Rules and Regulations. Final rule

21,951 words·~100 min read·/register/2006/09/28/06-8245

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 520 Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Neomycin AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of an abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) filed by Sparhawk Laboratories, Inc. The ANADA provides for use of neomycin sulfate soluble powder in livestock for the treatment and control of bacterial enteritis. DATES: This rule is effective September 28, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Harshman, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0169, e-mail: *john.harshman@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sparhawk Laboratories, Inc., 12340 Santa Fe Trail Dr., Lenexa, KS 66215, filed ANADA 200-378 for the use of Neomycin Soluble Powder in cattle, swine, sheep, goats, and turkeys for the treatment and control of bacterial enteritis. Sparhawk Laboratories, Inc.'s Neomycin Soluble Powder is approved as a generic copy of NEOMIX 325 (neomycin sulfate) Soluble Powder, sponsored by Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., a Division of Pfizer, Inc., under NADA 11-315. The ANADA is approved as of August 31, 2006, and the regulations in 21 CFR 520.1484 and 520.1485 are amended to reflect the approval and a current format. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary. In addition, a label statement warning against the use of these products in calves to be processed for veal was not codified at the time supplemental NADAs or ANADAs for oral neomycin products were approved. At this time, FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect required food safety warning statements. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is amended as follows: PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 2. Revise § 520.1484 to read as follows: § 520.1484 Neomycin.

(a)*Specifications* —(1) Each ounce of powder contains 20.3 grams

(g)neomycin sulfate (equivalent to 14.2 g neomycin base).

(2)Each milliliter of solution contains 200 milligrams

(mg)neomycin sulfate (equivalent to 140 mg neomycin base).

(b)*Sponsors* . See sponsors in § 510.600(c) of this chapter for use as in paragraph

(e)of this section.

(1)Nos. 000069 and 054925 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) as in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.

(2)Nos. 000009, 046573, 058005, and 061623 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) as in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section.

(3)Nos. 000009, 054925, and 059130 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(2) as in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.

(c)*Related tolerances* . See § 556.430 of this chapter.

(d)*Special labeling considerations* . Labeling shall bear the following warning statements: “A withdrawal period has not been established for use in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal. Use of more than one product containing neomycin or failure to follow withdrawal times may result in illegal drug residues.”

(e)*Conditions of use* —(1) *Cattle, swine, sheep, and goats* —(i) *Amount* . 10 mg per pound (/lb) of body weight per day (22 mg per kilogram (/kg)) in divided doses for a maximum of 14 days.

(ii)*Indications for use* . For the treatment and control of colibacillosis (bacterial enteritis) caused by *Escherichia coli* susceptible to neomycin sulfate.

(iii)*Limitations* . Add powder to drinking water or milk; not for use in liquid supplements. Administer solution undiluted or in drinking water. Prepare a fresh solution in drinking water daily. If symptoms persist after using this preparation for 2 or 3 days, consult a veterinarian. Treatment should continue 24 to 48 hours beyond remission of disease symptoms, but not to exceed a total of 14 consecutive days. Discontinue treatment prior to slaughter as follows: Cattle, 1 day; sheep, 2 days; swine and goats, 3 days.

(2)*Turkeys* —(i) *Amount* . 10 mg/lb of body weight per day (22 mg/kg) for 5 days.

(ii)*Indications for use* . For the control of mortality associated with *E. coli* susceptible to neomycin sulfate in growing turkeys.

(iii)*Limitations* . Add to drinking water; not for use in liquid supplements. Prepare a fresh solution daily. If symptoms persist after using this preparation for 2 or 3 days, consult a veterinarian. Treatment should continue 24 to 48 hours beyond remission of disease symptoms, but not to exceed a total of 5 consecutive days. § 520.1485 [Removed] 3. Remove § 520.1485. Dated: September 12, 2006. Stephen F. Sundlof Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E6-15889 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 524 Ophthalmic and Topical Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Gentamicin Sulfate, Betamethasone Valerate, Clotrimazole Ointment AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) filed by IVX Animal Health, Inc. The supplemental ANADA provides for a new container size, a 40-gram dropper bottle, from which gentamicin sulfate, betamethasone valerate, clotrimazole ointment may be administered for the treatment of acute and chronic canine otitis externa. DATES: This rule is effective September 28, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Harshman, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0169, e-mail: *john.harshman@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IVX Animal Health, Inc., 3915 South 48th Street Ter., St. Joseph, MO 64503, filed a supplement to ANADA 200-287 for use of TRIPLEMAX (gentamicin sulfate, USP; betamethasone valerate, USP; and clotrimazole, USP ointment) for the treatment of acute and chronic canine otitis externa. The supplemental ANADA provides for a new container size, a 40-gram dropper bottle. The supplemental ANADA is approved as of August 23, 2006, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 524.1044g to reflect the approval. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 524 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 524 is amended as follows: PART 524—OPHTHALMIC AND TOPICAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 524 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 2. In § 524.1044g, revise paragraph (b)(3), paragraph (c)(1) introductory text, and paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to read as follows: § 524.1044g Gentamicin sulfate, betamethasone valerate, clotrimazole ointment.

(b)* * *

(3)No. 059130 for use of 10-, 20-, 40-, or 215-g bottles.

(c)* * *

(1)*Amount* . Instill ointment twice daily into the ear canal for 7 consecutive days.

(ii)From 20-, 40-, or 215-g bottles: 2 drops for dogs weighing less than 30 lb or 4 drops for dogs weighing 30 lb or more. Dated: September 15, 2006. Steven D. Vaughn, Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E6-15888 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 602 [TD 9281] RIN 1545-BF70 Determination of Interest Expense Deduction of Foreign Corporations; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to final and temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final and temporary regulations (TD 9281), that were published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, August 17, 2006 (71 FR 47443). This regulation revised the Income Tax Regulations relating to the determination of the interest expense deduction of foreign corporations and applies to foreign corporations engaged in a trade or business within the United States. DATES: This correction is effective August 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Spring or Paul Epstein,

(202)622-3870 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final and temporary regulations (TD 9281) that is the subject of this correction are under sections 882 and 884 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, TD 9281 contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the final and temporary regulations (TD 9281), that were the subject of FR Doc. E6-13402, is corrected as follows: On page 47443, column 1, in the preamble under the caption “ DATES : *Effective Date* :”, lines 1 through 5, the language, “These regulations are effective starting the tax year end for which the original tax return due date (including extensions) is after August 17, 2006.” is corrected to read “These regulations are effective August 17, 2006.”. Cynthia E. Grigsby, Senior Federal Register Liaison Officer, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-15891 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9281] RIN 1545-BF70 Determination of Interest Expense Deduction of Foreign Corporations; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final and temporary regulations (TD 9281), that were published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, August 17, 2006 (71 FR 47443). This regulation revised the Income Tax Regulations relating to the determination of the interest expense deduction of foreign corporations and applies to foreign corporations engaged in a trade or business within the United States. DATES: This correction is effective August 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Spring or Paul Epstein,

(c)* * *

(2)* * *

(iv)* * * The rules of § 1.882-5(b)(3) apply in determining the total value of applicable worldwide assets for the taxable year, except that the minimum number of determination dates are those stated in § 1.882-5(c)(2)(i). Cynthia E. Grigsby, Senior Federal Register Liaison Officer, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-15893 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 19 RIN 2900-AL97 Board of Veterans' Appeals: Clarification of a Notice of Disagreement AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA)is amending its regulations governing appeals to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) to clarify the actions an agency of original jurisdiction

(AOJ)must take to determine whether a written communication from a claimant that is ambiguous in its purpose is intended to be a Notice of Disagreement

(NOD)with an adverse claims decision. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective October 30, 2006. *Applicability Date:* VA will apply this rule to appeals pending before VA in which an NOD was filed on or after the effective date of this rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven L. Keller, Senior Deputy Vice Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals (01C), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, 202-565-5978. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board is an administrative body within VA that decides appeals from denials by AOJs of claims for veterans' benefits, as well as occasional cases of original jurisdiction. The Board is under the administrative control and supervision of a Chairman directly responsible to the Secretary. 38 U.S.C. 7101. I. Background On June 30, 2005, VA published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 37723) a notice of proposed rulemaking that outlined procedures for AOJs to follow when an unclear written communication is received from a claimant who may or may not intend the communication to serve as an NOD. In summary, the proposed rulemaking required the AOJ to contact the claimant to request clarification in such cases. The proposed rule also required that the AOJ inform the claimant that VA will not consider an unclear communication to be an NOD unless the claimant responds in a timely fashion to the request for clarification. II. Analysis of Public Comments We received two comments objecting to certain aspects of the proposed rule. The first commenter urged that the proposed rule be amended to require:

(1)That the AOJ contact must include written notice of the request for clarification;

(2)that such notice be sent to the claimant and his or her representative; and,

(3)that any document from a claimant using the language “Notice of Disagreement” be automatically treated as such by VA. The second commenter opposed the proposed rule as *ultra vires* , in direct conflict with statutory authority, and unfairly burdensome to claimants. Each of these comments is addressed below. A. Notice of the Clarification Request We proposed to state in 38 CFR 19.26(b) that if, within the time period for filing an NOD, the AOJ receives from the claimant a written communication that is ambiguous as to whether it expresses an intent to appeal, the AOJ will contact the claimant to request clarification of the claimant's intent. One commenter urged VA to amend the proposed regulation to explicitly state that the “contact” must include written notification of the request for clarification, asserting that written communication is essential to properly document appeal periods and the nature of the communication. VA agrees that properly documenting communications with claimants is crucial to administering an effective legal system. For example, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), which handles the vast majority of initial appeals, has a current practice to document any oral communication with claimants. The practice of reducing oral contacts to writing is also consistent with other VA regulations, such as the duty to assist provisions set forth in 38 CFR 3.159(c), which provide that VA will make a record of any oral notice conveyed to the claimant. In response to the commenter's concern for proper documentation, we are amending the proposed regulation by adding the following two sentences after the first sentence of paragraph

(b)of 38 CFR 19.26: “This contact may be either oral or written. VA will make a written record of any oral clarification request conveyed to the claimant, including the date of the adverse decision involved and the claimant's response.” A written record of the clarification request and response will provide necessary documentation if the claimant expresses an intent to appeal, and will also record the nature of the communication. Additionally, although not specifically requested by the commenter, by requiring the AOJ to record the date of the decision involved, there will be documentation for the record as to what decision and claim(s) may be at issue. B. Notice to Claimant and Representative The same commenter recommended that all “notices” be sent to both the claimant and the claimant's representative, if any, to ensure that they are fully apprised of VA's actions. VBA already has a long-standing practice of furnishing representatives with copies of all written correspondence sent to the claimant. We agree that it would be helpful to state this practice in § 19.26 and have added language to paragraph

(b)stating that, “For written contacts, VA will mail a letter requesting clarification to the claimant and send a copy to his or her representative and fiduciary, if any.” The commenter expressed concern that due to the length of time it takes for claims to proceed, it is possible that the VA file may not contain adequate updates as to contact information for either person, suggesting that notifying both persons would help ensure that at least one of the persons would receive the notice. We note that in paragraph (e), the proposed rule defined references to the “claimant” to include reference to the claimant, his or her representative, if any, and his or her fiduciary, if any. In responding to the comment, we have determined that this proposed language might create ambiguity by indicating that a claimant, his or her representative, and his or her fiduciary all must respond to the AOJ's request for clarification under paragraph (c), or that VA must routinely contact all three individuals when VA seeks clarification under paragraph (b). We have therefore changed the text of paragraph

(e)to read: “For the purpose of the requirements in paragraphs

(b)through

(d)of this section, references to the “claimant” include reference to the claimant or his or her representative, if any, *or* to his or her fiduciary, if any, as appropriate.” (Emphasis added). In regard to the commenter's concern that VA files may not contain adequate updates as to contact information, we note that it is incumbent upon claimants and representatives to keep VA apprised of updated contact information. *See Woods* v. *Gober* , 14 Vet. App. 214, 220

(2000)(absent evidence that the veteran notified VA of a change of address, and absent evidence that mail sent to the last known address was returned as undeliverable, VA is entitled to rely on that address). VA has a duty to document this information properly when VA is put on notice of changes in contact information, such as a new address or phone number. *See Cross* v. *Brown* , 9 Vet. App. 18, 19

(1996)(where mail is returned as undeliverable and a claimant's file discloses other possible and plausible addresses, VA must attempt to locate the claimant at the alternative known addresses). Section 19.26 would not alter the current allocation of responsibilities regarding updating a claimant's contact information, and the current system will facilitate the administration of § 19.26. Regarding VA's oral requests for clarification, longstanding VA practice has been to contact the person who sent us the potential NOD. We believe this is the most efficient way of determining the intent of the sender. Based upon our review of this comment, we have added language in § 19.26(b) to reflect this practice. C. Effect of the Words “Notice of Disagreement” in a Written Statement VA also makes no change based on the commenter's request that any communication from a claimant that uses the statutory language “Notice of Disagreement” automatically be treated as an NOD, as this request is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. The purpose of this rulemaking is not to amend the definition of an NOD. Rather, the purpose is to establish procedures to follow when an unclear communication is received that may be intended as an NOD. The requirements for a timely NOD are well-established in binding statute and caselaw. 38 U.S.C. 7105; 38 CFR 20.201; *see Gallegos* v. *Principi* , 283 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Notably, 38 CFR 20.201, states that although “special wording is not required,” an NOD is “[a] written communication from a claimant or his or her representative expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement” with an AOJ determination and a desire for appeal. The commenter presented an example of a case in which an appellant's statement was not treated as an NOD by the regional office, but instead was treated as a claim to reopen based on the appellant's request to “reconsider” his denied claim. This case presents a type of situation that this final rule will address. Under this final rule, AOJs will be required to contact any claimant who, within one year after an adverse VA decision, files a written communication that is ambiguous in its purpose, if the communication expresses dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adverse decision but the AOJ cannot clearly identify that communication as expressing an intention to appeal. Therefore, although VA is not amending the proposed rule to state that any document using the language “Notice of Disagreement” be recognized as such, such a document would “express[] dissatisfaction or disagreement with the adverse decision,” and would therefore trigger the clarification process in this final rule. Therefore, VA believes that this final rule will alleviate the underlying concerns raised by the commenter regarding misinterpretation of a claimant's intent in a written document. D. The Rule as Ultra Vires We proposed to set forth in 38 CFR 19.26(c) that the claimant must respond to an AOJ's request for clarification within certain time periods, and we described the consequences for not responding. One of the commenters was concerned that this provision was *ultra vires* , asserting that it “adds an additional requirement for any potential NOD which the AOJ deems ‘ambiguous’,” and conflicts with the requirements of 38 U.S.C. 7105. The commenter remarked that the requirements for a valid NOD are specified in 38 U.S.C. 7105, which does not require a supplemental response from a claimant to perfect an NOD. The commenter also stated that such a requirement does not fill any gaps in the law. VA disagrees with this comment for several reasons. As the commenter correctly points out, the requirements for a valid NOD are specified in 38 U.S.C. 7105, which provides the time limit for submitting an NOD and requires that an NOD be in writing and filed with the activity that entered the determination with which disagreement is expressed. However, under 38 U.S.C. 501, the Secretary has authority to prescribe all rules and regulations which are necessary and appropriate to carry out the laws administered by the Department. This authority finds additional support in *Chevron* v. *Natural Resources Defense Council* , 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which held that agencies are permitted to promulgate regulations that reasonably interpret the statutory scheme, when the statute is not otherwise clear and plain on its face. Although 38 U.S.C. 7105 provides timeliness and filing requirements for an NOD, and states that the NOD must be in writing, the statute is silent as to the content of the NOD. To fill this gap, VA promulgated rules that describe the content requirements for a written NOD and the actions the AOJ must take when an NOD is filed. These rules have been upheld against repeated challenge. *See, e.g., Gallegos* , 283 F.3d at 1314 (“Section 7105 does not preclude other requirements for an NOD.”); *Disabled Am. Veterans* v. *Sec'y of Veterans Affairs* , 327 F.3d 1339, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (upholding VA's regulations governing the post-NOD statement of the case procedures); *Ledford* v. *West* , 136 F.3d 776, 780 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (discussing and applying VA's NOD content requirements). This rulemaking will not affect those existing rules. Instead, this rule will enable VA to assist claimants who filed documents that do not meet the well-established statutory and regulatory requirements. Finally, this rulemaking is properly within VA's rulemaking authority. It imposes no new requirements on claimants and simply provides claimants with an opportunity to clarify a document that, under current law and regulation, VA would not be required to treat as an NOD. Thus, VA makes no change based on this comment. E. The Burden on the Claimant The same commenter remarked that the clarification requirement would place an unfair burden on claimants, asserting that claimants would now be required to jump through a “second hoop” in order to appeal an adverse decision. As an alternative, the commenter suggested that the burden should remain upon the AOJ to explain in a statement of the case why certain correspondence did not constitute an NOD, rather than shifting the burden to the claimant to explain why it does. VA disagrees with this comment for several reasons. First, the commenter is presupposing that this rulemaking will have adverse effects for veterans and other claimants seeking veterans benefits. On the contrary, we believe this rulemaking will lead to more favorable results for claimants. By requiring AOJs to seek clarification of all ambiguous, potential NODs, VA will attempt to preserve for continued appellate review appeals that may have been rejected in the past as not fully meeting the requirements set forth in 38 CFR 20.201. VA emphasizes that the purpose behind this rulemaking is not to create a “second hoop” in the process, but rather to set forth standard procedures for clarifying an unclear communication from a claimant that may constitute a potential NOD, so that all claimants who wish to appeal may do so. Claimants who file clearly-identifiable NODs will not be contacted for clarification. Rather, only those who file unclear potential NODs will be contacted with a request for clarification. The appellate system is already set up so that some affirmative action is required by claimants. By statute, claimants must file a timely NOD to initiate an appeal. 38 U.S.C. 7104. This rulemaking does not create an additional requirement. Rather, it provides a second chance to a claimant who did not meet their initial burden of submitting an NOD that meets the requirements of 38 CFR 20.201. As this clarification process may be done orally, with the oral communication reduced to writing by VA, this response requires little effort by a claimant, and can only serve to help his or her claim. Lastly, we wish to respond to the commenter's suggestion that the burden should remain on the AOJ to explain in its statement of the case

(SOC)why the correspondence did not constitute a valid NOD. Under the current rules, an SOC is only prepared if there is an adequate NOD. *See* 38 CFR 19.26. Therefore, in the absence of an adequate NOD, the AOJ will not issue an SOC. Although the adequacy of an NOD is an appealable action, the claimant first must protest an adverse AOJ determination as to the adequacy of an NOD, and then the AOJ will issue an SOC. *See* 38 CFR 19.28. VA acknowledges the commenter's concern that the appellant not be unduly burdened by having to respond to a request for clarification. However, the commenter's view of where the burden lies is misplaced. As stated earlier, the purpose of this rule is not to create a new burden for the claimant. Rather, this final rule addresses the situation where the claimant did not meet their existing burden to file an adequate NOD. It will then be incumbent upon the AOJ to contact the claimant and request clarification as to any unclear written communication that may be intended as an NOD. Without this final rule, an ambiguous written communication may be properly rejected by the AOJ as not meeting the requirements for an adequate NOD. With this final rule, the claimant is given an opportunity to clarify his or her intent, and thus pursue an appeal. III. 38 CFR 19.26(b) and (c)(1)(i) Although not specifically addressed by the comments, we also are making two minor changes to the proposed rule, for purposes of clarity and consistency. We proposed to state in 38 CFR 19.26(b) that the AOJ would contact the claimant to request clarification of a written communication received from a claimant within one year after issuing an adverse decision. We also proposed to state in 38 CFR 19.26(c)(ii) that the claimant had one year after the date of mailing notice of the adverse decision. In order to ensure consistency between these two provisions, we are amending the proposed language in paragraph

(b)so that the word “issuing” is changed to “mailing.” This change will remove any potential confusion as to exactly when a decision was “issued.” The date of mailing is a precise, easily-identifiable date, which is typically relied upon as the actual date of notice to a claimant. *See* 38 CFR 20.302. We also proposed to state in 38 CFR 19.26(c)(1)(i) that the claimant must respond to the AOJ's request for clarification within “60 days after the date of mailing of the AOJ's request for clarification.” However, as the final rule will allow for oral clarification requests that are reduced to writing, we are changing 38 CFR 19.26(c)(1)(i) to read “60 days after the date of the AOJ's clarification request.” IV. 38 CFR 19.27 Finally, we would clarify § 19.27 by slightly revising the proposed text, which required an administrative appeal “[i]f, after following the procedures set forth in 38 CFR 19.26, there remains within the agency of original jurisdiction a question as to whether a written communication expresses an intent to appeal or as to which denied claims a claimant wants to appeal.” Rather than refer to “a question” that remains, we will refer to “a conflict of opinion or a question pertaining to a claim.” The revised reference is taken from VA's administrative appeal regulation, 38 CFR 19.50, and clarifies that § 19.27 is referring exclusively to an intra-agency disagreement that may be resolved through the administrative appeal procedures. This slight revision does not change the scope of the original proposed rulemaking, which also applied only to resolution of intra-agency disagreement through an administrative appeal. For the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed rulemaking, VA will adopt the proposed rule as final, with the changes discussed above. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This final rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Order classifies a rule as a significant regulatory action requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including: Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel legal or policy issues. VA has examined the economic, legal, and policy implications of this final rule and has concluded that it is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Only VA beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule contains provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Such information collection requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2900-0674. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers There is no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this rule. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 19 Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Veterans. Approved: June 20, 2006. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 38 CFR Part 19 is amended as follows: PART 19—BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS: APPEALS REGULATIONS Subpart B—Appeals Processing by Agency of Original Jurisdiction 1. The authority citation for part 19 continues to read as follows: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 19.26 is revised and the information collection parenthetical is added at the end of the section, to read as follows: § 19.26 Action by agency of original jurisdiction on Notice of Disagreement.

(a)*Initial action.* When a timely Notice of Disagreement

(NOD)is filed, the agency of original jurisdiction

(AOJ)must reexamine the claim and determine whether additional review or development is warranted.

(b)*Unclear communication or disagreement.* If within one year after mailing an adverse decision (or 60 days for simultaneously contested claims), the AOJ receives a written communication expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement with the adverse decision, but the AOJ cannot clearly identify that communication as expressing an intent to appeal, or the AOJ cannot identify which denied claim(s) the claimant wants to appeal, then the AOJ will contact the claimant to request clarification of the claimant's intent. This contact may be either oral or written.

(1)For oral contacts, VA will contact whoever filed the communication. VA will make a written record of any oral clarification request conveyed to the claimant including the date of the adverse decision involved and the response. In any request for clarification, the AOJ will explain that if a response to this request is not received within the time period described in paragraph

(c)of this section, the earlier, unclear communication will not be considered an NOD as to any adverse decision for which clarification was requested.

(2)For written contacts, VA will mail a letter requesting clarification to the claimant and send a copy to his or her representative and fiduciary, if any.

(c)*Response required from claimant* —(1) *Time to respond.* The claimant must respond to the AOJ's request for clarification within the later of the following dates:

(i)60 days after the date of the AOJ's clarification request; or

(ii)One year after the date of mailing of notice of the adverse decision being appealed (60 days for simultaneously contested claims).

(2)*Failure to respond.* If the claimant fails to provide a timely response, the previous communication from the claimant will not be considered an NOD as to any claim for which clarification was requested. The AOJ will not consider the claimant to have appealed the decision(s) on any claim(s) as to which clarification was requested and not received.

(d)*Action following clarification.* When clarification of the claimant's intent to file an NOD is obtained, the AOJ will reexamine the claim and determine whether additional review or development is warranted. If no further review or development is required, or after necessary review or development is completed, the AOJ will prepare a Statement of the Case pursuant to § 19.29 unless the disagreement is resolved by a grant of the benefit(s) sought on appeal or the NOD is withdrawn by the claimant.

(e)*Representatives and fiduciaries.* For the purpose of the requirements in paragraphs

(b)through

(d)of this section, references to the “claimant” include reference to the claimant or his or her representative, if any, or to his or her fiduciary, if any, as appropriate. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 7105, 7105A) (The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0674) 3. Section 19.27 is revised to read as follows: § 19.27 Adequacy of Notice of Disagreement questioned within the agency of original jurisdiction. If, after following the procedures set forth in 38 CFR 19.26, there remains within the agency of original jurisdiction a conflict of opinion or a question pertaining to a claim regarding whether a written communication expresses an intent to appeal or as to which denied claims a claimant wants to appeal, the procedures for an administrative appeal, as set forth in 38 CFR 19.50-19.53, must be followed. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 7105, 7106) [FR Doc. E6-15894 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0015; FRL-8224-7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions; Volatile Organic Compound Control for El Paso, Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties and the Ozone Standard Nonattainment Areas of Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Houston/Galveston AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve Texas State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revisions. The revisions pertain to regulations to control Volatile Organic Compound

(VOC)emissions from facilities in El Paso, Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties; the 8-hour ozone standard nonattainment areas of Beaumont/Port Arthur and Houston/Galveston; and portions of the Dallas/Fort Worth 8-hour ozone standard nonattainment area. The revisions add additional controls on VOC emissions from industrial wastewater systems in the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston/Galveston areas. The revisions also amend requirements to identify and correct emissions from VOC leaks from facilities that refine petroleum or process natural gas, gasoline or petrochemicals in the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston/Galveston areas, and from petroleum refineries in Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties. We are approving the revisions pursuant to section 110 and part D of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The control of VOC emissions will help to attain and maintain the 8-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone in Texas. This approval will make the revised regulations Federally enforceable. DATES: This rule is effective on November 27, 2006 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by October 30, 2006. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that this rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0015, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • EPA Region 6 “Contact Us” Web site: *http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm.* Please click on “6PD” (Multimedia) and select “Air” before submitting comments. • E-mail: Mr. Thomas Diggs at *diggs.thomas@epa.gov.* Please also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. • Fax: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at fax number 214-665-7263. • Mail: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. • Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0015. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.,* CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-6645; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *young.carl@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever “we”, “us”, or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. Outline I. What Is a SIP? II. What Rules Were Submitted by Texas To Be Approved Into the SIP? A. Texas Revisions to VOC Control Regulations B. Revisions to VOC Rules for Industrial Wastewater Systems in the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston/Galveston Areas C. Revisions to VOC Rules for Facilities that Refine Petroleum or Process Natural Gas, Gasoline or Petrochemicals in the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston/Galveston Areas D. Revisions to VOC Rules for Petroleum Refineries in Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties III. What Action Is EPA Taking? IV. What Is the Effect of This Action? V. Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Is a SIP? Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each State which contains areas that are not attaining the NAAQS must submit regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP. Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. II. What Rules Were Submitted by Texas To Be Approved Into the SIP? A. Texas Revisions to VOC Control Regulations Texas submitted rules for inclusion into the SIP for ozone which added and amended requirements to control VOC emissions. VOCs are a key component in the formation of ozone. The revised rules also made a variety of changes which make the rules easier to read. The revisions amended Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds (30 TAC 115). See our Technical Support Document

(TSD)for more information. The State rules

(1)Add new requirements to control VOC emissions from industrial wastewater systems in El Paso County, the Beaumont/Port Arthur and Houston/Galveston 8-hour ozone standard nonattainment areas, and the Dallas/Fort Worth area Counties of Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant, and

(2)amend requirements to identify and correct emissions from VOC leaks from facilities that refine petroleum or process natural gas, gasoline or petrochemicals in these areas and from petroleum refineries in Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties. The Beaumont/Port Arthur 8-hour ozone standard nonattainment area includes Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties. The Houston/Galveston 8-hour ozone standard nonattainment area includes Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller Counties. Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties are part of the Dallas/Fort Worth 8-hour ozone standard nonattainment area. These counties, as well as El Paso County, were designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. On April 30, 2004 we published Phase 1 of a final rule to implement the 8-hour ozone standard and revoke the 1-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23951). We also promulgated designations and boundaries for areas of the country with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23858). El Paso County was designated as attainment for the 8-hour standard. The Dallas/Fort Worth area Counties of Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant as well as Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker and Rockwall were designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour standard. B. Revisions to VOC Rules for Industrial Wastewater Systems in the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston/Galveston Areas The revisions added requirements for industrial wastewater systems in El Paso County, the Beaumont/Port Arthur and Houston/Galveston 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas, and Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties in the Dallas/Fort Worth 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. With certain exceptions, these systems may not use VOCs as the sealing liquid in water seals for industrial wastewater systems (30 TAC 115.142). Use of VOCs in a water seal will result in unnecessary VOC emissions. Ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, or other low vapor pressure antifreeze may be used during the period of November through February for freeze protection. A gasketed seal, or a tightly-fitting cap or plug, is required on process drains that are not equipped with water seals. If not properly sealed, process drains can have uncontrolled VOC emissions. Operators of these systems must follow a specific repair schedule for components found to be leaking, and verify that adequate leak repairs have been made (30 TAC 115.142). A component is a piece of equipment, including, but not limited to, pumps, valves, compressors, connectors, and pressure relief valves, which has the potential to leak volatile organic compounds (30 TAC 115.10(6)). Operators must also

(1)Inspect water seals weekly to ensure that the water seal controls are properly designed and restrict ventilation,

(2)daily inspect water seals that have failed three or more inspections in any 12 month period, and

(3)inspect process drains not equipped with water seal controls weekly, to ensure that all gaskets, caps and plugs are adequate to control VOC emissions (30 TAC 115.144). C. Revisions to VOC Rules for Facilities that Refine Petroleum or Process Natural Gas, Gasoline or Petrochemicals in the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston/Galveston Areas The revisions amended requirements for facilities that refine petroleum or process natural gas, gasoline or petrochemicals in El Paso County, the Beaumont/Port Arthur and Houston/Galveston 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas, and Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties in the Dallas/Fort Worth 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Requirements were also added for delaying repair of a VOC component leak (30 TAC 115.352). If the repair of a component within 15 days after the leak is detected would require a process unit shutdown that would create more emissions than the repair would eliminate, the repair may be delayed until the next scheduled process unit shutdown. Additional requirements specify that

(1)Delay of repair beyond a process unit shutdown will be allowed for a component if that component is isolated from the process and does not remain in VOC service;

(2)valves that can be safely repaired without a process unit shutdown may not be placed on the shutdown list; and

(3)delay of repair will be allowed for pumps, compressors, or agitators if the repair is completed as soon as practicable, but not later than six months after the leak was detected, and the repair requires replacing the existing seal design with:

(a)A dual mechanical seal system that includes a barrier fluid system,

(b)a system that is designed with no externally actuated shaft penetrating the housing; or

(c)a closed-vent system and control device that meets the Texas requirements to control vent gas streams with a control efficiency of at least 98% or to a VOC concentration of no more than 20 parts per million by volume (30 TAC 122(a)(2)). Flexibility to VOC control requirements was provided by allowing use of leak-tight devices similar to rupture disks on pressure relief valves (30 TAC 115.352(9)). Revisions to monitoring and inspection requirements (30 TAC 115.354) state that:

(1)All component monitoring must occur when the component is in contact with process material and the process unit is in service;

(2)monitored screening concentrations must be recorded for each component in gaseous or light liquid service; and

(3)all new connectors must be checked for leaks within 30 days of being placed in volatile organic compound service by monitoring with a hydrocarbon gas analyzer for components in light liquid and gas service and by using visual, audio, and/or olfactory means for components in heavy liquid service, except that components that are unsafe to monitor or inspect are exempt from this requirement if they are monitored or inspected as soon as possible during times that are safe to monitor. The revisions also specify that only process drains receiving or contacting affected VOC wastewater streams are required to conduct the yearly hydrocarbon gas analyzer monitoring. Flanges are excluded from weekly sight, sound or smell inspection provided they are monitored at least annually using EPA method 21 (40 CFR 60), or unsafe to inspect. Revisions to record keeping requirements state that the facilities must keep records:

(1)Of the date on which a first attempt at repair was made to a component that is leaking VOCs;

(2)identifying each process unit, including the name of each process unit, a scale plot plan showing the location of each process unit, process flow diagrams for each process unit showing the general process streams and major equipment on which the components are located, and the expected VOC emissions if the process unit is shut down for repair of components or other equipment;

(3)on all data for each component required to be monitored with a hydrocarbon gas analyzer; and

(4)to justify exempting components from monitoring requirements. These records will improve enforceability by enabling inspectors to more readily determine compliance with VOC control requirements. Additional exemptions were added to the requirements for controlling VOCs (115.357). Exemptions were added to the requirement for a second valve, blind flange, or tightly fitting plug or cap on a pipe or line containing VOC for:

(1)Open-ended valves or lines in an emergency shutdown system which are designed to open automatically in the event of an emissions event;

(2)open-ended valves or lines containing materials which would autocatalytically polymerize or would present an explosion, serious overpressure, or other safety hazard if capped or equipped with a double block and bleed system;

(3)instrumentation systems that meet 40 CFR 63.169;

(4)sampling connection systems that meet Federal air pollution regulations for such systems found at 40 CFR 63.166

(a)and (b);

(5)components that are insulated, making them inaccessible to monitoring with a hydrocarbon gas analyzer; and

(6)components or systems that have a VOC vapor pressure equal to or less than 0.002 pounds per square inch at 68 degrees Fahrenheit. D. Revisions to VOC Rules for Petroleum Refineries in Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties The revisions amended requirements for petroleum refineries in Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties. These refineries may choose to monitor all components in liquid service on a quarterly basis in lieu of marking all pipeline valves and pressure relief valves in gaseous VOC service (30 TAC 115.322). This option should result in more frequent monitoring of components in liquid service, but will add flexibility for owners or operators to be able to choose which option will be most efficient and effective for their refinery. The refineries also have additional record keeping requirements for their VOC leak monitoring program (30 TAC 115.326). These records include:

(1)The date a component was monitored,

(2)the results of the monitoring,

(3)the test method used,

(4)the date a first attempt at repair was made to a leaking component, and

(5)the date a leaking component is placed on the shutdown list. III. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that pertain to regulations which control VOC emissions in Texas. The revisions were adopted by the State of Texas and submitted to EPA on

(1)September 7, 2001,

(2)July 18, 2002,

(3)January 28, 2003,

(4)November 7, 2003, and

(5)December 17, 2004. The revisions submitted to EPA that are being approved amend §§ 115.113, 115.116, 115.117, 115.120-115.123, 115.126, 115.127, 115.129, 115.132, 115.133, 115.136, 115.137, 115.139, 115.140, 115.142-115.145, 115.147, 115.149, 115.153, 115.159, 115.160, 115.161, 115.166, 115.167 115.169, 115.311-115.313, 115.316, 115.319, 115.322, 115.323, 115.325-115.327, 115.329, 115.352-115.357, 115.359, 115.532, 115.533, 115.535, 115.539, 115.541-115.543, 115.545-115.547, 115.549, 115.552, 115.559, 115.910-115.916, 115.920, 115.923, 115.930, 115.932, 115.934, and 115.940 in 30 TAC 115. The revisions

(1)Add additional controls on VOC emissions from industrial wastewater systems in El Paso County, the Beaumont/Port Arthur and Houston/Galveston 8-hour ozone standard nonattainment areas, and the Dallas/Fort Worth area Counties of Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant, and

(2)amend requirements to identify and correct emissions from VOC leaks from facilities that refine petroleum or process natural gas, gasoline or petrochemicals in El Paso County, the Beaumont/Port Arthur and Houston/Galveston 8-hour ozone standard nonattainment areas, and the Dallas/Fort Worth area Counties of Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant, and from petroleum refineries in Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties. We are approving the revisions pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA. Many of these revisions are nonsubstantive changes which clarify rules that are already contained in the Texas ozone SIP. The other revisions strengthen the Texas ozone SIP as they

(1)Reduce VOC emissions by adding additional controls, and

(2)improve requirements to identify and correct emissions from VOC leaks from facilities. The control of VOC emissions will help to attain and maintain the 8-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone in Texas. As such, EPA's approval of the State's revisions will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the CAA in compliance with the requirements of section 110( *l* ) of the CAA. Under section 110( *l* ) EPA may not approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. This approval will make the revised regulations federally enforceable. Other revisions of the Texas VOC regulations submitted to EPA will be addressed in another **Federal Register** action. See our TSD for more information. We are also making ministerial corrections to the table in 40 CFR 52.2270(c) to reflect SIP submittal dates, **Federal Register** citations of EPA action and EPA approved State regulations. The ministerial corrections apply to table entries for Sections 115.125, 115.146, 115.148, 115.162, 115.163, 115.164, and 115.165. Table entries for Section 115.332 to 115.339, and Section 115.342 to 115.349 are being removed to reflect EPA approval of the repeal of these State regulations on January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3841). IV. What Is the Effect of This Action? This action approves revisions to the Texas SIP that pertain to regulations to control VOC emissions. The control of VOC emissions will help to attain and maintain the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone in Texas. This approval will make these revised regulations Federally enforceable. Enforcement of the regulations in a State SIP before and after it is incorporated into the Federally approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. However, after the regulations are Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse as described in section 304 and 307 of the CAA. V. Final Action EPA is approving revisions to the Texas SIP pertaining to control of VOC emissions. The revisions were submitted to EPA by the State of Texas on

(1)September 7, 2001,

(2)July 18, 2002,

(3)January 28, 2003,

(4)November 7, 2003, and

(5)December 17, 2004. The revisions being approved are §§ 115.113, 115.116, 115.117, 115.120-115.123, 115.126, 115.127, 115.129, 115.132, 115.133, 115.136, 115.137, 115.139, 115.140, 115.142-115.145, 115.147, 115.149, 115.153, 115.159, 115.160, 115.161, 115.166, 115.167 115.169, 115.311-115.313, 115.316, 115.319, 115.322, 115.323, 115.325-115.327, 115.329, 115.352-115.357, 115.359, 115.532, 115.533, 115.535, 115.539, 115.541-115.543, 115.545-115.547, 115.549, 115.552, 115.559, 115.910-115.916, 115.920, 115.923, 115.930, 115.932, 115.934, and 115.940 in 30 TAC Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds. We have evaluated the State's submittal and have determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA air quality regulations. Therefore, we are approving revisions to the Texas SIP of regulations to control VOC emissions. The control of VOC emissions will help to attain and maintain the 8-hour national ambient air quality standard for ozone in Texas. We are also making ministerial corrections to the table in 40 CFR 52.2270(c) to reflect SIP submittal dates and **Federal Register** citations of EPA action. The ministerial corrections apply to table entries for Sections 115.125, 115.146, 115.148, 115.162, 115.163, 115.164, and 115.165. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no relevant adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on November 27, 2006 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by October 30, 2006. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason and because this action will not have a significant, adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 27, 2006. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: September 12, 2006. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart SS—Texas 2. The table in § 52.2270(c) entitled “EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP” is amended under Chapter 115 (Reg 5) as follows: a. By revising Subchapter B—General Volatile Organic Compound Sources. b. By revising Subchapter D—Petroleum Refining and Petrochemical Processes. c. By revising Subchapter F—Miscellaneous Industrial Sources. d. By revising Subchapter J—Administrative Provisions. § 52.2270 Identification of plan.

(c)* * * EPA-Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP State citation Title/subject State approval/submittal date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * * Chapter 115 (Reg 5)—Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds * * * * * * * Subchapter B—General Volatile Organic Compound Sources Division 1: Storage of Volatile Organic Compounds Section 115.112 Control Requirements 05/08/92 03/07/95, 60 FR 12438. Section 115.113 Alternate Control Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.114 Inspection Requirements 05/08/92 03/07/95, 60 FR 12438. Section 115.115 Approved Test Methods 05/08/92 03/07/95, 60 FR 12438. Section 115.116 Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.117 Exemptions 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.119 Counties and Compliance Schedules 05/08/92 03/07/95, 60 FR 12438. Division 2: Vent Gas Control Section 115.120 Vent Gas Definitions 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.121 Emission Specifications 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.122 Control Requirements 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.123 Alternate Control Requirements 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.125 Testing Requirements 12/06/00 07/16/01, 66 FR 36913. Section 115.126 Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.127 Exemptions 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.129 Counties and Compliance Schedules 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Division 3: Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks From Transport Vessels Section 115.131 Emission Specifications 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.132 Control Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.133 Alternate Control Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.135 Testing Requirements 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.136 Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.137 Exemptions 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.139 Counties and Compliance Schedules 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Division 4: Industrial Wastewater Section 115.140 Industrial Wastewater Definitions 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.142 Control Requirements 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.143 Alternate Control Requirements 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.144 Inspection and Monitoring Requirements 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.145 Approved Test Methods 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.146 Recordkeeping Requirements 10/27/99 12/20/00, 65 FR 79745. Section 115.147 Exemptions 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.148 Training Requirements 10/27/99 12/20/00, 65 FR 79745. Section 115.149 Counties and Compliance Schedules. 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Division 5: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Section 115.152 Control Requirements 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.153 Alternate Control Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.155 Approved Test Methods 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.156 Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.157 Exemptions. 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.159 Counties and Compliance Schedules 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Division 6: Batch Processes Section 115.160 Batch Process Definitions 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.161 Applicability 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.162 Control Requirements 12/06/00 07/16/01, 66 FR 36913 Section 115.163 Alternate Control Requirements 10/27/99 12/20/00, 65 FR 79745 Section 115.164 Determination of Emissions and Flow Rates 12/06/00 07/16/01, 66 FR 36913 Section 115.165 Approved Test Methods and Testing Requirements 12/06/00 07/16/01, 66 FR 36913 Section 115.166 Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.167 Exemptions. 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.169 Counties and Compliance Schedules 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] * * * * * * * Subchapter D—Petroleum Refining, Natural Gas Processing, and Petrochemical Processes Division 1: Process Unit Turnaround and Vacuum-Producing Systems in Petroleum Refineries Section 115.311 Emission Specifications 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.312 Control Requirements 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.313 Alternate Control Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.315 Testing Requirements 05/08/92 03/07/95, 60 FR 12438. Section 115.316 Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.317 Exemptions 05/08/92 03/07/95, 60 FR 12438. Section 115.319 Counties and Compliance Schedules 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Division 2: Fugitive Emission Control in Petroleum Refineries in Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties Section 115.322 Control Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.323 Alternate Control Requirements 08/08/01 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.324 Inspection Requirements 05/08/02 03/07/95, 60 *FR* 12438. Section 115.325 Testing Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.326 Recordkeeping Requirements 12/13/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.327 Exemptions 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.329 Counties and Compliance Schedules 08/08/01 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Division 3: Fugitive Emission Control in Petroleum Refining, Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing, and Petrochemical Processes in Ozone Nonattainment Areas Section 115.352 Control Requirements 12/01/04 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.353 Alternate Control Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.354 Monitoring and Inspection Requirements 12/01/04 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.355 Approved Test Methods 12/01/04 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.356 Recordkeeping Requirements. 12/01/04 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.357 Exemptions 12/01/04 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] Section 115.359 Counties and Compliance Schedules 12/01/04 09/28/06 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] * * * * * * * Subchapter F—Miscellaneous Industrial Sources Division 1: Cutback Asphalt Section 115.510 Cutback Asphalt Definitions 08/31/99 12/22/99, 64 FR 71670. Section 115.512 Control Requirements 11/17/04 3/29/05, 70 FR 15769. Section 115.513 Alternative Control Requirements 08/31/99 12/22/99, 64 FR 71670. Section 115.515 Testing Requirements 08/31/99 12/22/99, 64 FR 71670. Section 115.516 Recordkeeping Requirements 11/17/04 3/29/05, 70 FR 15769. Section 115.517 Exemptions 11/17/04 3/29/05, 70 FR 15769. Ref 52.2299(c)(88). Section 115.519 Counties and Compliance Schedules 11/17/04 3/29/05, 70 FR 15769. Ref 52.2299(c)(88). Division 2: Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Facilities Section 115.531 Emission Specifications 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.532 Control Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.533 Alternate Control Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.534 Inspection Requirements 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.535 Testing Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.536 Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.537 Exemptions. 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.539 Counties and Compliance Schedules 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Division 3: Degassing or Cleaning of Stationary, Marine, and Transport Vessels Section 115.541 Emission Specifications 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.542 Control Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.543 Alternate Control Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.544 Inspection Requirements 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.545 Approved Test Methods 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.546 Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.547 Exemptions 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.549 Counties and Compliance Schedules 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Division 4: Petroleum Dry Cleaning Systems Section 115.552 Control Requirements 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.553 Alternate Control Requirements 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.555 Testing Methods and Procedures 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.556 Recordkeeping Requirements 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.557 Exemptions 05/04/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.559 Counties and Compliance Schedules 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] * * * * * * * Subchapter J—Administrative Provisions Division 1: Alternate Means of Control Section 115.901 Insignificant Emissions 07/13/94 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.910 Availability of Alternate Means of Control 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.911 Criteria for Approval of Alternate Means of Control Plans 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.912 Calculations for Determining Alternate Means of Control Reductions 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.913 Procedures for Alternate Means of Control Plan Submittal 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.914 Procedures for an Alternate Means of Control Plan Approval 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.915 Public Notice Format 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.916 Review of Approved Alternate Means of Control Plans and Termination of Alternate Means of Control Plans 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Division 2: Early Reductions Section 115.920 Applicability 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.923 Documentation 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Division 3: Compliance and Control Plan Requirements Section 115.930 Compliance Dates 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.932 Control Plan Procedure 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.934 Control Plan Deviation 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.936 Reporting Procedure 11/10/93 05/22/97, 62 FR 27964. Section 115.940 Equivalency Determination 04/26/02 09/28/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins] Section 115.950 Use of Emissions Credits for Compliance 12/06/00 09/06/06, 71 FR 52698 * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-15933 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0728; FRL-8225-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Emission Reductions To Meet Phase II of the Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ); SIP Call AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to convert a conditional approval in the West Virginia State Implementation Plan

(SIP)to a full approval. The SIP revision pertains to nitrogen oxides (NO X ) emission reductions required in West Virginia to meet Phase II of the NO X SIP Call. In order to meet the Phase II submission due date, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) adopted its Phase II regulation under its emergency rule procedures. EPA granted conditional approval of the emergency rule contingent upon the WVDEP adopting a permanent rule with an effective date no later than the June 2, 2006 sunset date of its emergency rule and submitting the permanent rule as a formal SIP revision to EPA by July 1, 2006. West Virginia has met all the terms of the conditional approval by adopting its permanent rule with an effective date of May 1, 2006, and submitting the permanent rule to EPA before July 1, 2006. EPA is approving this revision to West Virginia's SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. DATES: This rule is effective on November 27, 2006 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by October 30, 2006. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA- R03-OAR-2006-0728 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail:* *morris.makeba@epa.gov.* C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0728, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0728. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston, WV 25304. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers,

(215)814-2308, or by e-mail at *powers.marilyn@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On October 20, 2005 (70 FR 61104), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPR)proposing to grant conditional approval of West Virginia's emergency regulation 45CSR1 to control NO X emissions from large stationary internal combustion engines in the State. No comments were received by EPA and on January 11, 2006 (71 FR 1696), EPA finalized the conditional approval. EPA's rationale for conditionally approving West Virginia's emergency rule as well as a summary of the requirements of Phase II of the NO X SIP Call were provided in the October 20, 2005 NPR, and will not be restated here. In the January 11, 2006 rulemaking, EPA conditioned full approval contingent upon the WVDEP adopting a permanent rule that corresponds to emergency rule 45CSR1, with an effective date prior to the sunset date of the emergency rule, and submitting the permanent rule as a SIP revision to EPA by July 1, 2006. On May 22, 2006, as amended on June 16, 2006, WVDEP submitted to EPA a revision to its SIP to satisfy the conditional requirements. II. Summary of SIP Revision On May 22, 2006, the WVDEQ submitted a formal revision to its SIP, and on June 16, 2006 amended the revision to include documents that were inadvertently omitted. The SIP revision consists of the State's fully-adopted permanent rule 45CSR1 which became effective on May 1, 2006, and which immediately superseded and replaced its emergency rule. III. Final Action West Virginia has corrected the deficiencies identified by EPA in its conditional approval, and has satisfied all the terms of the conditional approval. EPA is, therefore, converting its conditional approval of the West Virginia emergency rule 45CSR1 to a full approval of its permanent rule 45CSR1. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on November 27, 2006 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 30, 2006. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 27, 2006. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action to convert West Virginia's NO X SIP Call Phase II rule from a conditional approval to a full approval may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 20, 2006. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart XX—West Virginia 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph

(c)is amended by revising entries for [45CSR] Series 1, Sections 1-5, 22, 70-72, 74, and 100, and by adding entries for Sections 89 and 90 to read as follows: § 52.2520 Identification of plan.

(c)*EPA-Approved Regulations* EPA-Approved Regulations in the West Virginia SIP State citation [Chapter 16-20 or 45 CSR] Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR 52.2565 [45 CSR] Series 1—Control and Reduction of Nitrogen Oxides From Non-Electric Generating Units As a Means to Mitigate Transport of Ozone Precursors Section 45-1-1 General 5/1/06 Section 45-1-2 Definitions 5/1/06 Section 45-1-3 Acronyms 5/1/06 Section 45-1-4 NO X Budget Trading Program Applicability 5/1/06 Section 45-1-5 Retired Unit Exemption 5/1/06 * * * * * * * Section 45-1-22 Information Requirements for NO X Budget Permit Applications 5/1/06 * * * * * * * Section 45-1-70 General Monitoring Requirements 5/1/06 Section 45-1-71 Initial Certification and Recertification Procedures 5/1/06 Section 45-1-72 Out of Control Periods 5/1/06 * * * * * * * Section 45-1-74 Recordkeeping and Reporting 5/1/06 * * * * * * * Section 45-1-89 Appeal Procedures 5/1/06 New Section. Section 45-1-90 Requirements for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 5/1/06 New Section. Section 45-1-100 Requirements for Emissions of NO X from Cement Manufacturing Kilns 5/1/06 * * * * * * * § 52.2522 [Removed and Reserved] 3. In § 52.2522, paragraph

(i)is removed and reserved. [FR Doc. E6-15981 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118; FRL-8223-9] RIN 2060-AG12 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice 21 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Acceptability. SUMMARY: This Notice of Acceptability expands the list of acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances

(ODS)under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's

(EPA)Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP)program. The substitutes are for use in the following sectors: refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing, cleaning solvents, aerosols, and sterilants. The determinations concern new substitutes. DATES: This notice of acceptability is effective on September 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 (continuation of Air Docket A-91-42). All electronic documents in the docket are listed in the index at *http://www.regulations.gov* . 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. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA Air Docket (No. A-91-42), 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 Air Docket is

(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sheppard by telephone at

(202)343-9163, by facsimile at

(202)343-2338, by e-mail at *sheppard.margaret@epa.gov* , or by mail at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or courier deliveries should be sent to the office location at 1310 L Street, NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC, 20005. For more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the original SNAP rulemaking published in the **Federal Register** on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as well as other EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone, are available at EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/ozone/* including the SNAP portion at *http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning B. Foam Blowing C. Cleaning Solvents D. Aerosols E. Sterilants II. Section 612 Program A. Statutory Requirements B. Regulatory History Appendix A—Summary of Acceptable Decisions I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes This section presents EPA's most recent acceptable listing decisions for substitutes in the following industrial sectors: Refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing, cleaning solvents, aerosols and sterilants. For copies of the full list of ODS substitutes in all industrial sectors, visit EPA's Ozone Depletion Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists/index.html* . The Agency has determined that the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to regulate for global climate change purposes (Memo to Acting Administrator, Marianne L. Horinko from Robert E. Fabricant. 2003. Subject: EPA's Authority to Impose Mandatory Controls to Address Global Climate Change under the Clean Air Act). The Agency has not yet concluded how this determination would affect its consideration of the global warming potential of substitutes under the SNAP program. Regardless, for the substitutes considered here, the global warming potential of the alternatives was not a determinative factor in EPA's acceptable subject to use conditions determination. The sections below discuss each substitute listing in detail. Appendix A contains a table summarizing today's listing decisions for new substitutes. The statements in the “Further Information” column in the table provide additional information, but are not legally binding under section 612 of the Clean Air Act. In addition, the “further information” may not be a comprehensive list of other legal obligations you may need to meet when using the substitute. Although you are not required to follow recommendations in the “further information” column of the table to use a substitute, EPA strongly encourages you to apply the information when using these substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to standard operating practices in existing industry and/or building-code standards. Thus, many of these statements, if adopted, would not require significant changes to existing operating practices. You can find submissions to EPA for the use of the substitutes listed in this document and other materials supporting the decisions in this action in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at *http://www.regulations.gov* . A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 1. R-421A *EPA's decision:* *R-421A [R-125/134a (58.0/42.0)] is acceptable for use in new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-22 in:* • Chillers (centrifugal, screw, reciprocating); • Industrial process refrigeration; • Industrial process air conditioning; • Retail food refrigeration; • Cold storage warehouses; • Refrigerated transport; • Commercial ice machines; • Ice skating rinks; • Household refrigerators and freezers; • Vending machines; • Water coolers; • Residential dehumidifiers; and • Household and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps. R-421A is a blend of 58% by weight hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-125 (pentafluoroethane, CAS ID #354-33-6), and 42% by weight HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-teterafluoroethane, CAS ID #811-97-2). A common trade name for this refrigerant is Choice R421A. You may find the submission under Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0142 at *www.regulations.gov.* *Environmental information:* The ozone depletion potential

(ODP)of R-421A is zero. The contribution of this blend to greenhouse gas emissions will be minimized through the implementation of the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (see 40 CFR, part 82, subpart F). This section and EPA's implementing regulations prohibit venting or release of substitutes for class I or class II ODSs used in refrigeration and air conditioning and require proper handling, such as recycling or recovery, and disposal of these substances. HFC-125 and HFC-134a are excluded from the definition of volatile organic compound

(VOC)under Clean Air Act regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of State implementation plans

(SIPs)to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. *Flammability information:* Neither component of this blend is flammable. *Toxicity and exposure data:* HFC-125 and HFC-134a have 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week workplace environmental exposure limits (WEELs) of 1000 ppm established by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and recommendations specified in the Material Safety Data Sheet

(MSDS)for the blend and the individual components and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry. EPA also recommends that users of R-421A adhere to the AIHA's WEELs. *Comparison to other refrigerants:* R-421A is not an ozone depleter in contrast to HCFC-22 which it replaces. We find that R-421A is acceptable because it does not pose a greater overall risk to public health and the environment in the end uses listed above. 2. R-421B *EPA's decision:* *R-421B [R-125/134a (85.0/15.0)] is acceptable for use in new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for HCFC-22, R-502, and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-12 in:* • Industrial process refrigeration; • Retail food refrigeration; • Cold storage warehouses; • Refrigerated transport; • Commercial ice machines; • Ice skating rinks; • Household refrigerators and freezers. R-421B is a blend of 85.0% by weight HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane, CAS ID #354-33-6) and 15.0% by weight HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID #811-97-2). A common trade name for this refrigerant is Choice R421B. You may find the submission under Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0143 at *www.regulations.gov* . *Environmental information:* The ODP of R-421B is zero. For environmental information on the components of this blend see the section on environmental information above for R-421A. *Flammability information:* Neither component of this blend is flammable. *Toxicity and exposure data:* See the section above on toxicity and exposure data above for R-421A. *Comparison to other refrigerants:* R-421B is not an ozone depleter; thus, it poses a lower risk for ozone depletion than the ODSs it replaces. Flammability and toxicity risks are low, as discussed above. We find that R-421B is acceptable because it does not pose a greater overall risk to public health and the environment in the end uses listed above. 3. R-422D *EPA's decision:* *R-422D [R-125/134a/600a (65.1/31.5/3.4)] is acceptable for use in new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for HCFC-22 in:* • Chillers (centrifugal, screw, reciprocating); • Industrial process refrigeration; • Industrial process air conditioning; • Retail food refrigeration; • Cold storage warehouses; • Refrigerated transport; • Commercial ice machines; • Ice skating rinks; • Household refrigerators and freezers; • Vending machines; • Water coolers; • Residential dehumidifiers; • Non-mechanical heat transfer; • Household and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps; and • Motor vehicle air conditioning (buses and passenger trains only). R-422D is a blend of 65.1% by weight HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane, CAS ID #354-33-6), 31.5% by weight HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID #811-97-2), and 3.4% by weight R-600a (isobutane, 2-methyl propane, CAS ID #75-28-5). A common trade name for this refrigerant is ISCEON MO29. You may find the submission under Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0121 at *www.regulations.gov.* *Environmental information:* The ODP of R-422D is zero. For environmental information on HFC-125 and HFC-134a, see the section on environmental information above for R-421A. The contribution of this blend to greenhouse gas emissions will be minimized through the implementation of the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (see 40 CFR, part 82, subpart F). This section and EPA's implementing regulations prohibit venting or release of substitutes for class I or class II ODSs used in refrigeration and air conditioning and require proper handling, such as recycling or recovery, and disposal of these substances. Isobutane is a VOC under Clean Air Act regulations concerning the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. 40 CFR 51.100(s). *Flammability information:* While one component of the blend, isobutane, is flammable, the blend as formulated and under worst-case fractionated formulation scenarios, is not flammable. *Toxicity and exposure data:* For information on the workplace exposure limits for HFC-125 and HFC-134a, see the section on toxicity and exposure data above for R-421A. Isobutane has an 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week threshold limit value

(TLV)established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) of 1000 ppm. EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and recommendations specified in the MSDS for the blend and the individual components and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry. EPA also recommends that users of R-422D adhere to the AIHA's WEELs and the ACGIH's TLV. *Comparison to other refrigerants:* R-422D is not an ozone depleter in contrast to HCFC-22 which it replaces. Flammability and toxicity risks are low, as discussed above. Thus, we find that R-422D is acceptable because it does not pose a greater overall risk to public health and the environment in the end uses listed above. 4. Formulation of RS-24 Changed Refrigerant Solutions Ltd. (formerly Refrigerant Products Ltd.) has notified EPA that it is changing the composition of RS-24. On December 20, 2002 (67 FR 77927), EPA found the original formulation of RS-24 acceptable for a variety of end-uses. The composition of the old formulation was claimed as confidential business information (CBI). We will identify the old composition as “RS-24 (2002 composition)” and will continue to find it acceptable. EPA's decision on the new formulation is discussed below in the decision for R-426A. 5. R-426A *EPA's decision:* *R-426A [R-125/134a/600/601a (5.1/93.0/1.3/0.6)] is acceptable for use in new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for CFC-12 in:* • Industrial process refrigeration; • Industrial process air conditioning; • Retail food refrigeration; • Cold storage warehouses; • Refrigerated transport; • Commercial ice machines; • Ice skating rinks; • Vending machines; • Water coolers; • Household refrigerators and freezers; and • Residential dehumidifiers. *R-426A [R-125/134a/600/601a (5.1/93.0/1.3/0.6)] is acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for CFC-12 in the following end use:* • Motor vehicle air conditioning. *Conditions for use in motor vehicle air conditioning systems.* Regulations regarding recycling and prohibiting venting issued under section 609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this blend (subpart B of 40 CFR part 82). On October 16, 1996, (61 FR 54029), EPA promulgated a final rule that established certain conditions on the use of any refrigerant used as a substitute for CFC-12 in motor vehicle air conditioning systems (Appendix D of subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). That rule provided that EPA would list new motor vehicle air conditioning system refrigerants in future notices of acceptability and that these conditions would apply to any such refrigerant found acceptable. Therefore, the use of R-426A as a CFC-12 substitute in motor vehicle air conditioning systems must follow the standard conditions: • The use of unique fittings designed by the refrigerant manufacturer; • The application of a detailed label; • The removal of the original refrigerant prior to charging with R-426A; and • The installation of a high-pressure compressor cutoff switch on systems equipped with pressure relief devices. The October 16, 1996 rule gives full details on these use conditions. You must use the following fittings to use R-426A in motor vehicle air conditioning systems: Fitting type Diameter (inches) Thread pitch (threads/inch) Thread direction Low-side service port Quick-connect High-side service port Quick-connect Large containers (>20 lb.) Quick-connect Small cans Quick-connect The quick-connect fittings have been reviewed and found to be sufficiently different from HFC-134a and FRIGC FR-12 quick-connect fittings to be considered unique. The labels will have a gold background and black text. These are the same quick-connect fittings and same label as previously approved for RS-24 (2002 composition); however, the manufacturer of R-426A has stated that RS-24 (2002 composition) has not been and will not be sold for use in motor vehicle air conditioners. R-426A is a blend of 5.1% by weight HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane, CAS ID #354-33-6), 93.0% by weight HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID #811-97-2), 1.3% by weight R-600 (n-butane, CAS ID #106-97-8), and 0.6% by weight R-601a (isopentane, 2-methylbutane, CAS ID #78-78-4). A common trade name for this refrigerant is RS-24. This is a new formulation for RS-24, different from the one that EPA previously found acceptable in several refrigerant end uses (December 20, 2002; 67 FR 77927). You may find additional information under Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0148 at *www.regulations.gov.* *Environmental information:* The ODP of R-426A is zero. For environmental information on HFC-125 and HFC-134a see the section on environmental information above for R-421A. The contribution of this blend to greenhouse gas emissions will be minimized through the implementation of the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (see 40 CFR, part 82, subpart F). This section and EPA's implementing regulations prohibit venting or release of substitutes for class I or class II ODSs used in refrigeration and air conditioning and require proper handling, such as recycling or recovery, and disposal of these substances. Isopentane and n-butane are VOCs under Clean Air Act regulations concerning the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. 40 CFR 51.100(s). *Flammability information:* While two of the blend components, n-butane and isopentane, are flammable, the blend as formulated, and under worst-case fractionated formulation scenarios, is not flammable. *Toxicity and exposure data:* HFC-125 and HFC-134a have 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week WEELs of 1000 ppm established by the AIHA. The other components, n-butane and isopentane, have 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week threshold limit values

(TLVs)established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) of 800 ppm and 600 ppm, respectively. EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and recommendations specified in the MSDS for the blend and the individual components and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry. EPA also recommends that users of R-426A adhere to the AIHA's WEELs and the ACGIH's TLV. *Comparison to other refrigerants:* R-426A is not an ozone depleter in contrast to CFC-12 which it replaces. Flammability and toxicity risks are low, as discussed above. Thus, we find that R-426A is acceptable because it does not pose a greater overall risk to public health and the environment in the end uses and applications listed above. 6. Formulation of RS-44 Changed Refrigerant Solutions Ltd. (formerly Refrigerant Products Ltd.) has notified EPA that it is changing the composition of RS-44. On August 21, 2003 (68 FR 50533), EPA found the original formulation of RS-44 acceptable for a variety of end-uses. The composition of the old formulation was claimed as confidential business information (CBI). We will continue to identify the blend as “RS-44 (2003 composition)” and will continue to find it acceptable. EPA's decision on the new formulation is discussed below in the decision for R-424A. 7. R-424A *EPA's decision:* *R-424A [R-125/134a/600a/600/601a] (50.5/47.0/0.9/1.0/0.6)] is acceptable for use in new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for HCFC-22 in:* • Chillers (centrifugal, screw, reciprocating); • Industrial process refrigeration; • Industrial process air conditioning; • Retail food refrigeration; • Cold storage warehouses; • Refrigerated transport; • Commercial ice machines; • Ice skating rinks; • Household refrigerators and freezers; • Residential dehumidifiers; and • Household and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps. R-424A is a blend of 50.5% by weight HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane, CAS ID # 354-33-6), 47.0% by weight HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID #811-97-2), 0.9% by weight R-600a (isobutane, 2-methyl propane, CAS ID #75-28-5), 1.0% by weight R-600 (n-butane, CAS ID #106-97-8), and 0.6% by weight R-601a (isopentane, 2-methylbutane, CAS ID #78-78-4). A common trade name for this refrigerant is RS-44. This is a new formulation for RS-44, different from the one that EPA previously found acceptable in several refrigerant end uses (August 21, 2003; 68 FR 50533). You may find additional information under Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0131 at *www.regulations.gov.* *Environmental information:* The ODP of R-424A is zero. For environmental information on HFC-125 and HFC-134a, see the section on environmental information above for R-421A. For environmental information on R-600 and R-601a, see the section on environmental information above for R-426A. For environmental information on R-600a, see the section on environmental information above for R-422D. The contribution of this blend to greenhouse gas emissions will be minimized through the implementation of the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (see 40 CFR, part 82, subpart F). This section and EPA's implementing regulations prohibit venting or release of substitutes for class I or class II ODSs used in refrigeration and air conditioning and require proper handling, such as recycling or recovery, and disposal of these substances. Isobutane, n-butane, and isopentane are VOCs under Clean Air Act regulations concerning the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. 40 CFR 51.100(s). *Flammability information:* While three components of the blend are flammable, the blend as formulated, and under worst-case fractionated formulation scenarios, is not flammable. *Toxicity and exposure data:* For information on the workplace exposure limits for the components of this blend see the toxicity and exposure data sections above for R-421A, R-422D, and R-426A. EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and recommendations specified in the MSDS for the blend and the individual components and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry. EPA also recommends that users of R-424A adhere to the AIHA's WEELs and the ACGIH's TLV. *Comparison to other refrigerants:* R-424A is not an ozone depleter in contrast to HCFC-22 which it replaces. Flammability and toxicity risks are low, as discussed above. Thus, we find that R-424A is acceptable because it does not pose a greater overall risk to public health and the environment in the end uses listed above. 8. R-407D *EPA's decision:* *R-407D [R-32/125/134a (15.0/15.0/70.0)] is acceptable for use in new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for CFC-12 in:* • Refrigerated transport. R-407D is a blend of 15.0% by weight HFC-32 (difluoromethane, CAS ID #75-10-5), 15.0% by weight HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane, CAS ID # 354-33-6), and 70.0% by weight HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID #811-97-2). *Environmental information:* The ODP of R-407D is zero. For environmental information on HFC-125 and HFC-134a, see the section on environmental information above for R-421A. The contribution of this blend to greenhouse gas emissions will be minimized through the implementation of the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (see 40 CFR, part 82, subpart F). This section and EPA's implementing regulations prohibit venting or release of substitutes for class I or class II ODSs used in refrigeration and air conditioning and require proper handling, such as recycling or recovery, and disposal of these substances. HFC-32 is excluded from the definition of volatile organic compound

(VOC)under Clean Air Act regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of State implementation plans

(SIPs)to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. *Flammability information:* While one component of the blend, HFC-32, is flammable, the blend as formulated and under worst case fractionated formulation scenarios is not flammable. *Toxicity and exposure data:* For information on the workplace exposure limits for HFC-125 and HFC-134a, see the section on toxicity and exposure data above for R-421A. HFC-32 has an 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week workplace environmental exposure limits (WEELs) of 1000 ppm established by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and recommendations specified in the Material Safety Data Sheet

(VOC)under Clean Air Act regulations addressing the development of State implementation plans

(SIPs)to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. 40 CFR 51.100(s). For more information, refer to the manufacturer of Ecomate TM , EPA regulations, and your state or local air quality agency. Also, because Ecomate TM is considered hazardous, spills and disposal should be handled in accordance with requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). *Flammability information:* Ecomate TM is flammable and should be handled with proper precautions. Use of Ecomate TM will require safe handling and shipping as prescribed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA)and the Department of Transportation (for example, using personal safety equipment and following requirements for shipping hazardous materials at 49 CFR parts 170 through 173). However, when blended with fire retardant, the flammability of Ecomate TM can be reduced to make a formulation that is either combustible or non-flammable (refer to the manufacturer of Ecomate TM for more information). *Toxicity and exposure data:* Ecomate TM should be handled with proper precautions. EPA anticipates that Ecomate TM will be used consistent with the recommendations specified in the manufacturers' Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) ( *e.g.* , use goggles and neoprene gloves when handling; handle in a fume hood or with adequate ventilation; if the workplace exposure limit is exceeded, use a NIOSH/MSHA approved air supplied respirator in the absence of proper environmental control). OSHA established a permissible exposure limit for the main component of Ecomate TM of 100 ppm for a time-weighted average over an eight-hour work shift. The ACGIH recommends a TLV of 100 ppm on an eight-hour time-weighted average and a short-term exposure limit of 150 ppm for a 15-minute time-weighted average for the main component of Ecomate TM . *Comparison to other foam blowing agents:* Ecomate TM is not an ozone depleter in contrast to the CFCs and HCFCs it replaces. Although Ecomate TM is flammable, we find that the manufacturer's recommended precautions for safety are sufficient so that the risks will not be significantly higher than for other available or potentially available substitutes in this end use. Meeting Federal exposure requirements allows Ecomate TM to be used with no greater risk of toxicity than for other available or potentially available substitutes in this end use. Thus, we find that Ecomate TM is acceptable because there are no other substitutes that are currently or potentially available that provide a substantially lower risk to public health and the environment in the end uses listed above. You may find additional information under Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0063 at *www.regulations.gov.* C. Cleaning Solvents 1. Mini-Max Cleaner® *EPA's decision:* *The Mini-Max Cleaner® is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and HCFCs in the following end-uses:* • Metal cleaning; • Electronics cleaning; and • Precision cleaning. Mini-Max Cleaner® is a cleaning device that creates super-heated, high pressure steam vapor. A relatively small amount of water is used, thus minimizing the amount of waste water that is produced. You may find the submission under Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0120 and -0124 at *www.regulations.gov.* *Environmental information:* Mini-Max Cleaner® does not create emissions and its ODP is zero. The relatively small amount of water used minimizes indirect impacts on the atmosphere and on water. *Flammability information:* The device is not flammable. There is a potential explosion hazard when the Mini-Max® Cleaner is used in the presence of VOCs or where liquids with a flash point are added to the water. EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and recommendations specified in the user safety manual to minimize any risks. *Toxicity and exposure data:* The Mini-Max Cleaner® introduces no chemicals of concern. The resulting waste should be handled with safety precautions common in the solvent cleaning industry because the removed soils and chemicals may be toxic. *Comparison to other cleaning solvents:* The Mini-Max Cleaner® is not an ozone depleter. Flammability and toxicity risks are negligible, as discussed above. Thus, we find that the Mini-Max Cleaner® is acceptable because it does not pose a greater risk to public health and the environment in the end uses listed. For more information refer to the manufacturer of the Mini-Max Cleaner®. D. Aerosols 1. Mini-Max Cleaner® *EPA's decision:* *The Mini-Max Cleaner® is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and HCFCs in aerosol solvents.* *Environmental information:* For further information about the Mini-Max Cleaner®, see above in section B.1 on solvent cleaning. *Flammability information:* For further information about the Mini-Max Cleaner®, see above in section B.1 on solvent cleaning. *Toxicity and exposure data:* For further information about the Mini-Max Cleaner®, see above in section B.1 on solvent cleaning. *Comparison to other aerosol solvents:* The Mini-Max Cleaner® is not an ozone depleter. Flammability and toxicity risks are negligible, as discussed above. Thus, we find that the Mini-Max Cleaner® is acceptable because it does not pose a greater risk to public health and the environment in the end use listed. E. Sterilants 1. Mini-Max Cleaner® *EPA's decision:* *The Mini-Max Cleaner® is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, HCFC-22, HCFC-124 and blends thereof in the sterilization sector.* EPA previously found steam acceptable as a sterilant under 59 FR13044, March 18, 1994. You may find the submission under Docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0120 and -0124 at *www.regulations.gov.* *Environmental information:* For further information about the Mini-Max Cleaner®, see above in section B.1 on solvent cleaning. *Flammability information:* For further information about the Mini-Max Cleaner®, see above in section B.1 on solvent cleaning. *Toxicity and exposure:* EPA expects users to follow all recommendations specified in the user's manual and other safety precautions common in the medical sterilization industry. *Comparison to other sterilants:* The Mini-Max Cleaner® is not an ozone depleter. Flammability risks are negligible, as discussed above. The toxicity is less than that of ethylene oxide and its blends. Thus, we find the Mini-Max Cleaner® acceptable because it does not pose a greater risk to public health and the environment. II. Section 612 Program A. Statutory Requirements Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. We refer to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP)program. The major provisions of section 612 are: • Rulemaking—Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that

(1)reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment, and

(2)is currently or potentially available. • Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes—Section 612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for specific uses. We must publish a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses. • Petition Process—Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to or delete a substance from the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, it must publish the revised lists within an additional six months. • 90-day Notification—Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes. • Outreach—Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of Federal research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications. • Clearinghouse—Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances. B. Regulatory History On March 18, 1994, EPA published the final rulemaking (59 FR 13044) that described the process for administering the SNAP program and issued our first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major industrial use sectors. These sectors include: • Refrigeration and air conditioning; • Foam blowing; • Solvents cleaning; • Fire suppression and explosion protection; • Sterilants; • Aerosols; • Adhesives, coatings and inks; and • Tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ozone-depleting compounds. As described in this original rule for the SNAP program, EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a substance. Therefore, by this notice we are adding substances to the list of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new listings. However, we do believe that notice-and-comment rulemaking is required to place any substance on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substance as acceptable only under certain conditions, to list substances as acceptable only for certain uses, or to remove a substance from the lists of prohibited or acceptable substitutes. We publish updates to these lists as separate notices of rulemaking in the **Federal Register** . The Agency defines a “substitute” as any chemical, product substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or new, intended for use as a replacement for a class I or class II substance. Anyone who plans to market or produces a substitute for an ODS in one of the eight major industrial use sectors must provide EPA with health and safety studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This requirement applies to substitute manufacturers, but may include importers, formulators, or end-users, when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce. You can find a complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate **Federal Register** citations from the SNAP section of EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html* . This information is also available from the Air Docket (see Addresses section above for contact information). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 19, 2006. Brian J. McLean, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. Appendix A: Summary of Acceptable Decisions End-use Substitute Decision Further information Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Centrifugal chillers (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-424A (RS-44) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Screw chillers (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-424A (RS-44) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Reciprocating chillers (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-424A (RS-44) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Industrial process refrigeration (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-421B (Choice R421B) as a substitute for HCFC-22, R-502, and CFC-12 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-426A (RS-24) as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable. R-424A (RS-44) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Industrial process air conditioning (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-426A (RS-24) as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable. R-424A (RS-44) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Retail food refrigeration (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-421B (Choice R421B) as a substitute for HCFC-22, R-502, and CFC-12 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-426A (RS-24) as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable. R-424A (RS-44) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Cold storage warehouses (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-421B (Choice R421B) as a substitute for HCFC-22, R-502, and CFC-12 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-426A (RS-24) as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable. R-424A (RS-44) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Refrigerated transport (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-421B (Choice R421B) as a substitute for HCFC-22, R-502, and CFC-12 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-426A (RS-24) as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable. R-424A (RS-44) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-407D as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable. Commercial ice machines (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-421B (Choice R421B) as a substitute for HCFC-22, R-502, and CFC-12 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-426A (RS-24) as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable. R-424A (RS-44) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Ice skating rinks (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-421B (Choice R421B) as a substitute for HCFC-22, R-502, and CFC-12 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-426A (RS-24) as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable. R-424A (RS-44) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Household refrigerators and freezers (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-421B (Choice R421B) as a substitute for HCFC-22, R-502, and CFC-12 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-426A (RS-24) as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable. R-424A (RS-44) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Vending machines (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-426A (RS-24) as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable. Water coolers (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-426A (RS-24) as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable. Residential dehumidifiers (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-426A (RS-24) as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable. R-424A (RS-44) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Non-mechanical heat transfer (retrofit and new) ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Household and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps (retrofit and new) R-421A (Choice R421A) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. R-424A (RS-44) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Motor vehicle air conditioning (buses and passenger trains only) ISCEON MO29 (R-422D) as a substitute for HCFC-22 Acceptable. Motor vehicle air conditioning R-426A (RS-24) as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable subject to use conditions. Users must use the unique fittings and label specified by the manufacturer. Use is subject to requirements under § 609 of the Clean Air Act. Foam Blowing Polystyrene, Extruded Boardstock & Billet Ecomate TM as a substitute for CFCs and HCFCs Acceptable. OSHA established a permissible exposure limit for the main component of Ecomate TM of 100 ppm for a time-weighted average over an eight-hour work shift. Phenolic Insulation Board & Bunstock Ecomate TM as a substitute for CFCs and HCFCs Acceptable. OSHA established a permissible exposure limit for the main component of Ecomate TM of 100 ppm for a time-weighted average over an eight-hour work shift. Flexible Polyurethane Ecomate TM as a substitute for CFCs and HCFCs Acceptable. OSHA established a permissible exposure limit for the main component of Ecomate TM of 100 ppm for a time-weighted average over an eight-hour work shift. Polyurethane, Extruded Sheet Ecomate TM as a substitute for CFCs and HCFCs Acceptable. OSHA established a permissible exposure limit for the main component of Ecomate TM of 100 ppm for a time-weighted average over an eight-hour work shift. Polyolefin Ecomate TM as a substitute for CFCs and HCFCs Acceptable. OSHA established a permissible exposure limit for the main component of Ecomate TM of 100 ppm for a time-weighted average over an eight-hour work shift. Cleaning Solvents Metal cleaning The Mini-Max Cleaner ® as a substitute for CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and HCFCs Acceptable. Electronics cleaning The Mini-Max Cleaner ® as a substitute for CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and HCFCs Acceptable. Precision cleaning The Mini-Max Cleaner ® as a substitute for CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and HCFCs Acceptable. Aerosols Aerosol solvents The Mini-Max Cleaner ® as a substitute for CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and HCFCs Acceptable. Sterilants Sterilants The Mini-Max Cleaner ® as a substitute for CFC-12, HCFC-22, HCFC-124, and blends thereof Acceptable. [FR Doc. E6-15833 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket Nos. 02-278 and 05-338; FCC 06-42] Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991; Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Correcting amendments. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final regulations which were published in the **Federal Register** of Wednesday, May 3, 2006, 71 FR 25967. The regulations relate to the sending of unsolicited facsimile advertisements as required by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the Junk Fax Prevention Act). DATES: Effective on August 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erica McMahon or Richard Smith, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau,

(202)418-2512. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the **Federal Register** on May 3, 2006, 71 FR 25967 amending part 64 of its rules on unsolicited facsimile advertisements as required by the Junk Fax Prevention Act. Need for Correction As published, the final regulations contain errors and omissions. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Accordingly, 47 CFR part 64 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments: PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k) secs. 403(b)(2)(B) ,(c), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted. 2. Revise paragraphs (a)(3)(iii)(B) and

(C)and add paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(7) to read as follows: § 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.

(a)* * *

(3)* * *

(iii)* * *

(B)The notice states that the recipient may make a request to the sender of the advertisement not to send any future advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine or machines and that failure to comply, within 30 days, with such a request meeting the requirements under paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section is unlawful;

(C)The notice sets forth the requirements for an opt-out request under paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section;

(4)Use an automatic telephone dialing system in such a way that two or more telephone lines of a multi-line business are engaged simultaneously.

(5)Disconnect an unanswered telemarketing call prior to at least 15 seconds or four

(4)rings.

(6)Abandon more than three percent of all telemarketing calls that are answered live by a person, or measured over a 30-day period. A call is “abandoned” if it is not connected to a live sales representative within two

(2)seconds of the called person's completed greeting. Whenever a sales representative is not available to speak with the person answering the call, that person must receive, within two

(2)seconds after the called person's completed greeting, a prerecorded identification message that states only the name and telephone number of the business, entity, or individual on whose behalf the call was placed, and that the call was for “telemarketing purposes.” The telephone number so provided must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. The telephone number may not be a 900 number or any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. The seller or telemarketer must maintain records establishing compliance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section.

(i)A call for telemarketing purposes that delivers an artificial or prerecorded voice message to a residential telephone line that is assigned to a person who either has granted prior express consent for the call to be made or has an established business relationship with the caller shall not be considered an abandoned call if the message begins within two

(2)seconds of the called person's completed greeting.

(ii)Calls made by or on behalf of tax-exempt nonprofit organizations are not covered by paragraph (a)(6) of this section.

(7)Use any technology to dial any telephone number for the purpose of determining whether the line is a facsimile or voice line. [FR Doc. 06-8245 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 36

Traces to 36 documents

CFR