule would not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., P. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9N dated September 1, 2005, and effective September 16, 2005, is proposed to be amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. AEA PA E5 Robert Packer Hospital, [New] Sayre, Pennsylvania (Lat. 41°58′46″ N., long. 76° 31′15″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.0 mile radius of the Robert Packer Hospital, Sayre, PA. Issued in Jamaica, New York, on March 30, 2006. John G. McCartney, Acting Area Director, Eastern Terminal Operations. [FR Doc. 06-5306 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 31
Traces to 31 documents
U.S. Code
30 references not yet in our index
  • 40 CFR 122
  • 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2)
  • 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii)
  • 40 CFR 117.21
  • 40 CFR 302.6
  • 40 CFR 110.6
  • Pub. L. 95-217
  • 413 F.3d 479
  • 966 F.2d 1292
  • 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii)(C)
  • 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2)(i)
  • 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2)(ii)
  • 40 CFR 122.26(c)(iii)
  • 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)
  • 40 CFR 123.1(i)(2)
  • 49 CFR 192.3
  • 435 F.3d 758
  • 40 CFR 9
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 44 CFR 64
  • 44 CFR 59
  • 44 CFR 10
  • 44 CFR 65
  • 44 CFR 60.3
  • 44 CFR 65.4
  • 44 CFR 67
  • 44 CFR 60
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 14 CFR 71
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
C.F.R.§ 23.2
U.S.C.§ 553
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3501
C.F.R.§ 121.201
U.S.C.§ 603
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
F. App'x413 F.3d 479
F. App'x966 F.2d 1292
F. App'x435 F.3d 758
Cites 61 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.