Notices. Final rule
36,526 words·~166 min read·
/register/2006/10/30/06-8956·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [CGD08-05-016] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Mississippi River Below Baton Rouge, LA, Including South and Southwest Passes AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has amended anchorage regulations for the Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA, including South and Southwest Passes, in order to improve safety at the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage. This rule is needed to protect aircraft passengers and crew, mariners and the public from the potential safety hazards associated with the ascent and descent of aircraft over vessels anchored in the vicinity of the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, New Orleans, LA.
DATES: This rule is effective November 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [CGD08-05-016] and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard D8, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3396 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Blakemore, Waterways Management Branch, Eighth Coast Guard District, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130-3396.
Telephone
(504)671-2109; facsimile
(504)671-2137. Please cite CGD08-05-016. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On April 27, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled “Anchorage Regulations; Mississippi River Below Baton Rouge, LA, Including South and Southwest Passes” in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 21698). We received 4 letters commenting on this rule. A public meeting was held at the Hale Boggs Federal Building, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA on January 4, 2006 (70 FR 76320, December 23, 2005). The three comments from this public meeting are included in this rulemaking. Background and Purpose Runway 1-19 at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport is positioned in a north-south line running parallel to the Airport Access Road. Aircraft approaching the runway from the south or departing the runway from the north pass over the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage. Officials from Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport have stated that due to the close proximity of Runway 1-19 to Kenner Bend, aircraft occasionally descend and ascend directly over vessels anchored in the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage, creating a potentially dangerous situation that is of particular concern during periods of reduced visibility. Aircraft approaching the runway from the south follow a descending glide slope path with a minimum height of 311 feet above mean sea level over the Kenner Bend Anchorage. Certain vessels with cargo handling equipment such as cranes and booms are capable of extending this equipment to a height upwards of 300 feet above the waterline. This amendment to the anchorage regulations for the Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA, including South and Southwest Passes prohibits vessels from using ship's hold cargo cranes. Vessels in this anchorage must keep their cargo gear in their cradles as rigged for sea transits. This restriction does not apply to the use of deck-mounted store cranes, deck booms, or stiff legs, nor is it intended to restrict ships or ocean-going barges from moving manifold hoses. Discussion of Comments and Changes Four commenters stated that the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage was important to the maritime industry and were concerned that the Coast Guard would completely remove Lower Kenner Bend as an anchorage. We agree with this assessment and have no intentions to remove this anchorage. Three commenters objected that this rule does not address vessel size. Small vessels would not be able to use their cargo cranes even though the vessels maximum air draft with a completely extended cargo crane would be significantly lower than the minimum height of 311 feet above mean sea level needed for an aircrafts descending glide slope path over Kenner Bend Anchorage. We recognize this possibility; however, we feel that to maintain the consistent safety of descending airplanes over runway 1-19, we need to restrict the use of cargo cranes for all vessels. Three commenters objected that this rule does not allow a vessel to take on ships stores, spare parts, supplies and fuel. We modified the rule to specifically address this issue. Vessels at anchor in the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage are allowed to use deck-mounted cranes, deck booms and stiff legs to take on stores, spare parts and to move manifold hoses. However, cargo hold booms may not be used. In implementing changes from the proposed rule based on comments, we added a new paragraph to 33 CFR 110.195 instead of revising paragraph (c)(6). Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term small entities comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to anchor in the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage. This rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons:
(1)This rule does not prohibit vessels from anchoring in the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage; and
(2)Cargo transfer operations are not typically conducted at the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule has a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule economically affects it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule affects your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Doug Blakemore at
(504)671-2109. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule does not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a significant energy action under that Order because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result in any significant adverse environmental impact as described in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). A draft Environmental Analysis Check List and a draft Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 Anchorage grounds. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 110 as follows: PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035 and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. In § 110.195, redesignate paragraph (c)(7) as (c)(8) and add a new paragraph (c)(7) to read as follows: § 110.195 Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA, including South and Southwest Passes.
(c)* * *
(7)Vessels anchored in the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage are prohibited from using or exercising the ship's hold cargo cranes. Vessels in this anchorage must keep the ship's hold cargo gear in the down and hawsed position, as rigged for sea transits. Deck-mounted cranes, deck booms and stiff legs may be used to take on ships stores and spare parts and may be used to move manifold hoses. Dated: October 11, 2006. J.R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-18086 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. RM 2005-11] Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Interim Rule. SUMMARY: The Librarian of Congress is extending, on an interim basis, the existing classes of works with respect to which the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 28, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Carson, General Counsel, Copyright Office, GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
(202)707-8380. Telefax:
(202)707-8366. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1201(a)(1) of the copyright law prohibits the circumvention of technological measures that control access to works protected by copyright. It also provides that every three years, the Register of Copyrights is to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether users of particular classes of copyrighted works are, or in the next three years are likely to be, adversely affected by that prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of copyrighted works. That determination is made by the Librarian of Congress upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights. Section 1201(a)(1)(D) provides that “The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph
(A)shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.” The Register of Copyrights is conducting the third of these triennial rulemaking proceedings and is in the final stages of making her recommendation to the Librarian of Congress. The rulemaking conducted in 2003 identified four classes of works to be subject to exemption from the prohibition on circumvention for the period beginning October 28, 2003, and ending October 27, 2006. Because the Register will not be able to present her recommendation to the Librarian of Congress before October 27, it is necessary to extend the effective dates of the existing regulation identifying those classes of works until the time that the Librarian acts upon the recommendation of the Register. It is anticipated that this extension will be in effect for no more than a few weeks. Accordingly, the Register of Copyrights recommends to the Librarian of Congress that the existing regulation, codified at 37 CFR 201.40(b), be amended on an interim basis to strike the reference to the October 27, 2006, termination date for the list of classes of works identified in the regulation. Dated: October 25, 2006 Marybeth Peters Register of Copyrights The Librarian of Congress accepts the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights and adopts the following interim rule. List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 Cable television, Copyright, Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention, Literary works, Recordings, Satellites. Interim Regulation For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR part 201 is amended as follows: PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. § 201.40 [Amended] 2. Section 201.40(b) introductory text is amended by removing “from October 28, 2003, through October 27, 2006,” and adding in its place “commencing October 28, 2003,”. Dated: October 25, 2006. James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress. [FR Doc. E6-18239 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2005-LA-0003; FRL-8234-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Transportation Conformity AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Louisiana on May 13, 2005. This revision serves to incorporate recent changes to the Federal conformity rule into the State conformity SIP. We are approving this SIP revision in accordance with section 176 and part D of the Clean Air Act. DATES: This rule is effective on December 29, 2006 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by November 29, 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-LA-0003, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line 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 Dockt ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2005-LA-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public file without change and may be made available online at *http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information the disclosure of which 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” systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *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 and any form of encryption, and should 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, *i.e.,* 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: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Environmental Assessment, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Wade, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone
(214)665-7247; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *wade.peggy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. Outline I. What Action Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Background for This Action? III. What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It? IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Taking? On May 13, 2005, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ)submitted revisions to its SIP addressing changes to the transportation conformity rule [Louisiana Administrative Code
(LAC)33:III.1432] which were adopted by the State on March 20, 2005. This submission incorporates recent changes in the Federal transportation conformity rule into the Louisiana conformity SIP. They are described in detail below. EPA is approving these revisions to the Louisiana conformity SIP. II. What Is the Background for This Action? The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(CAA)required each State to submit a revision to its SIP by November 25, 1994, establishing enforceable criteria and procedures for making conformity determinations for metropolitan transportation plans (MTP), transportation improvement programs (TIP), and projects funded by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The conformity rule assures that in air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas, projected emissions from transportation plans and programs stay within the motor vehicle emissions ceiling in the applicable attainment demonstration or maintenance SIP. The transportation conformity SIP enables the State to implement and enforce the Federal transportation conformity requirements at the State level per 40 CFR part 51 subpart T and 40 CFR part 93 subpart A. EPA published final rules regarding conformity requirements on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188). Since then, EPA has made several amendments to the transportation conformity rules: August 7, 1995 (60 FR 40098), November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57179), August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43780), April 10, 2000 (65 FR 18911), August 6, 2002 (67 FR 50808), and July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). A minor correction to the July 1, 2004, rulemaking was published on July 20, 2004 (69 FR 43325). The State of Louisiana submitted an initial conformity SIP to EPA on November 23, 1994. This SIP was withdrawn, revised and re-submitted to EPA in October of 1998. We approved this SIP on December 29, 1999 (64 FR 72934), thus addressing the Federal rule amendments promulgated up to and including 1997, with the exception of certain provisions of the Federal rule that were deemed unlawful by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ( *Environmental Defense Fund* v. *EPA, et al.,* 167 F. 3d 641, DC Cir. 1999). These exceptions are addressed in the current SIP submission and are explained below. With the current revisions submitted by LDEQ, the State is aligning its rule to the Federal conformity rule for all amendments up to and including those promulgated on July 20, 2004. Specifically, these revisions address the March 2, 1999, ruling, mentioned above, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The court's ruling affected provisions of the rule pertaining to the funding of MTPs and TIPs; use of motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEB)prior to SIP approval; Federal transportation projects in areas without a conforming MTP and TIP; timing of conformity consequences following an EPA SIP disapproval; and use of submitted safety margins in areas with approved SIPs submitted prior to November 24, 1993. More recent changes to the rule are inclusion of criteria and procedures for implementing conformity in accordance with the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) addressing eight-hour ozone and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM <sup>2.5</sup> ). Changes relating to the implementation of these new standards are summarized below. Changes to 40 CFR 93.101 add new definitions for one-hour ozone NAAQS; eight-hour ozone NAAQS; donut areas; isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas; and limited maintenance plans. Other Federal changes in the rule include provision of a one-year grace period before conformity is required in newly designated nonattainment areas and the addition of PM <sup>2.5</sup> to the list of criteria pollutants (40 CFR 93.102). Changes to 40 CFR 93.104 were made to amend the point by which a conformity determination must be made following a State's submission of a control strategy SIP or maintenance SIP for the first time. This new provision requires conformity to be determined within 18 months of EPA's affirmative finding that the SIP's MVEBs are adequate. Changes to the grace period for transportation plan requirements in certain ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas are made in 40 CFR 93.106. 40 CFR 93.109 has been changed to include the applicability of conformity for one-hour ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas until EPA revokes the one-hour ozone NAAQS and additional language related to conformity requirements for the new NAAQS for eight-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5.</sup> Changes to 40 CFR 93.110 clarify that conformity determinations must be based on the latest planning assumptions in place at the time a conformity analysis begins, rather than at the time of Department of Transportation's conformity finding. Some changes to the methodology of hot-spot analyses were made at 40 CFR 93.116. The rule revisions also made several changes with respect to the MVEB at 40 CFR 93.118 where the adequacy process is discussed. Changes to 40 CFR 93.119 concern use of interim emissions tests in areas without adequate or approved MVEBs. In 40 CFR 93.120, the 120-day grace period previously allowed prior to a conformity freeze has been deleted so that a freeze will occur immediately upon the effective date of a SIP disapproval. EPA amended the rule at 40 CFR 93.121 so that regionally significant, non-Federal projects may no longer advance during a conformity lapse unless they have received all necessary State and local approvals prior to the lapse. EPA also made minor revisions to 40 CFR 93.117 and 40 CFR 93.124-93.126. For a comprehensive guide to all changes in the Federal rule, please see the reference document at *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/420b04013.pdf* or the transportation conformity final rule at 69 FR 40004. III. What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It? With this SIP submission, the State is incorporating by reference the changes made to the Federal conformity rule up to and including the final rule issued on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004), as corrected on July 20, 2004 (69 FR 43325), with the exception of the requirements of 40 CFR 93.105. The Federal requirements in 40 CFR 93.105 are addressed in the State rule at LAC 33:III.1434 and are not being changed with this revision. IV. Final Action EPA is approving the revisions to the Louisiana conformity SIP and corresponding amendments to LAC 33:III.14.B, Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C or the Federal Transit Act. The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no 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 revisions if relevant adverse comments are received. The rule will be effective on December 29, 2006 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by November 29, 2006. If we receive adverse comment we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public this rule will not take effect. We will address 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 at this time. 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 adverse comment. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. 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). EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a State program. 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 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 do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 December 29, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: October 5, 2006. Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting 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 T—Louisiana 2. In § 52.970, the table in paragraph
(c)entitled “EPA approved Louisiana regulations in the Louisiana SIP” under Chapter 14—Conformity, Subchapter B, section 1432 is revised to read as follows: § 52.970 Identification of plan.
(c)* * * EPA Approved Louisiana Regulations in the Louisiana SIP State citation Title/subject State approval date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * * Chapter 14 Conformity Subchapter B—Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded, or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act * * * * * * * Section 1432 Incorporation by Reference March 20, 2005, LR31:640 October 30, 2006 [Insert *FR* page number where document begins] * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-18050 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0548a; FRL-8225-5] Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan, Clark County AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Clark County portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern particulate matter
(PM)emissions from fugitive dust sources, such as open areas, unpaved roads, and construction activities. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: This rule is effective on December 29, 2006 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 29, 2006. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0548a, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments 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 Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at either
(415)947-4111, or *wamsley.jerry@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules D. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by Clark County and submitted by Nevada. Table 1.—Submitted Rules Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted Clark Co Section 90 Fugitive Dust from Open Areas and Vacant Lots 12/17/02 01/23/03 Section 92 Fugitive Dust from Unpaved Parking Lots, Material Handling & Storage Yards, & Vehicle & Equipment Storage Yards 12/17/02 01/23/03 Section 93 Fugitive Dust from Paved Roads & Street Sweeping Equipment 03/04/03 03/26/03 Section 94 Permitting & Dust Control for Construction Activities 03/18/03 03/26/03 Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook 03/18/03 03/26/03 On September 26, 2003, these submittals from Clark County became complete by operation of law since EPA did not make a formal finding that they met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. These criteria must be met before formal EPA review may begin. B. Are there other versions of these rules? We approved versions of these rules into the Nevada SIP on June 9, 2004. See 69 **Federal Register**
(FR)32273. Nevada submitted the December 17, 2002 version of Clark County—Section 93 on January 23, 2003. This prior submittal of Section 93 is now superseded by the March 26, 2003 submittal that is the subject of today's action. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? These rules help reduce fugitive dust emitted from open areas, vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, material handling and storage yards, and vehicle and equipment storage yards. PM is entrained from disturbed surfaces and storage piles. Fugitive dust is also produced from construction activities. Section 94 provides the requirements for regulating and permitting construction activity fugitive dust emissions. EPA's technical support document
(TSD)has more information about these rules. II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? Generally, these SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must meet Reasonably Available Control Measure
(RACM)requirements for PM nonattainment areas (see section 189(a)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). Clark County regulates a serious PM nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81); so, these fugitive dust rules must fulfill Best Available Control Measure
(BACM)requirements of section 189(b). We have listed below the guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate the rules for enforceability, RACM, and BACM requirements. 1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987. 2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 **Federal Register** Notice,” (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 25, 1988 **Federal Register** . 3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook). 4. “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” at 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992. 5. “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” at 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992. 6. General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” at 59 FR 41998, August 16, 1994. The Clark County PM-10 plan made several commitments for revisions to the fugitive dust regulations. EPA adopted these commitments into the SIP with our June 9, 2004 approval of the PM-10 plan. Two of these commitments were addressed with the current submittals from Clark Co. The first commitment concerned reviewing and developing as needed an alternative fugitive dust test method for Section 94 (chapter 4.8.2.7 commitment). The second commitment concerned several revisions to Clark County fugitive dust regulations concerning Dust Mitigation Plans, prohibition of dust over property lines, and equipment prohibitions on paved roads (chapter 4.8.2.9 commitment). The TSD summarizes these commitments and the actions taken by Clark Co. to meet them. B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACM, and SIP relaxations. We have determined that the SIP-approved versions of these rules meet the Act's BACM requirements when we approved the Clark County PM-10 Plan. See 69 FR 32273, June 9, 2004. The submitted rules do not relax their BACM requirements. Also, we find that Clark Co. met the PM-10 plan commitments described in chapters 4.8.2.7 and 4.8.2.9. The TSD provides more information on our evaluation. C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules We have no recommendations. D. Public Comment and Final Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this **Federal Register** , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by November 29, 2006, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on December 29, 2006. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. 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. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. 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.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 December 29, 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) of the CAA.) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 27, 2006. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 DD—Nevada 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(60) and (c)(61) to read as follows: § 52.1470 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(60)The following plan revision was submitted on January 23, 2003, by the Governor's designee.
(i)Incorporation by reference.
(A)Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management. ( *1* ) Sections 90 and 92, adopted June 22, 2000 by the Clark County Board of Commissioners, and amended on December 17, 2002.
(61)The following plan revision was submitted on March 26, 2003, by the Governor's designee.
(i)Incorporation by reference.
(A)Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management. ( *1* ) Section 93, adopted on June 22, 2000 by the Clark County Board of Commissioners and amended on March 4, 2003; Section 94, adopted on June 22, 2000 by the Clark County Board of Commissioners and amended on March 18, 2003; and, the “Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook”, adopted June 22, 2000 by the Clark County Board of Commissioners and amended on March 18, 2003. [FR Doc. E6-18158 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [FRL-8235-5] Washington: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Immediate final rule. SUMMARY: Washington has applied to EPA for Final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for Final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final rule. EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. DATES: This final authorization will become effective on December 29, 2006, unless EPA receives adverse written comments on or before November 29, 2006. If we receive comments that oppose this action, EPA will publish a document in the **Federal Register** withdrawing this rule before it takes effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R10-RCRA-2006-0810 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: *kocourek.nina@epamail.epa.gov* . 3. Fax: 206-553-8509. 4. Mail: Nina Kocourek, U.S. EPA, Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop AWT-122, Seattle, Washington 98101. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to EPA-10-RCRA-2006-0810. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public file 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* website is an “anonymous access” system which means that 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 file 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 and any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://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 *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, phone, and
(206)553-1289. The EPA Region 10 Library is open from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Kocourek, U.S. EPA, Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop AWT-122, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number
(206)553-6502, fax number
(206)553-8509, e-mail: *kocourek.nina@epa.gov* ; or Patricia Hervieux, Washington Department of Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, Washington 98503, phone
(360)407-6756, e-mail: *pher461@ecy.wa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Authorization of Revisions to State Program and of State-Initiated Changes to Washington's Hazardous Waste Program A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary? States that have received final authorization from EPA pursuant to section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279. B. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule? We conclude that Washington's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, with respect to these revisions, we are granting Washington final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program as described in the revision authorization application. Washington's authorized program will be responsible for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program as described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of RCRA, including the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those HSWA requirements and prohibitions for which Washington has not been authorized, including issuing HSWA permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so. C. What Is the Effect of This Authorization Decision? The effect of this authorization decision is that a facility in Washington subject to RCRA will continue to be subject to the authorized State requirements and to the Federal HSWA provisions for which the State is not authorized in order to comply with RCRA. Washington has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of its program, but EPA retains its independent enforcement authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which authority includes, among other things, the authority to: • Perform inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; • Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and • Take enforcement actions regardless of whether Washington has taken its own actions. This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Washington is being authorized by this action are already effective under State law, and are not changed by this action. D. Why Wasn't There a Proposed Rule Before This Rule? EPA did not publish a proposal before this rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** , we are publishing a separate document that proposes to authorize Washington's program changes. If we receive comments, which oppose this authorization, that document will serve as a proposal to authorize these changes. E. What Happens if EPA Receives Comments That Oppose This Action? If we receive comments that oppose this action, EPA will publish a document in the **Federal Register** withdrawing this rule before it takes effect. EPA will then address public comments in a later final rule based on the proposed rule in this **Federal Register** . If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will withdraw that part of this rule. However, the authorization of program changes that are not opposed by any comments will become effective on December 29, 2006. A **Federal Register** withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will become effective and which part is being withdrawn. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time. F. What Has Washington Previously Been Authorized for? Washington initially received final authorization on January 30, 1986, effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3782), to implement the State's dangerous waste management program. EPA granted authorization for changes to Washington's program on September 22, 1987, effective on November 23, 1987 (52 FR 35556); August 17, 1990, effective October 16, 1990 (55 FR 33695); November 4, 1994, effective November 4, 1994 (59 FR 55322); February 29, 1996, effective April 29, 1996 (61 FR 7736); September 22, 1998, effective October 22, 1998 (63 FR 50531); October 12, 1999, effective January 11, 2000 (64 FR 55142); April 11, 2002, effective April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17636) and on April 14, 2006, effective June 13, 2006 (71 FR 19442). G. What Revisions Are We Authorizing With This Action? We are granting final authorization for the revisions to Washington's federally-authorized program described in Washington's final complete program revision application submitted to EPA on June 26, 2006, and deemed complete by EPA on July 25, 2006. We have made a final determination, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Washington's hazardous waste program revisions, as described in this rule, satisfy the requirements necessary for final authorization. Regulatory revisions that are less stringent than the Federal program requirements and those regulatory revisions that are broader in scope than the Federal program requirements are not authorized. Washington's authorized hazardous waste program, as amended by these provisions, remains equivalent to, consistent with, and is no less stringent than the Federal RCRA program. Therefore, we grant final authorization for the following program changes as identified in Table 1 and Table 2 below. The provisions listed in these tables are from the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC)and are analogous to the RCRA regulations as indicated in the tables. The RCRA regulations are those as published in 40 CFR parts 260 through 265, 268, 270, and 279, as of July 1, 2003, unless otherwise noted. Table 1 identifies new State rules that EPA is authorizing as equivalent or more stringent to the Federal program, and Table 2 identifies those State-initiated changes to its previously-authorized program. (Note, in Table 2 some State provisions have no direct Federal analog but are related to particular paragraphs, sections, or parts of the Federal hazardous waste requirements in the 40 CFR). All of the referenced analogous State authorities were legally adopted and effective as of January 1, 2005. Table 1.—Equivalent and More Stringent Analogues to the Federal Program 1 Checklist 4 Federal requirements Federal Register Analogous state authority (WAC 173-303-* * *) 17D 3 Waste Minimization HSWA Codification Rule 50 FR 28702, 7/15/85 180(1); 370(1); 380(1); 390(1); 380(1)(q); 810(11)(c); 805(1)(b), 805(1)(c). 30 Biennial Report Correction 51 FR 28556, 8/8/86 390(2)(g), 390(2)(h), 390(2)(i). 108 Toxicity Characteristic Revisions; Technical Corrections 57 FR 30657, 7/10/92 071(3)(aa); 071(3)(g)(i); 400(3)(a) Incorporated by Reference
(IBR)045(1) 152 Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste: Implementation of OECD Council Decision 61 FR 16290, 4/12/96 120(6); 170(6); 070(1); 230(2); 280(1), 280(2); 600(3)(f); 950; 960; 230(1) IBR 045(1); 240(11); 250(1); 290(1)(a), 290(1)(b); 370(6); 525(1)(b)(ii), 525(1)(b)(iii); 573(16); 573(27), 573(34), 573(38), 573(38)(d). 156 3 Military Munitions Rule 62 FR 6622, 2/12/97 578(3); 578(4)(d), 578(4)(d)(i), 578(4)(d)(ii), 578(4)(e). 159 Conformance With the Carbamate Vacatur 62 FR 32974, 6/17/97 9904; 082(1); 9903; 082(4) IBR 045(1); 9905; 140(2)(a) IBR 045(1). 161 Emergency Revision of the Carbamate Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDR)62 FR 45568, 8/28/97 140(2)(a) IBR 045(1). 168 Hazardous Waste Combustors; Revised Standards 63 FR 33782, 6/19/98 830(4)(j), 830(4)(j)(i), 830(4)(j)(ii), 830 Appendix I—L. 9.; 805(7)(b)(viii). 182 Hazardous Air Pollutants Standards for Combustors 64 FR 52828, 9/30/99 amended at 64 FR 63209, 11/19/99 040; 670(1)(b), 670(1)(b)(i), 670(1)(b)(ii), 670(1)(c), 670(1)(d); 680(2); 400(3)(a) IBR 045(1); 510(1)(a) IBR 045(1); 806(4)(f), 806(4)(f)(v), 806(4)(n); 830 Appendix I—A.8 and I.9.; 807 Intro.; 811 IBR 045(1). 183 LDR Phase IV—Technical Correction 64 FR 56469, 10/20/99 9904; 082(1); 200(1)(f); 140(2)(a) IBR 045(1). 184 2 Accumulation Time for Waste Water Treatment Sludges 65 FR 12378, 3/8/00 200(1)(e), 200(1)(f); 200(4)(a), 200(4)(a)(i), 200(4)(a)(ii), 200(4)(a)(iii), 200(4)(a)(iv), 200(4)(a)(iv)(A), 200(4)(a)(iv)(A)(I), 200(4)(a)(iv)(A)(II), 200(4)(a)(iv)(A)(III), 200(4)(a)(iv)(A)(III) 1st and 2nd Bullets, 200(4)(a)(iv)(B), 200(4)(a)(iv)(C), 200(4)(a)(v)(D), 200(4)(a)(iv)(E), 200(4)(b), 200(4)(c). 187 Petroleum Refining Process Wastes—Clarification 64 FR 36365, 6/8/00 9904; 140(2) IBR 045(1). 188 Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards; Technical Corrections 65 FR 42292, 7/10/00 670(1)(b)(i), 670(1)(b)(iii); 830(4)(j)(i). 189 Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing and LDR for Newly Identified Wastes 65 FR 67068, 11/8/00 9904; 082(1); 082(4) IBR 045(1); 9905; 140(2)(a) IBR 045(1). 192A 2 Mixture and Derived—From Rules Revisions 66 FR 27266, 5/16/01 070(2)(a), 070(2)(c)(i), 070(2)(c)(ii), 070(2)(c)(ii)(A), 070(2)(c)(ii)(B); 071(2), 071(3)(bb), 071(3)(o); 081(3); 082(3). 192B LDR Correction 66 FR 27266, 5/16/01 140(2) IBR 045(1). 193 Change of Official EPA Mailing Address 66 FR 34374, 6/28/01 110(3)(a). 194 2 Mixture and Derived—From Rules Revision II 66 FR 50332, 10/3/01 071(2); 081(3); and 082(3). 195 Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes Identification and Listing 66 FR 58258, 11/20/01; 67 FR 17119, 4/9/02 071(3)(kk), 071(3)(kk)(i), 071(3)(kk)(ii), 071(3)(kk)(iii), 071(3)(kk)(iv), 071(3)(kk)(v); 9904; 082(1), 082(4) IBR 045(1); 140(2)(a) IBR 045(1). 196 Corrective Action Management Unit
(CAMU)Amendments 67 FR 2962, 1/22/02 040; 64650(1), 64650(2); 64640, 64640(1); 64650(3), 64650(3)(a), 64650(3)(a)(i), 64650(3)(a)(ii), 64650(3)(a)(ii)(A), 64650(3)(a)(ii)(B), 64650(3)(a)(iii), 64650(3)(b), 64650(3)(c), 64650(3)(c)(i), 64650(3)(c)(ii), 64650(3)(c)(iii), 64650(3)(c)(iv), 64650(3)(d), 64650(3)(e); 64670(1), 64670(1)(a), 64670(1)(b), 64670(2); 64660(1), 64660(1)(a), 64660(1)(b), 64660(1)(c), 64660(1)(d), 64660(1)(e), 64660(1)(f), 64660(1)(g), 64660(2), 64660(2)(a), 64660(2)(b), 64660(2)(c), 64660(3), 64660(3)(a), 64660(3)(b), 64660(3)(c), 64660(3)(c)(i), 64660(3)(c)(ii), 64660(3)(c)(ii)(A), 64660(3)(c)(ii)(B), 64660(3)(d), 64660(3)(d)(i), 64660(3)(d)(i)(A), 64660(3)(d)(i)(A)(I), 64660(3)(d)(i)(A)(II), 64660(3)(d)(i)(B), 64660(3)(d)(i)(C), 64660(3)(d)(ii), 64660(3)(d)(iii), 64660(3)(d)(iv), 64660(3)(d)(iv)(A), 64660(3)(d)(iv)(B), 64660(3)(d)(iv)(C), 64660(3)(d)(iv)(D), 64660(3)(d)(iv)(E), 64660(3)(d)(iv)(F), 64660(3)(d)(v), 64660(3)(d)(v)(A), 64660(3)(d)(v)(B), 64660(3)(d)(v)(C), 64660(3)(d)(v)(D), 64660(3)(d)(v)(E), 64660(3)(d)(v)(E)(I), 64660(3)(d)(v)(E)(II), 64660(3)(d)(v)(E)(III), 64660(3)(d)(v)(E)(IV), 64660(3)(d)(v)(E)(V), 64660(3)(d)(vi), 64660(3)(d)(vii), 64660(3)(e), 64660(3)(e)(i), 64660(3)(e)(ii), 64660(3)(e)(iii), 64660(3)(f), 64660(3)(f)(iv), 64660(3)(f)(i), 64660(3)(f)(i)(A), 64660(3)(f)(i)(B), 64660(3)(f)(ii), 64660(3)(f)(ii)(A), 64660(3)(f)(ii)(B), 64660(3)(f)(ii)(C), 64660(3)(f)(ii)(D), 64660(3)(f)(ii)(E), 64660(3)(f)(ii)(F), 64660(3)(f)(iii), 64660(3)(f)(iii)(A), 64660(3)(f)(iii)(A)(I), 64660(3)(f)(iii)(A)(II), 64660(3)(f)(iii)(A)(III), 64660(3)(f)(iii)(A)(IV), 64660(3)(f)(iii)(A)(V), 64660(3)(f)(iii)(B), 64660(3)(f)(iv), 64660(4), 64660(4)(a), 64660(4)(b), 64660(4)(b)(i), 64660(4)(b)(ii), 64660(5), 64660(6), 64660(7), 64660(8); 64650(4); 64690 IBR 045(1); 646910(1), 646910(1)(a), 646910(1)(b), 646910(1)(b)(i), 646910(1)(b)(ii), 646910(1)(b)(iii), 646910(1)(c), 646910(2), 646910(3), 646910(4), 646910(5), 646910(5)(a), 646910(5)(b), 646910(5)(c), 646910(5)(d), 646910(5)(e), 646910(5)(f), 646910(6), 646910(7). 197 Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Combustors: Interim Standards 67 FR 6792, 2/13/02 670(1)(b)(i), 670(1)(b)(iv), 670(1)(b)(iv)(A), 670(1)(b)(iv)(B); 400(3)(a) IBR 045(1); 806(4)(f)(v), 806(4)(n); 807 Introduction; 811 IBR 045(1); 841 IBR 045(1). 198 Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Combustors: Corrections 67 FR 6968, 2/14/02 510(1)(a) IBR 045(1); 830(4)(j)(i). 200 Zinc Fertilizer Rule 67 FR 48393, 7/24/02 071(3), 071(3)(pp), 071(3)(pp)(i), 071(3)(pp)(i)(A), 071(3)(pp)(i)(B), 071(3)(pp)(ii), 071(3)(pp)(iii), 071(3)(pp)(iii)(A), 071(3)(pp)(iii)(B), 071(3)(pp)(iii)(C), 071(3)(pp)(iii)(D), 071(3)(pp)(iii)(E), 071(3)(pp)(iii)(F); 505(1)(b)(i), 505(1)(b)(iii), 505(1)(b)(iii)(A), 505(1)(b)(iii)(B); 140(2)(a) IBR 045(1). 201 Treatment Variance for Radioactively Contaminated Batteries 67 FR 62618, 10/7/02 140(2)(a) IBR 045(1). 202 Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Combustors: Corrections 2 67 FR 77687, 12/19/02 806(4)(f)(v), 806(4)(n); 807 Introduction; 811 IBR 045(1). 204 2 , 204.1 2 Performance Track and Amendments 69 FR 21737, 4/22/04 amended 69 FR 62217, 10/25/04 200(5) IBR 045(1), 200(5)(a), 200(5)(b), 200(5)(c), 200(5)(d), 200(5)(e). 209 2 Mercury Containing Equipment, Universal Waste 70 FR 45508, 8/5/05 040; 077(2), 077(3); 600(3)(o)(ii), 600(3)(o)(iii); 400(2)(c)(xi)(B), 400(2)(c)(xi)(C); 573(4)(d) IBR 045(1); 800(7)(c)(iii)(B), 800(7)(c)(iii)(C); 573(3)(a), 573(3)(b), 573(3)(b)(i), 573(3)(b)(ii), 573(3)(c)(i), 573(3)(c)(ii), 573(4)(a), 573(4)(b), 573(4)(b)(i), 573(4)(b)(ii), 573(4)(c)(i), 573(4)(c)(ii); 573(9)(b), 573(9)(b)(i), 573(9)(b)(ii), 573(9)(b)(ii)(A)-(H), 573(9)(b)(iii)(A), 573(9)(b)(iii)(A)(I), 573(9)(b)(iii) (9)(A)(II), 573(9)(b)(iii)(B), 573(9)(b)(iii)(C), 573(10)(b), 573(10)(c), 573(11)(c)(ii), 573(19)(b)(iv), 573(19)(b)(v), 573(20)(b), 573(20)(b)(i), 573(20)(b)(ii), 573(20)(b)(ii)(A)-(H), 573(20)(b)(iii)(A), 573(20)(b)(iii)(A)(I), 573(20)(b)(iii)(A)(II), 573(20)(b)(iii)(B), 573(20)(b)(iii)(C), 573(21)(b), 573(21)(c), 573(22)(c)(ii), 573(26)(a)(ii), 573(26)(b)(ii), 573(37)(a)(ii). 13, 79 (Consolidated Checklist C2) Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste—Recycling Facility Requirements 50 FR 614, 1/4/85; amended 50 FR 14216, 4/11/85 and 50 FR 33541, 8/20/85; 55 FR 25454, 6/21/90 120(4). IVA, IVB, 34, 64, 78, 102 (Consolidated Checklist C5/C6) Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities—Waste Analysis Plan 45 FR 33232, 5/19/80; 51 FR 40572, 11/7/86 amended 52 FR 21010, 6/4/87; 54 FR 33376, 8/14/89; 55 FR 22520, 6/1/90; 57 FR 8086, 3/6/92 300(1), 300(2); 040. V, 13, 71 (Consolidated Checklist C9 2 ) Permits by Rule—Subpart F—Special Forms of Permits 48 FR 14228, 4/12/83, amended 48 FR 30113, 6/30/83; 50 FR 614, 1/4/85; amended 50 FR 14216, 4/11/85 and 50 FR 33541, 8/20/85; 55 FR 2322, 1/23/90 802(5)(a), 802(5)(b); 040. 54, 85, 94, 168, 188, 198 (Consolidated Checklist C9) Hazardous Waste Management Facilities—Boilers and Industrial Furnaces 53 FR 37912, 9/28/88 amended 53 FR 41649, 10/24/88; 56 FR 7134, 2/21/91; 56 FR 32688, 7/17/91; 63 FR 33782, 6/19/98; 65 FR 42292, 7/10/00; amended 66 FR 24270, 5/14/01 and 66 FR 35087, 7/3/01; 67 FR 6968, 2/14/02 830(4)(g), 830(4)(g)(i), 830(4)(g)(i)(A), 830(4)(g)(i)(B), 830(4)(g)(i)(C), 830(4)(g)(i)(D), 830(4)(g)(i)(E), 830(4)(j), 830(4)(j)(i), 830(4)(j)(ii). 1 For further discussion on where the revised State rules differ from the Federal rules refer to Section G. below, the authorization revision application, and the administrative record for this decision. 2 State rule contains some more stringent provisions. For identification of more stringent State provisions refer to the authorization revision application and the administrative record for this decision. 3 State requested authorization for portions of the Federal regulation. For identification of which portions are authorized refer to the authorization revision application and the administrative record for this decision. 4 Checklists generally reflect changes made to the Federal regulations pursuant to a particular Federal Register notice and EPA publishes these Checklists as aids for States to use for the development of their authorization application. ( *See* EPA's RCRA State Authorization Web page at *http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/state/rcra* .) Table 2.—State Initiated Changes State requirement and reason for change (WAC 173-303-* * *) Analogous Federal 40 CFR citation 1 40 “Partial closure” definition, Internal citation corrected 260.10. 045(1), Date of incorporation by reference updated No direct federal analog. 045(2)(a) Federal citation for a delegable provision moved to next sub-subsection 260.20-260.22. 045(2)(b), Citation corrected 264.301(l). 045(2)(c), Citation corrected 268.5, 268.6, 268.10-14, 268.42(b), 268.44 except 268.44(a)-(g). 045(3), Clarification of delegable federal citation not incorporated by reference 260.20-22. 045(4), New subsection—substitution of state for federal terms No direct federal analog. 060(1), Clarification of ID# issuance and state-only transfer facility registration number issuance 262.12(a)&(c). 060(2), Corrections for new form name 262.12(b). 060(5), Corrections for new form name 262.12 related. 070(2)(c), Hazardous debris exclusion moved to 071(3)(qq) 261.3(f). 070(7)(c)(ii), Citation added 261.5(c) and 262.10 related. 070(8)(b)(iii)(C), Citation updated 261.5(f)(3) & 261.5(g)(3) related. 070(8)(d), Clarification of application of used oil standards to CESQGs 261.6(a)(4). 071(3)(k), Citation corrected No direct federal analog. 071(3)(o), SIC changed to NAIC Codes 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(A). 071(3)(cc), SIC changed to NAIC Codes 261.4(a)(12). 071(3)(hh), SIC changed to NAIC Codes 261.4(a)(18). 071(3)(nn), State-only drug exclusion No direct federal analog. 081(3), Clarification of “mixture” language 261.3(c). 082(3), Clarification of “mixture” language 261.3(b)(2). 090(5)(a)(iii), Citation deletion to conform to federal rule 261.21. 100(5)(b)(i), Clarification No direct federal analog. 100(6), Publication reference update No direct federal analog. 100(6)(d), Obsolete reference deleted No direct federal analog. 104, State-only waste codes identified in one location No direct federal analog. 110(3)(g)(vii), Spelling correction and year update 260.11(a)(15). 120(3) 261.6(a)(2). 120(4) 261.6(c)(1). 120(4)(c)(v)-(viii) 261.6(c)(2). Closure requirements for recycling and used oil facilities (new in 2005). 140(2)(a), Citation added Clarification Part 268. 161(6), 5 years added as retention period for labpacks No direct federal analog. 170(5), Citations corrected 262.10(i). 190(5)(b), Marking directions corrected No direct federal analog 262.30-260.33 related. 200(1)(b)(i)&(ii), Citation corrected 262.34(a)(1) intro and (a)(1)(i) & (ii). 200(1)(b)(ii)&(iii), Stress of installation added for equivalence with federal rule 262.34(a)(1) intro and (a)(1)(ii) & (iii). 200(1)(b)(iv)(B), Citation added for equivalence with federal rule at un-numbered paragraph following
(B)262.34(a)(1)(iv) paragraph following (B). 200(1)(e)(i), Citation added for equivalence with federal rule 262.34(a)(4). 201(2)(e), Citations corrected; generators of between 220 and 2200 pounds are subject to secondary containment 262.34(d). 210(2), Corrections for new form name 262.40(b). 240(6)(a), Corrections for new form name 263.12 related. 283(2), Citation corrected No direct federal analog. 290(1)(a)(i) through (vi), Subsection renumbered 264/265.12(a). 320(2)(a), Edit for clarity 264/265.15 except (b)(4)&(d). 380(1)(i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), Citations corrected 264.73(b)(8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), and (16). 380(1)(p), Reference added 264.73(b)(17). 390(1), Deleted obsolete form title 264/265 Intro. 395(1)(d), Uniform Fire Code changed to International Fire Code 264/265.17. 400(3)(c)(ix), Closure notification clarified 265.112(d)(1) related. 400(3)(c)(xi)(C) & (G), Citations corrected 265 related. 500(1), Reference to 120(3) &
(5)added No federal analog. 505(1) Intro, Reference to 120(3) added No direct federal analog. 505(1)(b), State fertilizer registration requirements moved from (1)(b)(i) to (1)(b)(iv) No direct federal analog. 506(1), Reference to 120(3) added 261.4(b)(12). 510(1), Reference to 120(3) added 266.30(a) (1990 CFR). 510(1)(b)(i)(B) and Note, Clarification; Previous
(C)deleted and consolidated into
(B)References to state-only W001 removed 266.30(b) intro and (b)(1) (1990 CFR) 266.100(b)(1) (1999 CFR). 515(5)(a), State waste code W001 changed to WPCB 279.12. 515(9)(a), Closure requirements for recycling and used oil facilities (new in 2005) 279.52 related. 515(13), Used oil testing (new subsection) 279 related. 520 Intro, Reference to 120(3) added 266.80(a). 522(1), Reference to 120(3) added No federal analog. 525(1), Reference to 120(3) added 266.70 except 266.70(v)(3). 600(3)(e), Citation correction 270.1(c)(2) 264.1(b). 600(3)(g), Citation correction 270.1(c)(2) 264.1(b). 610(1)(c), (previous “c” became “d” & “d” became “e”) Closure requirements for recycling and used oil facilities (new in 2005) 264.110 related. 610(2)(b)(i), Closure standard wording corrected 264.111(c). 610(3)(c)(i), Closure notification clarified 264.112(d). 610(12) New subsection, Closure requirements for recycling and used oil facilities (new in 2005) 264.112 related. 620(1)(e) New sub-subsection, Closure requirements for recycling and used oil facilities (new in 2005) 264.140 related. 620(2)(a), Closure requirements for recycling and used oil facilities (new in 2005); Closure plan definition modified to include recycling and used oil processors 264.141(a)-(e) related. 620(3), New un-numbered exception paragraph, Closure requirements for recycling and used oil facilities (new in 2005) 264.142 related. 620(4)(a), Reference to used oil and recycling facilities added, Closure requirements for recycling and used oil facilities (new in 2005) 264.143 related. 620(4)(b), Clarification 264.143. 620(4)(c), New sub-subsection, Closure requirements for recycling and used oil facilities (new in 2005) No direct federal analog. 620(6)(a)(i), Partially funded trust funds no longer allowed for closure 264.145. 620(6)(a)(v), Minimum ratings of financial strength for financial and insurance institutions required 264.145. 620(6)(a)(vi), Minimum tangible net worth increased to $20M 264.145. 620(8)(a), Closure requirements for recycling and used oil facilities (new in 2005); Liability requirements modified to apply to recyclers and used oil processors 264.147(a). 620(8)(a)(i), Minimum ratings of financial strength for financial and insurance institutions required 264.147(a). 620(8)(a)(ii), Allow Ecology to file claims against liability insurance 264.147(a). 620(8)(a)(iii), Minimum tangible net worth increased to $20M 264.147(a). 620(8)(b)&(f), Citations corrected 264.147(b), 264.147(f)-(j). 630(8)(a) and (b), Uniform Fire Code references changed to International Fire Code 264.176. 640(2)(c)(iv)(B) Note, Reference to obsolete guidance replaced with list of publications that may be used 264.191(b)(5)(ii), Note. 640(4)(i), Citations corrected 264.193. 640(4)(i)(iii) Note, Reference to obsolete guidance replaced with list of publications that may be used 264.193. 640(7)(d)(i)-(iii),
(ii)and
(iii)deleted; Spill requirements modified—must be reported immediately 264.196. 640(7)(d)(i)(F), Section 360 applies in the event of emergency 264.196. 645(1)(a)(ii), Citations corrected 264.90(a). 645(10)(h) Lettering corrected,
(h)was added as a reserved sub-subsection since it had been missing from previous text. No text is missing. Two federal provisions
(g)and
(h)are combined at
(g)in the State rules 264.99. 64690 (previous 646(8)), Clarification that “director” means “department” 264.554. 670(1)(c)(i)-(ii) 264.340(b) & (c). 670(1)(c)(iii) 264.340 related. 670(1)(d) 264.340(d). Re-lettered from
(b)to
(c)and
(c)to
(d)to accommodated new (b). 680(3), Citation corrected 264.602. 690(1)(c), Citation clarified 264.1030(c). 691(1)(b) Intro, Citation clarified 264.1050(b) intro. 691(1)(c), Paragraph updated 264.1050(c). 692(2) Note, Citations corrected 264.1081-1091. 802(3), Citation corrected 270.60(b). 802(4)(c)(viii), Citation corrected 270.60(c). 803(3)(c), SIC changed to NAIC Codes 270.13. 805(7)(a)(v), Citation correction 270.72(a)(5). 806(6), Note added 270.10(h). 830 Appendix I—6. and 7.a. & b., Citations corrected 270.42 Appendix I. 830 Appendix I—N.1. and 2., Citations corrected 270.42 Appendix I. 910(1)(c), Minimum public comment period reduced from 45 to 21 days 260.20(c). 910(6)(f)(i), Minimum public comment period reduced from 45 to 21 days 268 related. 960, Changed to be consistent with Hazardous Waste Management Act RCRA 7003 related. 9904 State sources, State PCB waste code changed from W001 to WPCB 261.31(a), 261.32. 1 Reference to “No direct federal analog” is for informational purposes and is not authorized. H. Where Are the Revised State Rules Different From the Federal Rules? Under RCRA 3009, EPA may not authorize State rules that are less stringent than the Federal program. Any State rules that are less stringent do not supplant the Federal regulations. State rules that are broader in scope than the Federal program requirements are allowed but are not authorized. State rules that are equivalent to, and State rules that are more stringent than, the Federal program may be authorized, in which case they are enforceable by EPA. This section discusses certain rules where EPA has made the finding that the State program is more stringent and will be authorized; it discusses those State rules which are being authorized as different but equivalent to the Federal program; it discusses those rules where the State program is broader in scope, and cannot be authorized. Certain portions of the Federal program are not delegable to the States because of the Federal government's special role in foreign policy matters and because of national concerns that arise with certain decisions. EPA does not delegate import/export functions. Under RCRA regulations found in 40 CFR part 262, EPA will continue to implement requirements for import/export functions. The State amended its import and export rules to include 40 CFR part 262, subpart H in accordance with the Federal rule on Imports and Exports Regulations of Hazardous Waste: Implementation of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD)Council Decision (61 FR 16290, 4/12/96). The State's counterpart to this Federal rule is found at WAC 173-303-120(6), although EPA will continue to implement those requirements. Not all program differences are discussed in this section because Washington writes its own version of the Federal hazardous waste rules. Persons must consult Tables 1 and 2, in Section G above, for the specific State regulations that EPA is authorizing in this final rule. 1. More Stringent States are allowed to seek authorization for State requirements that are more stringent than Federal requirements. EPA has authority to authorize and enforce those parts of a State's program EPA finds to be more stringent than the Federal program. This section does not discuss each more stringent finding made by EPA, but persons can locate such sections by consulting Table 1 in Section G above, as well as by reviewing the docket for this rule. The State program is authorized for each more stringent requirement as part of this rulemaking. The State revised its previously-authorized permits-by-rule provision at WAC-173-303-802(5)(a) and (5)(b) to allow off-site dangerous waste, including federally-regulated waste, to be received at a wastewater treatment unit. These State provisions are considered broader in scope for State-only wastes and more stringent for the federally-regulated wastes since the State rule includes additional safeguards that the Federal requirements found at 40 CFR 270.1(c)(2(iv) and
(v)do not include, such as:
(1)Requirement that the source of the wastewater be identified;
(2)requirement that the generator keep an operating record when federally-regulated wastes are received from off-site, and
(3)requirement that wastewater received from off-site be generated within the same industry and be able to be effectively treated by the wastewater treatment unit. The State adopted portions of the Federal Mercury-Containing Equipment, Universal Waste Rule (70 FR 45508, 8/5/05). The State's rule is based on EPA's proposed rule (67 FR 40508, 6/12/02) and until the State revises its rules to include the changes EPA made with its final rule (70 FR 45508, 8/5/05) the State's program will be more stringent than the Federal program. The State's rule is more stringent because it does not include the following Federal provisions: the definition for “ampule” (40 CFR 260.10); merging “mercury-containing thermostats” with “mercury-containing equipment” into one universal waste category (40 CFR 260.10); and revised waste management standards for mercury-containing equipment that have open housings instead of ampules (40 CFR 273.13). Additionally, the State's definitions of small and large quantity handler of universal waste found at WAC 173-303-040 are more stringent than the Federal rule (40 CFR 273.9) because
(1)the State's rule regulates universal waste lamps at a lower accumulation threshold than the Federal requirement and
(2)the State's rule does not include the Federal language that allows equipment with non-contained elemental mercury to be managed as universal waste. The State incorporated by reference most of the Federal Performance Track Rule (69 FR 21737, 4/22/04) into State law (WAC 173-303-200(5)). However, there are some Federal provisions for which the State included its own internal citations, which include the following more stringent requirements: aisle space requirement for containers (WAC 173-303-630(5)(c)); risk labeling (WAC 173-303-200(1)(d)); verification of training (WAC 173-303-300(2)(c)); cause of incident (WAC 173-303-360(2)(k)(viii)); and description of corrective action taken to prevent reoccurrence of the incident (WAC-173-303-360(2)(k)(ix)); and the requirement that drip pads remain subject to closure standards (WAC 173-303-675(6)(b)). We also consider the State's new requirement for accumulating dangerous waste on-site for waste water treatment sludges (WAC 173-303-200(1)(e) and (f)) to be more stringent than the Federal requirement (40 CFR 262.34(a)(4)) because the State rule-unlike the Federal rule-requires compliance with “general inspections” (WAC 173-303-320) in addition to the other Federal requirements. The State's revised mixture rules (WAC 173-303-071(2); 081(3); and 082(3)) are more stringent than the Federal rules because the State rules do not include all of the Federal wastewater mixture exclusions as identified in the Federal Mixture and Derived-From Rule Revisions (66 FR 27266, 516/01; and 66 FR 50332, 10/3/01). 2. Different But Equivalent The following State requirements are different than the Federal requirements, but EPA has determined that they are nevertheless equivalent to the Federal program. In 2005, the State enacted its Hazardous Waste Facilities Initiative (HWFI), which among other things makes many recycling activities subject to closure plan requirements, pollution liability coverage requirements, and financial assurance requirements. In contrast, under the Federal rules, hazardous waste recycling activities are generally exempt from hazardous waste requirements and therefore are not subject to closure plans, pollution liability coverage and financial assurance. Additionally, the State amended its previously authorized provision (WAC 173-303-120(4)) to be more similar to the Federal rule (40 CFR 261.6(c)(2)) in that the State removed the provision that specified that recyclable materials would be considered stored unless they were moved into an active recycling process within 24 hours The State revised its rule so that it can determine on a case-by-case basis whether recyclable materials received from off-site are not stored if they are moved into an active recycling process in a period of time not to exceed 72 hours. While the Federal analog does not specify a timeframe after which holding recyclable materials is considered storage, EPA Region 1 authorized the State of Vermont for a similar provision (see 64 FR 51702, September 24, 1999), stating “EPA has previously agreed that States administering the RCRA program have some discretion to determine that short periods of accumulation by recyclers of incoming material do not constitute storage and would not trigger the RCRA storage permitting requirements”. Region 1 determined that Vermont's rule, which allows up to three days without a storage permit, was equivalent to the Federal program and therefore federally approvable. Based on the Vermont authorization and based on the fact that Washington's comprehensive recycling program approach will result in significantly better environmental performance by affected facilities, EPA has determined Washington's rule to be equivalent to the Federal program and federally approvable. The State revised its previously-authorized waste analysis plan requirements at WAC 173-303-300(1) and (2). The State amended its rule to provide clarity for Treatment, Storage and Disposal
(TSD)facilities. The State rule is worded differently than the Federal rule at 40 CFR 264.13(a)(1) and (2); however, we consider it to be equivalent to the Federal program. While the Federal rule states that a TSD facility must obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample of the waste, 40 CFR 264.13(2) states that the analysis may include data developed under 40 CFR part 261 and existing published or documented data on the hazardous waste or on hazardous waste generated from similar processes. Federal guidance allows the use of knowledge rather than direct testing under certain circumstances ( *Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Waste—A Guidance Manual OSWER 9938.4-03, April 1994* ). Therefore, the State amended its rule to require documentation when a TSD facility relies upon such knowledge other than testing. The State rule clarifies when the use of knowledge, as defined in WAC 173-303-040, is acceptable, and requires documentation to ensure that such knowledge is sufficient and used appropriately. Overall, EPA believes that the State rule ensures that wastes will be properly designated and managed in a safe and protective manner, and therefore we have determined that the State rule is equivalent to the Federal program. 3. Broader in Scope States are not allowed to seek authorization for State requirements that are broader in scope than Federal requirements. EPA does not have authority to authorize and enforce those parts of a State's program EPA finds to be broader in scope than the Federal program. However, they remain part of the State's hazardous waste program and the regulated community must comply with them in accordance with State law. Such rules are identified in the State's authorization revision application, and include, but are not limited to, the following: The State adopted the Federal Zinc Fertilizer Rule (67 FR 48393, 7/24/02) but did not adopt the Federal exclusions found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(20) and
(21)for hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizers. Therefore, the State rule as applied to waste excluded under Federal rules is broader in scope than the Federal requirements. Additionally, the State added a State-only provision at WAC 173-303-505(1)(b)(iv) for waste-derived fertilizer registration which is not a Federal requirement and is considered broader in scope than the Federal program. The State adopted the Federal Hazardous Waste Combustors Revised Standards (63 FR 33782, 6/19/98) but did not adopt the Federal comparable or syngas fuel exclusion (40 CFR 261.38), and therefore is broader in scope as applied to waste excluded under the Federal rules because the State rule considers these wastes to be solid wastes. 4. Partial Rules Adopted In addition to the program differences described above, the State's program has also elected to adopt portions of the following Federal rules. We have found the State portions to these Federal rules to be consistent with and equivalent to the Federal program. The State's program includes those requirements of the Federal Waste Minimization Rule (50 FR 28702, 7/15/95) that are applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste TSD facilities. The Federal waste minimization requirements applicable to generators (40 CFR 262.41(a)(6)-(8)) were not adopted by the State because generators must comply with the State-only pollution prevention planning requirements. EPA implements the Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
(BIF)program in Washington State under its HSWA authority, although in order to fully implement the BIF program the State must adopt and receive authorization for the Non-HSWA Federal BIF requirements. In this action, the State is not seeking authorization for the BIF program (40 CFR 266.102 through 40 CFR 266.111). Although, the State did not adopt these Federal provisions, it did adopt the Non-HSWA Federal permit modification provisions (40 CFR 270.42(g) and 40 CFR 270.42(j)) related to boilers and industrial furnaces (WAC 173-303-830(4)(g) and WAC 173-303-830(4)(j)). 5. Renumbering of Corrective Action Requirements In addition to authorizing the State's corrective action management unit
(CAMU)amendments, as identified in Table 1, Section G above, the State regulations for corrective action that were located at WAC 173-303-646 have been renumbered and restructured into eleven new sections. See table at WAC 173-303-646 for cross-references between new and previous State corrective action citations. I. Who Handles Permits After This Authorization Takes Effect? After authorization, Washington will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits that were issued prior to the effective date of this authorization. EPA will not issue any new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in Section G after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Washington is not yet authorized. J. How Does Today's Action Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Washington? EPA's decision to authorize the Washington hazardous waste program does not include any land that is, or becomes after the date of this authorization, “Indian Country,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, with the exception of the non-trust lands within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also referred to as the “1873 Survey Area” or “Survey Area”) located in Tacoma, Washington. EPA retains jurisdiction over “Indian Country”. Effective October 22, 1998 (63 FR 50531, 9/22/98) Washington's State program was authorized to implement the State authorized program on the non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area of the Puyallup Indian Reservation. The authorization did not extend to trust lands within the reservation. EPA retains its authority to implement RCRA on trust lands and over Indians and Indian activities within the 1873 Survey Area. K. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Washington's Hazardous Waste Program as Authorized in This Rule? Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart WW, for this authorization of Washington's program revisions until a later date. II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This rule authorizes revisions to the State of Washington's authorized hazardous waste program pursuant to section 3006 of RCRA and imposes no requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. This rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows. 1. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant,” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities;
(2)create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. 2. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , because this final rule does not establish or modify any information or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community and only seeks to authorize the pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing, and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 3. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business, as codified in the Small Business Size Regulations at 13 CFR part 121;
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. EPA has determined that this action will not have a significant impact on small entities because the final rule will only have the effect of authorizing pre-existing requirements under State law. After considering the economic impacts of today's rule, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why the alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Similarly, EPA has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 203 of the UMRA. 5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, 8/10/99), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.” This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule addresses the authorization of pre-existing State rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, 11/9/00), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that:
(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, 5/22/01) because it is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined under Executive Order 12866. 9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rule does not involve “technical standards” as defined by the NTTAA. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. 10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency must make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands. Because this rule addresses authorizing pre-existing State rules and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898. 11. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on the December 29, 2006. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indians—lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b). Dated: October 18, 2006. Ronald A. Kreizenbeck, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. E6-18222 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 49 CFR Part 37 [Docket OST-2006-26035] RIN 2105-AC86 Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Adoption of New Accessibility Standards AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department is amending its Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA)regulations to adopt, as its regulatory standards, the new Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) recently issued by the Access Board, including technical amendments the Access Board subsequently made to the new ADAAG. In adopting the new ADAAG as its standards, the Department is making minor modifications to some of the Guidelines and is providing further guidance concerning its newly-adopted standards. DATES: This rule is effective November 29, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 10424, Washington, DC 20590.
(202)366-9306 (voice);
(202)755-7687 (TDD), *bob.ashby@dot.gov* (e-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the ADA, the Access Board has the responsibility of creating “guidelines” for the accessibility of buildings, facilities, and vehicles subject to ADA requirements (the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, or ADAAG). It is then the responsibility of the Department of Transportation and Department of Justice to incorporate into their ADA regulations accessibility “standards” consistent with the Access Board's minimum guidelines. The Department met this obligation in its 1991 ADA regulations through verbatim incorporation of the original ADAAG in Appendix A to part 37. The Access Board issued a major revision to ADAAG two years ago (69 FR 44084; July 23, 2004), after an extensive notice and comment proceeding and an assessment of the costs of the revisions. In addition, the Board has issued technical amendments to the new ADAAG. Through this amendment, the Department is incorporating the new ADAAG, including the Board's subsequent technical amendments, into part 37 as the new standards for accessible transportation facilities. In order to avoid duplication, since the entire text of the new ADAAG is available in materials published by the Access Board, the Department is not republishing the voluminous text of the Access Board document. Rather, we are adopting by cross-reference Appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 (including the index), the codification of the revised ADAAG, into § 37.9 of the Department's ADA regulations. Appendix A to part 37, which formerly contained the old ADAAG, will now list a few minor additions or modifications that the Department is making in the standards in the context of transportation facility accessibility. This DOT rulemaking applies only to facilities and systems that are subject to the DOT ADA regulations, 49 CFR parts 37 and 38. We note that the Department of Justice is conducting a separate rulemaking to incorporate the ADAAG into its ADA regulations, which cover a much wider variety of public and private sector facilities. The Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to adopt the Access Board's draft guidelines (65 FR 48444; August 8, 2000). The Department received only one comment, from a transit authority. That comment is accommodated by the new § 37.9(c), described in the following paragraph. Section 37.9(a) adopts the new ADAAG by cross-reference as the new standards for accessible transportation facilities. References in paragraph
(d)of this section to the old Appendix A have also been updated. One of the issues an agency always faces when updating standards is how to handle projects that are in progress at the time the new standards come into effect. The Department has determined that the clearest way of handling this issue is to provide in paragraph (c)(1) that if a project—either new construction or alteration of an existing facility—is already in progress (i.e., actual construction has already begun or the final design has received all necessary approvals) on the effective date of this amendment, and the work in progress would meet the requirements of the old standards, the construction or alteration need not meet the requirements of the new standards. The entity or person constructing or altering the facility could also choose to comply with the new standards in such a case. Paragraph (c)(2) similarly provides that an existing facility that complies with the old standards does not have to be retrofitted to comply with the new standards. Of course, any future alteration to an existing facility would have to comply with the new standards. The Department is also making a clarifying change to its procedures for equivalent facilitation determinations. Paragraph (d)(6)(i) provides that equivalent facilitation determinations are case-by-case, site-specific decisions that apply only to the particular situation to which they pertain. With respect to facilities, in which equivalent facilitations are by nature unique, this provision makes sense. However, there may be some situations concerning manufactured products or accessibility features in which an equivalent facilitation can reasonably apply to a class of situations. For example, if a feature of a bus lift or detectable warning tile used in transit facilities receives an equivalent facilitation determination from the Federal Transit Administration, it is possible that the determination can reasonably apply to transit vehicles or transit facilities other than the one in which the issue arose. We are adding language to this paragraph giving Administrators the discretion to permit broader applications of equivalent facilitation determinations when doing so would be appropriate in these kinds of cases. Former ADAAG 4.1.1(5) provided a “structural impracticability” exception to the requirements for new buildings and facilities. This exception does not exist in the new ADAAG. The reason the Access Board deleted this language was to avoid duplication with an existing requirement to the same effect in Department of Justice regulations (see 28 CFR § 36.401(c)). For consistency with the approach taken by the Access Board and Department of Justice, and to ensure consistency between facilities subject to Titles II and III of the ADA under part 37, the Department has added the language of the Department of Justice regulation to § 37.41 of this part. We would note that the “structural impracticability” exception should not be applied to a situation in which a facility is located in “hilly” terrain or on a plot of land on which there are steep grades. In such circumstances, accessibility can be achieved without destroying the physical integrity of the structure, and is required in the construction of new facilities. The Department is also adopting language that would continue in effect the current requirements of ADAAG concerning detectable warnings at curb ramps. Detectable warnings in curb ramps have long been required by ADAAG and DOT and DOJ regulatory standards that have long been, and remain, in effect. Currently, the Access Board is working on new public rights-of-way
(PROW)guidelines, the current proposed version of which would retain a detectable warnings requirement. Because the Access Board is proposing this requirement in the PROW document, the July 2004 ADAAG did not include a parallel detectable warning requirement. The unintended consequence of the relationship between the Access Board's timing with respect to the ADAAG and PROW issuances is that, if the Department adopts the new ADAAG, the current detectable warnings requirement for curb ramps would disappear, only to reappear in a few years if the current Access Board PROW proposal is adopted. (If the Access Board deletes or modifies its current proposal concerning detectable warnings in final PROW guidelines, the Department will modify part 37 accordingly.) The Department, along with an overwhelming majority of Access Board members, believes that detectable warnings are a very useful design feature that makes the built environment safer and more accessible for persons with impaired vision. It would be undesirable, as a policy matter, to permit the Department's current detectable warnings requirement to lapse, particularly since the Department has never sought or received comment on the merits of ending this existing requirement. The Department will therefore maintain the status quo with respect to detectable warnings in this rule. Doing so will not add any burdens for regulated parties, or create any new or increased costs for them: regulated parties will just continue complying with precisely the same requirements that have applied to them (with a brief interruption during a 1998-2001 suspension of these requirements) since 1991. The Department is correcting a typographical error in § 37.131(b)(4). A citation in that paragraph should refer to § 37.137
(b)and
(c)rather than to § 37.131
(b)and (c). In the new Appendix A, the Department provides web site addresses for the incorporated Appendices B and D to 36 CFR Part 1191 and lists three sections of the new ADAAG to which the Department is making minor alterations. With respect to § 206.3, the Department adds language, drawn from the old standards, emphasizing that the distance that persons with disabilities must travel to use various important station elements must be minimized. In § 810.2.2, the Department adds a provision from the former § 37.9
(c)of this part that public entities must ensure bus boarding and alighting areas comply with the required dimensions to the extent construction specifications are within their control. In § 810.5.3, the Department is incorporating language from former ADAAG § 10.3.1(9), concerning the coordination of platform and rail car door height. The intent of this addition is to preserve existing regulatory language pending further regulatory action by the Department to amend 49 CFR part 37 regulatory requirements concerning rail platforms. These modifications are explained in more detail in a new section of Appendix D to the regulation. Section 810.5.3 and related Appendix D language may subsequently be changed to be consistent with future changes to Part 37 in the rail platform area. The Department is also correcting an editing or printing error that has crept into recent editions of the Code of Federal Regulations in the Appendix D discussion of the service area paratransit criterion. The sentence in question concerns the effect of political boundaries on the paratransit obligations of transit providers. The correction restores the original language of the Appendix, as published in the Department's 1991 ADA rule. Regulatory Analyses and Notices This is a nonsignificant rule for purposes of Executive Order 12886 and the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Management and Budget has concurred in its designation as nonsignificant. The Access Board has already conducted a regulatory assessment of the costs and other effects of changes in the ADAAG, which the Office of Management and Budget has reviewed and approved. The Department believes that the changes in ADAAG, as they affect transportation entities covered by the Department's rules, will have so minimal an incremental economic impact on regulated parties that further economic analysis is unnecessary. For this reason, the Department certifies that this rule will not have significant economic effects on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, we have determined that the rule will not have sufficient Federalism impacts to warrant the production of a Federalism assessment. Issued this 26th day of September, 2006, at Washington DC. Maria Cino, Acting Secretary of Transportation. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends 49 CFR part 37 as follows: PART 37—TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
(ADA)1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 37 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213; 49 U.S.C. 322. 2. Section 37.9 is revised to read as follows: § 37.9 Standards for accessible transportation facilities.
(a)For purposes of this part, a transportation facility shall be considered to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities if it meets the requirements of this part and the requirements set forth in Appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191, which apply to buildings and facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, as modified by Appendix A to this part.
(b)Facility alterations begun before January 26, 1992, in a good faith effort to make a facility accessible to individuals with disabilities may be used to meet the key station requirements set forth in §§ 37.47 and 37.51 of this part, even if these alterations are not consistent with the requirements set forth in Appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 and Appendix A to this part, if the modifications complied with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards
(UFAS)or ANSI A117.1(1980) (American National Standards Specification for Making Buildings and Facilities Accessible to and Usable by the Physically Handicapped). This paragraph applies only to alterations of individual elements and spaces and only to the extent that provisions covering those elements or spaces are contained in UFAS or ANSI A117.1, as applicable.
(1)New construction or alterations of buildings or facilities on which construction has begun, or all approvals for final design have been received, before [insert effective date of this amendment] are not required to be consistent with the requirements set forth in Appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 and Appendix A to this part, if the construction or alterations comply with the former Appendix A to this part, as codified in the October 1, 2006, edition of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(2)Existing buildings and facilities that are not altered after November 29, 2006, and which comply with the former Appendix A to this part, are not required to be retrofitted to comply with the requirements set forth in Appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 and Appendix A to this part. (d)(1) For purposes of implementing the equivalent facilitation provision in ADA Chapter 1, Section 103, of Appendix B to 36 CFR part 1191, the following parties may submit to the Administrator of the applicable operating administration a request for a determination of equivalent facilitation: (i)(A) A public or private entity that provides transportation facilities subject to the provisions of subpart C of this part, or other appropriate party with the concurrence of the Administrator.
(B)With respect to airport facilities, an entity that is an airport operator subject to the requirements of 49 CFR part 27 or regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, an air carrier subject to the requirements of 14 CFR part 382, or other appropriate party with the concurrence of the Administrator.
(ii)The manufacturer of a product or accessibility feature to be used in a transportation facility or facilities.
(2)The requesting party shall provide the following information with its request:
(i)Entity name, address, contact person and telephone;
(ii)Specific provision(s) of Appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 or Appendix A to this part concerning which the entity is seeking a determination of equivalent facilitation.
(iii)[Reserved]
(iv)Alternative method of compliance, with demonstration of how the alternative meets or exceeds the level of accessibility or usability provided in Appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 or Appendix A to this part; and
(v)Documentation of the public participation used in developing an alternative method of compliance.
(3)In the case of a request by a public entity that provides transportation facilities (including an airport operator), or a request by an air carrier with respect to airport facilities, the required public participation shall include the following:
(i)The entity shall contact individuals with disabilities and groups representing them in the community. Consultation with these individuals and groups shall take place at all stages of the development of the request for equivalent facilitation. All documents and other information concerning the request shall be available, upon request, to Department of Transportation officials and members of the public.
(ii)The entity shall make its proposed request available for public comment before the request is made final or transmitted to DOT. In making the request available for public review, the entity shall ensure that it is available, upon request, in accessible formats.
(iii)The entity shall sponsor at least one public hearing on the request and shall provide adequate notice of the hearing, including advertisement in appropriate media, such as newspapers of general and special interest circulation and radio announcements.
(4)In the case of a request by a manufacturer or a private entity other than an air carrier, the manufacturer or private entity shall consult, in person, in writing, or by other appropriate means, with representatives of national and local organizations representing people with those disabilities who would be affected by the request.
(5)A determination of compliance will be made by the Administrator of the concerned operating administration on a case-by-case basis, with the concurrence of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy. (6)(i) Determinations of equivalent facilitation are made only with respect to transportation facilities, and pertain only to the specific situation concerning which the determination is made. *Provided, however,* that with respect to a product or accessibility feature that the Administrator determines can provide an equivalent facilitation in a class of situations, the Administrator may make an equivalent facilitation determination applying to that class of situations.
(ii)Entities shall not cite these determinations as indicating that a product or method constitutes equivalent facilitation in situations, or classes of situations, other than those to which the determinations specifically pertain.
(iii)Entities shall not claim that a determination of equivalent facilitation indicates approval or endorsement of any product or method by the Federal government, the Department of Transportation, or any of its operating administrations. 3. Amend § 37.41 by designating the existing text as paragraph
(a)and adding a new paragraph (b), to read as follows: § 37.41 Construction of transportation facilities by public entities.
(a)* * *
(1)Full compliance with the requirements of this section is not required where an entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements. Full compliance will be considered structurally impracticable only in those rare circumstances when the unique characteristics of terrain prevent the incorporation of accessibility features.
(2)If full compliance with this section would be structurally impracticable, compliance with this section is required to the extent that it is not structurally impracticable. In that case, any portion of the facility that can be made accessible shall be made accessible to the extent that it is not structurally impracticable.
(3)If providing accessibility in conformance with this section to individuals with certain disabilities (e.g., those who use wheelchairs) would be structurally impracticable, accessibility shall nonetheless be ensured to persons with other types of disabilities (e.g., those who use crutches or who have sight, hearing, or mental impairments) in accordance with this section. § 37.131 [Amended] 4. Amend section 37.131(b)(4) by removing the words “§ 37.131(b) and (c)” and adding, in their place, the words “§ 37.137(b) and (c)”. 5. Revise Appendix A to Part 37 to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 37—Modifications to Standards for Accessible Transportation Facilities The Department of Transportation, in § 37.9 of this part, adopts as its regulatory standards for accessible transportation facilities the revised Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines (ADAGG) issued by the Access Board on July 23, 2004. The ADAGG is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations in Appendices B and D of 36 CFR part 1191. Note the ADAAG may also be found via a hyperlink on the Internet at the following address: *http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/final.htm* . Like all regulations, the ADAAG also can be found by using the electronic Code of Federal Regulations at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . Because the ADAAG has been established as a Federal consensus standard by the Access Board, the Department is not republishing the regulations in their entirety, but is adopting them by cross-reference as permitted under 1 CFR 21.21(c)(4). In a few instances, the Department has modified the language of the ADAAG as it applies to entities subject to 49 CFR part 37. These entities must comply with the modified language in this Appendix rather than the language of Appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191. 206.3 Location—Modification to 206.3 of Appendix B to 36 CFR Part 1191 Accessible routes shall coincide with, or be located in the same area as general *circulation paths* . Where *circulation paths* are interior, required *accessible* routes shall also be interior. Elements such as ramps, elevators, or other circulation devices, fare vending or other ticketing areas, and fare collection areas shall be placed to minimize the distance which wheelchair users and other persons who cannot negotiate steps may have to travel compared to the general public. 406.8—Modification to 406 of Appendix D to 36 CFR Part 1191 A curb ramp shall have a detectable warning complying with 705. The detectable warning shall extend the full width of the curb ramp (exclusive of flared sides) and shall extend either the full depth of the curb ramp or 24 inches (610 mm) deep minimum measured from the back of the curb on the ramp surface. 810.2.2 Dimensions—Modification to 810.2.2 of Appendix D to 36 CFR Part 1191 Bus boarding and alighting areas shall provide a clear length of 96 inches (2440 mm), measured perpendicular to the curb or vehicle roadway edge, and a clear width of 60 inches (1525 mm), measured parallel to the vehicle roadway. Public entities shall ensure that the construction of bus boarding and alighting areas comply with 810.2.2, to the extent the construction specifications are within their control. 810.5.3 Platform and Vehicle Floor Coordination—Modification to 810.5.3 of Appendix D to 36 CFR Part 1191 Station platforms shall be positioned to coordinate with vehicles in accordance with the applicable requirements of 36 CFR part 1192. Low-level platforms shall be 8 inches (205 mm) minimum above top of rail. In light rail, commuter rail, and intercity rail systems where it is not operationally or structurally feasible to meet the horizontal gap or vertical difference requirements of part 1192 or 49 CFR part 38, mini-high platforms, car-borne or platform-mounted lifts, ramps or bridge plates or similarly manually deployed devices, meeting the requirements of 49 CFR part 38, shall suffice. EXCEPTION: Where vehicles are boarded from sidewalks or street-level, low-level platforms shall be permitted to be less than 8 inches (205 mm). 6. In Appendix D to Part 37, in the sixth paragraph under the heading “Section 37.131 Service Criteria for Complementary Paratransit Service Area,” revise the last sentence and add a new section for “Appendix A to Part 37” at the end of the appendix to read as follows: Appendix D to Part 37—Construction and Interpretation of Provisions of 49 CFR Part 37 Section 37.131 Service Criteria for Complementary Paratransit Service Area * * * This exception to the service area criterion does not automatically apply whenever there is a political boundary, only when there is a legal bar to the entity providing service on the other side of the boundary. Appendix A to Part 37—Standards for Accessible Transportation Facilities Sections 504(a) and
(b)of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA)require the Access Board to adopt accessibility guidelines; sections 204(c) and 306(c) of the ADA require the Department of Transportation to adopt regulatory standards “consistent with the minimum guidelines and requirements” issued by the Access Board. In the original 1991 publication of part 37, the Department complied with this requirement by reproducing the Access Board's Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) in their entirety as Appendix A. The Access Board revised ADAAG in July 2004. ADAAG, including technical amendments issued in July 2005, is codified in Appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191. In order to avoid duplication of material that the Access Board has already included in the CFR, and which is now readily available on the Internet, the Department has adopted ADAAG by cross-reference in part 37, rather than reproducing the lengthy Access Board publication. However, there are certain provisions of ADAAG that the Department is modifying for clarity or to preserve requirements that have been in effect under the existing standards. Under the ADA, the Department, in adopting standards, has the discretion to depart from the language of ADAAG as long as the Department's standards remain consistent with the Access Board's minimum guidelines. In addition, this appendix provides additional guidance concerning some sections of the DOT standards as they apply to transportation facilities. Section 201.1 The basic scoping requirement requires all areas of newly designed and newly constructed buildings and facilities to be accessible. Former § 4.1.1(5) provided a “structural impracticability” exception to the requirements for new buildings and facilities. The Access Board deleted this exception to avoid duplication with an existing requirement to the same effect in Department of Justice regulations (see 28 CFR § 36.401(c)). For consistency with the approach taken by the Access Board and Department of Justice, and to ensure consistency between facilities subject to Titles II and III of the ADA under part 37, the Department has added the language of the Department of Justice regulation to § 37.41 of this part. Section 206.3 This section concerns the location of accessible paths. The Department is retaining language from former § 10.3.1(1), which provides that “Elements such as ramps, elevators, or other circulation devices, fare vending or other ticketing areas, and fare collection areas shall be placed to minimize the distance which wheelchair users and other persons who cannot negotiate steps may have to travel compared to the general public.” This concept, in our view, is implicit in the language of § 206.3. However, we believe it is useful to make explicit the concept that, in transportation facilities such as rail stations, important facility elements are placed so as to minimize the distance persons with disabilities must travel to use them. This requirement is intended to affect decisions about where to locate entrances, boarding locations (e.g., where a mini-high platform is used for boarding), and other key elements of a facility. Section 406.8 To maintain the *status quo* with respect to detectable warnings in pedestrian facilities, the Department is adding a provision (not found in the current version of the new ADAAG) requiring curb ramps to have detectable warnings. Section 810.2.2 The Department recognizes that there will be some situations in which the full dimensions of a bus boarding and alighting area complying with the § 810.2.2 may not be able to be achieved (e.g., there is less than 96 inches of perpendicular space available from the curb or roadway edge, because of buildings or terrain features). The Department is adding language from former § 37.9
(c)of this part, which provides that “Public entities shall ensure the construction of bus boarding and alighting areas comply with 810.2.2, to the extent the construction specifications are within their control.” Where it is not feasible to fully comply with § 810.2.2, the Department expects compliance to the greatest extent feasible. We note that there may be some instances in which it will be necessary to make operational adjustments where sufficient clearance is not available to permit the deployment of lifts or ramps on vehicles. For example, a bus driver could position the bus at a nearby point—even if not the precise location of the designated stop—so that a passenger needing a lift or ramp to get on or off the bus can do so. To avoid the need for such operational adjustments, it is important to place bus shelters, signs, etc. so that they do not intrude into the required clearances. Section 810.5.3 This section concerns coordination between rail platforms and rail vehicles. The Department is adding language from the former § 10.3.1
(9)(Exception 2), which provides that “In light rail, commuter rail, and intercity rail systems where it is not operationally or structurally feasible to meet the horizontal gap or vertical difference requirements, mini-high platforms, car-borne or platform-mounted lifts, ramps or bridge plates or similarly manually deployed devices, meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 38 shall be permitted.” In September 2005, the Department issued guidance concerning the relationship of its ADA and 504 rules in the context of rail platform accessibility This guidance emphasized that access to all cars of a train is significant because, if passengers with disabilities are unable to enter all cars from the platform, the passengers will have access only to segregated service. This would be inconsistent with the nondiscrimination mandate of the ADA. It would also, in the case of Federal Transit Administration
(FTA)and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)-assisted projects (including Amtrak), be inconsistent with the requirement of the Department's section 504 regulation (49 CFR § 27.7), which requires service in the most integrated setting reasonably achievable. This guidance states the Department's views of the meaning of its existing rules, and the Department will continue to use this guidance in applying the provisions of this rule. The Department notes that a related section of 49 CFR part 38 has been the source of some misunderstanding. Section 38.71(b)(2) provides that “Vehicles designed for, and operated on, pedestrian malls, city streets, or other areas where level-entry boarding is not practicable shall provide wayside or car-borne lifts, mini-high platforms, or other means of access in compliance with § 38.83
(b)or
(c)of this part.” The Department has received some suggestions that this provision should be interpreted to mean that, if there is any portion of a system in which level-entry boarding is not practicable, then the *entire* system can use some method other than level-entry boarding. Such an interpretation is incorrect. The authority to use alternatives to level-entry boarding pertains only to those portions of a system in which rail vehicles are “operated on” an area where level-entry boarding is not practicable. For example, suppose a light rail system's first three stops are on a pedestrian/transit mall where it is infeasible to provide level-entry boarding. The transit system could use car-borne lifts, mini-high platforms, etc. to provide access at those three stops. The system's next ten stops are part of a right-of-way in which level-entry boarding is practicable. In such a case, level-entry boarding would have to be provided at those ten stops. There is nothing inappropriate about the same system having different means of boarding in different locations, in such a case. We also caution against a potential misunderstanding of the sentence in § 810.5.3 that provides that “Low-level platforms shall be 8 inches minimum (205 mm) above top of rail.” This does not mean that high-level platforms are prohibited or that low-level platforms are the only design consistent with the rules. It simply means that where low-level platforms are otherwise permitted, such platforms must be at least 8 inches above the top of rail, except where vehicles are boarded from the street or a sidewalk. [FR Doc. E6-16680 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 900124-0127; I.D. 101906A] Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries; Suspension of Minimum Atlantic Surfclam Size Limit for Fishing Year 2007 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; suspension of the Atlantic surfclam minimum size limit. SUMMARY: NMFS suspends the minimum size limit of 4.75 inches (12.065 cm) for Atlantic surfclams for the 2007 fishing year. This action is taken under the authority of the implementing regulations for this fishery, which allow for the annual suspension of the minimum size limit based upon set criteria. The intended effect is to relieve the industry from a regulatory burden that is not necessary, as the majority of surfclams harvested are larger than the minimum size limit. DATES: Effective January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written inquiries may be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tobey Curtis, Fishery Management Specialist,
(978)281-9273; fax
(978)281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 648.72(c) of the regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)for the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries allows the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) to suspend annually, by publication of a notification in the **Federal Register** , the minimum size limit for Atlantic surfclams. This action may be taken unless discard, catch, and biological sampling data indicate that 30 percent of the Atlantic surfclam resource is smaller than 4.75 inches (12.065 cm) and the overall reduced size is not attributable to harvest from beds where growth of the individual clams has been reduced because of density-dependent factors. At its June 2004 meeting, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) voted to recommend that the Regional Administrator suspend the minimum size limit for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 fishing years. In accordance with the provisions of the FMP, the Regional Administrator will publish the suspension of the surfclam minimum size for the applicable fishing year if the proportion of undersized surfclams is under 30 percent of the total surfclam landings. Commercial surfclam data for 2006 were analyzed to determine the percentage of surfclams that were smaller than the minimum size requirement. The analysis indicated that 4.80 percent of the overall commercial landings were composed of surfclams that were less than 4.75 inches (12.065 cm). Based on these data, the Regional Administrator adopts the Council's recommendation and suspends the minimum size limit for Atlantic surfclams from January 1 through December 31, 2007, through this temporary rule. Classification Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment as notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The surfclam minimum size has been suspended consistently for many consecutive years. The industry has repeatedly supported the timely suspension of the size limit, to coincide with the beginning of the fishing year on January 1st, because of the unnecessary costs involved with complying with the minimum size limit if this rule is delayed beyond that date. This action relieves a burden in that, minus this suspension, the catch of clams would have to be inspected on board a vessel in order to cull out clams that did not meet the minimum size limit. This would be difficult because of the current highly mechanized process that removes the clams from the dredge and transports them to the 32-bushel cages, which are then sent to the processing plant. Given poor weather conditions in the fall/early winter, delay of this action beyond January 1, 2007, could also make the culling process dangerous. Culling out small clams will also increase the time it takes for a vessel owner to harvest the allocation for which the vessel is fishing, potentially increasing fuel costs and other vessel operation expenses, as well as the fishing mortality on the stock. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive the delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above. Delaying effectiveness of this rule would also promote confusion in the industry, which has not had to comply with a minimum size restriction for many years. This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: October 24, 2006. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-18201 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 060719196-6271-02; I.D. 071106F] RIN 0648-AU54 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Correction AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule; correction. SUMMARY: NMFS implements this final rule to clarify the expiration date of the limited entry program for *Illex* squid, reestablish a minimum mesh requirement for the butterfish fishery, and remove a regulatory requirement for annual specifications to be published by a specific date. These measures were initially implemented by the final rule implementing the specifications for the 2005 fishing year for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish (MSB). These regulatory measures were intended to be of a permanent nature, unlike the 2005 specifications themselves, which were effective through December 31, 2005. An error in the final rule caused these three measures to expire; this rule restores the regulatory requirements. This action is being taken by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). DATES: Effective November 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Environmental Assessment
(EA)and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), for the 2005 specifications are available from: Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at *http:/www.nero.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Frei, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9221, fax 978-281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background NMFS published final specifications for the 2005 fishing year for MSB in the **Federal Register** on March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13406), and the measures became effective on April 20, 2005. The final rule included regulatory changes that were meant to be permanent, as well as the MSB specifications, which were intended to be effective through December 31,2005. However, in the dates section of the final rule, the distinction between the effective dates of the 2005 annual specifications and the permanent regulations was not defined and, as a result, all of the measures of the final rule expired on January 1, 2006. This action permanently reestablishes the regulatory measures as intended. On August 2, 2006, a proposed rule was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 43707) soliciting public comment. This final rule addresses the public comment that was received during the comment period which ended on August 17, 2006. No changes were made to the rule. Comments and Responses One comment was received in response to the proposed rule. It identified issues about fisheries management that were not relevant to the proposed measures. Therefore, the comment is not responded to in this final rule. Final Measures Illex Moratorium Permits Framework 4 to the MSB Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)became effective July 1, 2004(69 FR 30839, June 1, 2004), and extended the limited entry program for the Illex squid fishery through July 1, 2009. In a subsequent regulatory action (March 21, 2005, 70 FR 13406), the text reflecting the extension was not identified as a permanent regulation and, therefore, expired on January 1, 2006. This final rule specifies the July 1, 2009, expiration date in the regulatory text, as was intended. Gear Specifications For Otter Trawl Butterfish Trips The final rule implementing the 2005 MSB specifications included a 3.0-inch (7.62-cm) minimum codend mesh size requirement for butterfish otter trawl trips of greater than 5,000 lb (2,268 kg). The measure was described in detail in the proposed rule for the 2005 MSB specifications (70 FR 1686, January 10, 2005) and is only summarized here. The purpose of this minimum mesh size requirement is to allow for escapement of unmarketable butterfish and butterfish below the size at which 50 percent are sexually mature. This minimum mesh size requirement reduces discards in the directed fishery, especially of small, sexually immature butterfish, which will increase the chance of successful recruitment and aid in stock rebuilding. This final rule re-establishes the minimum mesh size requirements in the regulations. Annual Specifications The final rule implementing the 2005 MSB specifications included a clarification to the regulations in § 648.21, removing references to the dates on which the proposed and final rules for the annual specifications must be published by the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), because it is not necessary to specify those dates in regulatory text. This rule re-instates that clarification by removing the unnecessary dates. Classification This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The final rule contains the FRFA prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a) for these measures, as analyzed in the 2005 MSB specifications. The FRFA consists of the IRFA and the summary of impacts and alternatives contained in this final rule. No comments were received on the IRFA or economic impacts of the rule. A copy of the IRFA can be obtained from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) or via the Internet at *http:/www.nero.noaa.gov* . Summary of Objective and Need A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, is contained in the preamble to this final rule and the proposed rule for the 2005 MSB specifications and is not repeated here. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comment One comment was received in response to the proposed rule. It identified issues about fisheries management that were not relevant to the proposed measures. Therefore, the comment is not responded to in this final rule. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply The number of potential fishing vessels in the 2005 fisheries were 72 for *Illex* squid, and 2,119 vessels with incidental catch permits for squid/butterfish, based on vessel permit issuance. There are no large entities participating in this fishery, as defined in section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts. Many vessels participate in more than one of these fisheries; therefore, the numbers are not additive. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities The re-establishment of the regulation to specify the expiration date of the limited entry program for *Illex* squid and the removal of the regulatory text that specified dates by which annual specifications must be published have no economic impacts. The economic impacts of the re-establishment of the measure to require the use of a 3.0-inch (7.62 cm) minimum codend mesh size for otter trawl trips landing more than 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) of butterfish were analyzed. During the period 2001-2003, 16,854 trips landed butterfish, based on unpublished NMFS Vessel Trip Report
(VTR)data. More than half (57 percent) of the landings of butterfish during 2001-2003 were taken with mesh sizes less than 3.0 inches (7.62 cm). Within this mesh size range, most were taken with mesh sizes between 2.5 inches (6.35 cm) and 3.0 inches (7.62 cm). The trips using this mesh size range (i.e., less than 3.0 inches (7.62 cm))could potentially be affected by the proposed mesh size. However, the 3.0-inch (7.62-cm) mesh requirement only applies to otter trawl trips landing 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) or more of butterfish. In terms of numerical frequency of trips, the vast majority of trips during 2001-2003 landed less than 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) of butterfish, based on NMFS VTR data. While 57 percent of the landings by weight were taken on trips of greater than 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) during the period, fewer than 1 percent of the trips landing butterfish landed more than 5,000 lb (2,278 kg). Only 26 vessels had trips that included landings of butterfish of 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) or more, and also reported using mesh sizes less than 3.0 inches (7.62 cm) on those trips. Therefore, it is expected that the economic impact of this measure will be negligible, because the vast majority of trips and vessels will not be affected. The costs for those vessels that do land butterfish on trips of more than 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) of butterfish should also be negligible because virtually all of those vessels already possess codends with 3.0-inch (7.62-cm) mesh or greater (because they are fishing for butterfish or in another fishery that uses nets of that size, e.g., whiting). Therefore, they should not incur any additional costs due to the 3.0 inch (7.62 cm) minimum mesh size requirement. This mesh size was selected to allow for escapement of unmarketable butterfish and butterfish below the size at which 50 percent are sexually mature. Based on inspection of the size composition of discarded butterfish from unpublished sea sampling data, the minimum marketable size for butterfish is approximately 5.5 inches (14.0 cm). Based on a scientifically supported selection factor of 1.8, the mesh size corresponding to an L50 of 14 cm is 7.78 cm, or about 3.0 inches. When the Council considered implementing a mesh size requirement for butterfish landings, the only alternative to the proposed action considered was not implementing any mesh size requirement. This alternative was rejected because of the need to reduce discards of juvenile butterfish. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: October 24, 2006. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.4, the introductory text of paragraph (a)(5)(i) is added to read as follows: § 684.4 Vessel permits.
(a)* * *
(5)* * *
(i)*Loligo squid/butterfish and Illex squid moratorium permits Illex squid moratorium is in effect until July 1, 2009).* 3. In § 648.14, paragraphs (a)(74), (p)(5), and (p)(11) are added to read as follows: § 648.14 Prohibitions.
(a)* * *
(74)Possess nets or netting with mesh not meeting the minimum size requirements of § 648.23, and not stowed in accordance with the requirements of § 648.23, if in possession of Loligo or butterfish harvested in or from the EEZ.
(p)* * *
(5)Fish with or possess nets or netting that do not meet the minimum mesh requirements for *Loligo* or butterfish specified in § 648.23(a), or that are modified, obstructed, or constricted, if subject to the minimum mesh requirements, unless the nets or netting are stowed in accordance with § 648.23(b) or the vessel is fishing under an exemption specified in § 648.23(a).
(11)Possess 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of butterfish, unless the vessel meets the minimum mesh size requirement specified in § 648.23(a)(2). 4. In § 648.21, paragraph
(d)is added to read as follows: § 648.21 Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.
(d)*Annual fishing measures.*
(1)The Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee will review the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee. Based on these recommendations and any public comment received thereon, the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee must recommend to the MAFMC appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC will review these recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public comment received thereon, must recommend to the Regional Administrator appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC′s recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. The Regional Administrator will review the recommendations and will publish notification in the **Federal Register** proposing specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded and providing a 30-day public comment period. If the proposed specifications differ from those recommended by the MAFMC, the reasons for any differences must be clearly stated and the revised specifications must satisfy the criteria set forth in this section. The MAFMC's recommendations will be available for inspection at the office of the Regional Administrator during the public comment period. If the annual specifications for squid, mackerel, and butterfish are not published in the **Federal Register** prior to the start of the fishing year, the previous year′s annual specifications, excluding specifications of TALFF, will remain in effect. The previous year′s specifications will be superceded as of the effective date of the final rule implementing the current year′s annual specifications.
(2)The Assistant Administrator will make a final determination concerning the specifications for each species and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications contained in the **Federal Register** notification will not be exceeded. After the Assistant Administrator considers all relevant data and any public comments, notification of the final specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded and responses to the public comments will be published in the **Federal Register** . If the final specification amounts differ from those recommended by the MAFMC, the reason(s) for the difference(s) must be clearly stated and the revised specifications must be consistent with the criteria set forth in paragraph
(b)of this section. 5. In § 648.23, paragraph
(a)is added to read as follows: § 648.23 Gear restrictions.
(a)*Mesh restrictions and exemptions.*
(1)Vessels subject to the mesh restrictions outlined in this paragraph
(a)may not have available for immediate use any net, or any piece of net, with a mesh size smaller than that required.
(2)Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of butterfish harvested in or from the EEZ may only fish with nets having a minimum codend mesh of 3 inches (76 mm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for at least 100 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net, or for codends with less than 100 meshes, the minimum mesh size codend shall be a minimum of one-third of the net measured from the terminus of the codend to the headrope.
(3)Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing *Loligo* harvested in or from the EEZ may only fish with nets having a minimum mesh size of 1 7/8 inches (48 mm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for at least 150 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net, or for codends with less than 150 meshes, the minimum mesh size codend shall be a minimum of one-third of the net measured from the terminus of the codend to the headrope, unless they are fishing during the months of June, July, August, and September for Illex seaward of the following coordinates (copies of a map depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request): Point N. Lat. W. Long. M1 43°58.0′ 67°22.0′ M2 43°50.0′ 68°35.0′ M3 43°30.0′ 69°40.0′ M4 43°20.0′ 70°00.0′ M5 42°45.0′ 70°10.0′ M6 42°13.0′ 69°55.0′ M7 41°00.0′ 69°00.0′ M8 41°45.0′ 68°15.0′ M9 42°10.0′ 67°10.0′ M10 41°18.6′ 66°24.8′ M11 40°55.5′ 66°38.0′ M12 40°45.5′ 68°00.0′ M13 40°37.0′ 68°00.0′ M14 40°30.0′ 69°00.0′ M15 40°22.7′ 69°00.0′ M16 40°18.7′ 69°40.0′ M17 40°21.0′ 71°03.0′ M18 39°41.0′ 72°32.0′ M19 38°47.0′ 73°11.0′ M20 38°04.0′ 74°06.0′ M21 37°08.0′ 74°46.0′ M22 36°00.0′ 74°52.0′ M23 35°45.0′ 74°53.0′ M24 35°28.0′ 74°52.0′
(4)Vessels fishing under this exemption may not have available for immediate use, as defined in paragraph
(b)of this section, any net, or any piece of net, with a mesh size less than 1 7/8 inches (48 mm) diamond mesh or any net, or any piece of net, with mesh that is rigged in a manner that is prohibited by paragraphs
(c)and
(d)of this section, when the vessel is landward of the specified coordinates. [FR Doc. E6-18188 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 209 Monday, October 30, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26107; Directorate Identifier 2004-SW-30-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-61 A, D, E, and V; Croman Corporation Model SH-3H, Carson Helicopters, Inc. Model S-61L; and Siller Helicopters Model CH-3E and SH-3A Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This document proposes adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the specified Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky), Croman Corporation (Croman), Carson Helicopters, Inc. (Carson), and Siller Helicopters (Siller) model helicopters. The AD would require, within a specified time, creating a component history card or equivalent record. The AD would also require recording the hours time-in-service
(TIS)and the external lift cycles (lift cycles) for each main gearbox input left and right freewheel unit
(IFWU)assembly. Also, the AD would require calculating a moving average of lift cycles per hour TIS at specified intervals on each IFWU assembly. The moving average would be used to determine if an IFWU assembly is used in repetitive external lift
(REL)or non-REL helicopter operations. If an IFWU assembly is used in REL operations, this AD would require a repetitive inspection, which requires a visual and dimensional inspection of the IFWU assembly at specified intervals. This AD would also require recording certain information and replacing each part that is beyond the wear limits or that exhibits visual surface distress with an airworthy part. In addition, this AD would require permanently marking the REL IFWU camshafts and gear housings with the letters “REL” on the surface of these parts. This proposal is prompted by an accident in which the left and right IFWU assembly on a helicopter slipped or disengaged resulting in both engines overspeeding, engine shutdowns, and loss of engine power to the transmissions. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent slipping in the IFWU assembly, loss of engine power to the transmissions, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically; • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically; • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590; • Fax: 202-493-2251; or • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Tech Support, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, Connecticut 06614, phone
(203)386-3001, fax
(203)386-5983. You may examine the comments to this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk Gustafson, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone
(781)238-7190, fax
(781)238-7170. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed under the caption ADDRESSES . Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26107, Directorate Identifier 2004-SW-30-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket Web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any comments, and other information in person at the Docket Management System
(DMS)Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5227) is located at the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building in Room PL-401 at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Discussion This document proposes adopting a new AD for the specified model helicopters. The AD would require, within a specified time, creating a component history card or equivalent record and counting and recording the hours TIS and the lift cycles for each IFWU assembly. A lift cycle is defined as an external load lift and subsequent release of that load. Also, the AD would require calculating a moving average of lift cycles per hour TIS at specified intervals on the IFWU assembly. The moving average would determine if an IFWU assembly is designated as an REL or Non-REL IFWU assembly. REL operations are those operations in which more than 6 lift cycles per hour TIS are performed based on the moving average. Non-REL operations are those operations in which 6 or less lift cycles per hour TIS are performed based on the moving average. Once an IFWU assembly is designated as an REL IFWU assembly, the moving average would no longer need to be calculated for that IFWU assembly. If an IFWU assembly is designated as an REL IFWU assembly, this AD would require a repetitive visual and dimensional inspection of the IFWU assembly at 500 hours TIS or 7500 lift cycles whichever occurs first. This AD would also require recording inspection information, providing a copy of the information to the FAA, and replacing each part that is beyond the wear or surface distress limits with an airworthy part. In addition, this AD would require permanently marking the IFWU camshaft and gear housing with the letters “REL” on the surface of these parts. The proposal is prompted by an accident in which the left and right IFWU assembly on a helicopter slipped or disengaged resulting in both engines overspeeding, engine shutdowns, and loss of engine power to the transmissions. The main cause of the slippage has been traced to excessive and accelerated wear conditions in the IFWU assembly associated with repeated external lifting operations. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent slipping in the IFWU assembly, loss of engine power to the transmissions, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. We have reviewed Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin No. 61835-67B, Revision B, dated August 11, 2003 (ASB). The ASB specifies implementing a moving average procedure for determining REL status. Tracking lift cycles and the moving average procedure is contained in Sikorsky All Operators Letter CCS-61AOL-04-0005. Further, the ASB describes procedures for establishing an inspection interval for REL and Non-REL operations, which are defined in section 1.B. of the ASB. The ASB defines operations as REL when the average number of lift cycles exceeds 6 per flight hour during any 250 flight-hour period based on a moving average calculated at intervals not to exceed 50 hours of operations. The ASB defines operations as Non-REL when the number of moving average lift cycles per hour is 6 or less. Although the ASB deals with transport category helicopter Models, S-61 L, N, NM, and R, manufactured under Type Certificate
(TC)No. 1H15, as well as the restricted category Models S-61 A, D, E, and V, manufactured under TC No. H2EA, we have issued a separate proposal for the transport category helicopter models under Docket No. FAA-2006-25824, Directorate Identifier 2004-SW-23-AD. Also, even though there is not an ASB for the Carson Model S-61L, Croman Model SH-3H, and Siller Model CH-3E helicopters, this AD applies to those models as well. This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs. Therefore, the proposed AD would require the following: • Within 10 hours TIS, • Create an external lift component history card or equivalent record for each IFWU assembly, part number (P/N) 61074-35000-041 through 61074-35000-063, unless done previously, and • Count and, at the end of each days operations, record the number of lift cycles performed and hours TIS. • Determine whether the IFWU assembly is an REL or Non-REL IFWU assembly by using a 250-hour TIS moving average as follows: • Upon reaching 250 hours TIS, calculate the first moving average of lift cycles. • If the calculation results in more than 6 lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is an REL IFWU assembly. • If the calculation results in 6 or less lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is a Non-REL IFWU assembly. • If you determine the IFWU assembly is a Non-REL IFWU assembly based on the first calculation of the 250-hour TIS moving average for lift cycles, thereafter at intervals of 50 hours TIS, recalculate the average lift cycles per hour TIS. • If the calculation results in more than 6 lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is an REL IFWU assembly. • If the calculation results in 6 or less lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is a Non-REL IFWU assembly. • Once an IFWU assembly is determined to be an REL IFWU assembly, it remains an REL IFWU assembly for the rest of its service life and is subject to the AD inspection requirements for REL IFWU assemblies. • Once an IFWU assembly is determined to be an REL IFWU assembly, you no longer need to perform the 250-hour TIS moving average calculation, but you must continue to count and record the lift cycles. • For each REL IFWU assembly, at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS or 7500 lift cycles, whichever occurs first, since the last IFWU assembly inspection, inspect for wear, surface distress, and endplay, record the information; and • Replace any IFWU assembly part whose average wear, wear marks, surface distress, or endplay exceeds the limits with an airworthy IFWU assembly part. • For each REL IFWU assembly, permanently mark IFWU camshafts, P/N S6135-20611, S6135-20614 and S6137-23075, and IFWU gear housings, P/N S6135-20695 and S6137-23057, with the letters “REL”. Mark the camshafts by applying etching ink on the surface of the part that is 0.5 inch square with the depth of the letters not to exceed 0.001 inch. After etching, neutralize the etched surface with oil to prevent corrosion. • For the next 24 months and within 10 days provide the recorded information required by this AD to the Manager of the Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. The actions would be required by following specified portions of the ASB described previously. We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 21 helicopters of U.S. registry, and would take about: • 4 work hours to measure and record the inspected dimensions, • 1 work hour to identify the REL parts, and • 3 work hours per year per helicopter to do the cycle counting, recording the lift cycle count, and inspecting each IFWU assembly, and • Cost about $80 per work hour. • Replacing the IFWU rollers and Oilite bushings would require no additional man-hour cost. • Required parts would cost about $600 to replace the IFWU rollers and $980 per helicopter to replace the IFWU Oilite bushings at each overhaul. Based on these figures, the total estimated cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators would be $46,620, assuming you replace the IFWU rollers and Oilite bushings on every helicopter and every IFWU assembly is determined to be an REL IFWU assembly based on the first lift cycle calculation. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, this proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a draft economic analysis of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the DMS to examine the draft economic analysis. Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation; Croman Corporation; Carson Helicopters, Inc.; and Siller Helicopters:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26107; Directorate Identifier 2004-SW-30-AD. Applicability Model S-61 A, D, E, V, SH-3H, S-61L; CH-3E, and SH-3A helicopters, certificated in any category. Compliance Required as indicated. To prevent slipping of the main gearbox input freewheel unit
(IFWU)assembly, loss of engine power, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, do the following:
(a)Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS),
(1)Create an external lift component history card or equivalent record for each IFWU assembly, part number (P/N) 61074-35000-041 through 61074-35000-063, unless accomplished previously, and
(2)Count and, at the end of each days operations, record the number of external lift cycles (lift cycles) performed and the hours TIS. A “lift cycle” is defined as the lifting of an external load and subsequent release of the load.
(b)Determine whether the IFWU assembly is an REL or non-REL IFWU assembly by using a 250-hour TIS moving average as follows:
(1)Upon reaching 250 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, calculate the first moving average of lift cycles by following the instructions in Section I of Appendix I of this AD.
(i)If the calculation under paragraph (b)(1) of this AD results in more than 6 lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is an REL IFWU assembly.
(ii)If the calculation under paragraph (b)(1) of this AD results in 6 or less lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is a Non-REL IFWU assembly.
(2)If you determine the IFWU assembly is a Non-REL IFWU assembly based on the first calculation of the 250-hour TIS moving average for lift cycles, thereafter at intervals of 50 hour TIS, recalculate the average lift cycles per hour TIS by following the instructions in Section II of Appendix 1 of this AD.
(i)If the calculation under paragraph (b)(2) of this AD results in more than 6 lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is an REL IFWU assembly.
(ii)If the calculation under paragraph (b)(2) of this AD results in 6 or less lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is a Non-REL IFWU assembly.
(3)Once an IFWU assembly is determined to be an REL IFWU assembly, it remains an REL IFWU assembly for the rest of its service life and is subject to the AD inspection requirements for REL IFWU assemblies.
(4)Once an IFWU assembly is determined to be an REL IFWU assembly, you no longer need to perform the 250-hour TIS moving average calculation, but you must continue to count and record the lift cycles. Note 1: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation issued an All Operators Letter
(AOL)CCS-61-AOL-04-0005, dated May 18, 2004, with an example and additional information about tracking cycles and the moving average procedure. You can obtain this AOL from the manufacturer at the address stated in the ADDRESSES portion of this AD.
(c)For each REL IFWU assembly, at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS or 7500 lift cycles, whichever occurs first, since the last IFWU assembly inspection:
(1)Inspect for wear, surface distress, and endplay by following paragraphs B.(1) through B.(6) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert Service Bulletin No. 61B35-67B, Revision B, dated August 11, 2003 (ASB). Record all the information specified in Figures 1 through 3 attached to the ASB. You may record this information on any suitable maintenance record, or you may use the Sikorsky evaluation forms provided in the ASB. This AD does not require you to contact Sikorsky.
(2)Replace any IFWU assembly part whose average wear, wear marks, surface distress, or endplay exceeds the limits stated in paragraph B.(1) through B.(6) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the ASB with an airworthy IFWU assembly part. Note 2: Sikorsky S-61 Overhaul Manual, Number SA 4045-83, Revision 20, dated August 15, 2003, as revised by Temporary Revisions 65-193, -194, -195, and -196, contains the overhaul procedures for the IFWU assembly.
(d)For each REL IFWU assembly, permanently mark IFWU camshafts, P/N S6135-20611, S6135-20614 and S6137-23075, and IFWU gear housings, P/N S6135-20695 and S6137-23057, with the letters “REL”. Mark the camshafts by applying etching ink on the surface of the part that is 0.5 inch square with the depth of the letters not to exceed 0.001 inch. After etching, neutralize the etched surface with oil to prevent corrosion.
(e)For the next 24 months and within 10 days after completing the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, provide a copy of the recorded information to the Manager of the Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. Note 3: In the ASB, Sikorsky requests copies of the completed inspection forms, Figures 1 through 3 to their ASB. This AD does not require you to provide these forms to Sikorsky.
(f)Information collection requirements contained in this AD have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(g)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manger, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Kirk Gustafson, Aviation Safety Engineer, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone
(781)238-7190, fax
(781)238-7170, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance. Appendix I SECTION I: The first moving average of lift cycles per hour TIS. The first moving average calculation is performed on the IFWU assembly when the external lift component history card record reflects that the IFWU assembly has reached its first 250 hours TIS. To perform the calculation, divide the total number of lift cycles performed during the first 250 hours TIS by 250. The result will be the first moving average calculation of lift cycles per hour TIS. SECTION II: Subsequent moving average of lift cycles per hour TIS. Subsequent moving average calculations are performed on the IFWU assembly at intervals of 50 hour TIS after the first moving average calculation. Subtract the total number of lift cycles performed during the first 50-hour TIS interval used in the previous moving average calculation from the total number of lift cycles performed on the IFWU assembly during the previous 300 hours TIS. Divide this result by 250. The result will be the next or subsequent moving average calculation of lift cycles per hour TIS. SECTION III: Sample calculation for subsequent 50 hour TIS intervals. Assume the total number of lift cycles for the first 50 hour TIS interval used in the previous moving average calculation = 450 lift cycles and the total number of lift cycles for the previous 300 hours TIS = 2700 lift cycles. The subsequent moving average of lift cycles per hour TIS = (2700−450) divided by 250 = 9 lift cycles per hour TIS. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 13, 2006. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-18147 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2005-LA-0003; FRL-8234-7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Transportation Conformity AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revisions submitted by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ)on May 13, 2005. This revision serves to incorporate recent changes to the federal conformity rule into the state conformity SIP. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Wade, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone
(214)665-7247; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *wade.peggy@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the state's submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should 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 adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule that is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: October 5, 2006. Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E6-18051 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0548b; FRL-8225-6] Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan, Clark County AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Clark County portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern particulate matter
(PM)emissions from fugitive dust sources, such as open areas, unpaved roads, and construction activities. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by November 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0548b, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions. 2. E-mail: *steckel.andrew@epa.gov* . 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments 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 Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at either
(415)947-4111, or *wamsley.jerry@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following Clark County rules: Section 90—Fugitive Dust from Open Areas and Vacant Lots; Section 92—Fugitive Dust from Unpaved Parking Lots, Material Handling and Storage Yards, and Vehicle and Equipment Storage Yards; Section 93—Fugitive Dust from Paved Roads and Street Sweeping Equipment; and, Section 94—Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities. In the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** , we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. 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. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action. Dated: July 27, 2006. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on October 25, 2006. [FR Doc. E6-18157 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [FRL-8235-4] Washington: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Washington has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, (RCRA). EPA proposes to authorize the State for the program changes. DATES: Send your written comments by November 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R10-RCRA-2006-0810 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: *kocourek.nina@epamail.epa.gov.* 3. Fax: 206-553-8509. 4. Mail: Nina Kocourek, U.S. EPA, Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop AWT-122, Seattle, Washington 98101. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to EPA-10-RCRA-2006-0810. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public file 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 that 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 file 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 and any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://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 *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, phone,
(206)553-1289. The EPA Region 10 Library is open from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Kocourek, U.S. EPA, Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop AWT-122, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone,
(206)553-6502, e-mail: *kocourek.nina@epa.gov* ; or Patricia Hervieux, Washington Department of Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, Washington 98503, phone
(360)407-6756, e-mail: *pher461@ecy.wa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is authorizing the revisions by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we receive written comments that oppose this authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose this authorization, EPA will publish a document in the **Federal Register** withdrawing the immediate final rule before it takes effect. EPA will then address public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will withdraw that part of the immediate final rule. However, the authorization of the program changes that are not opposed by any comments will become effective on the date established in the immediate final rule. A **Federal Register** withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will become effective and which part is being withdrawn. EPA may not provide further opportunity for comment. Any parties interested in commenting on this action must do so at this time. For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: October 18, 2006. Ron Kreinzebeck, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. E6-18214 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No.060823223-6223-01; I.D. 072706B] RIN 0648-AT63 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Tilefish Fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of proposed rule. SUMMARY: NMFS withdraws the proposed rule published on September 6, 2006, which proposed an increase in the annual tilefish total allowable landings
(TAL)for the remainder of the 10-year stock rebuilding period. Thus, the previously established annual tilefish TAL of 1.995 million lb (905 mt) remains in effect. DATES: The withdrawal of the proposed rule to increase the total allowable landings for the tilefish fishery (71 FR 52519, September 6, 2006) is effective October 27, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian R. Hooker, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978)281-9220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulations implementing the fishery management plan
(FMP)for the tilefish fishery prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and N. The FMP (section 1.2.1.2) states that, after a “benchmark” stock assessment, conducted at a Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) sponsored stock assessment workshop (SAW), and subsequent review by the stock assessment review committee (SARC), from which the biological reference points could change, a change in the TAL may be warranted. The 41st SAW met in June 2005, assessed the tilefish stock, and concluded that the tilefish stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Fishing mortality in 2004 was estimated to be 87% of Fmsy, and total biomass in 2005 was estimated to be 72% of Bmsy, a level above that projected for 2005 in the 1998 assessment (59% of Bmsy). However, the SAW also concluded that, given the high variance associated with the terminal year estimates of 2004 F/Fmsy and 2005 B/Bmsy ratios, biomass projections could not be conducted, as these were considered too uncertain to form the basis for evaluating likely biomass recovery schedules relative to Bmsy under various TAL strategies. As a result of the findings from the 41st SAW, the Council convened the Tilefish Monitoring Committee in April 2006 to consider the results of the stock assessment and to make recommendations to the Council's Tilefish Committee. Based on the Tilefish Monitoring Committee's recommendation that a slight increase in the TAL could be justified, the Council recommended to NMFS that the TAL be increased from 905 mt to 987 mt live (whole) weight ( a 9-percent increase), beginning with the fishing year that starts November 1, 2006. The Council also argued that an increase in the tilefish TAL is justified because the fishery has been operating at or near the proposed TAL level for several years as a result of an accounting error by which the quota was erroneously monitored by landed (gutted) weight instead of live (whole) weight, with no observed adverse consequences to the stock. A proposed rule soliciting public comment was published in the **Federal Register** on September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52519). The comment period ended on September 21, 2006. Basis for Withdrawal Although the Tilefish Monitoring Committee suggested that a small increase in the tilefish TAL would not jeopardize the recovery of the stock, the NEFSC raised several concerns about the lack of data used to reach these conclusions. Specifically, the strong 1999 year class is a primary determinant of the population's estimated intrinsic rate of increase. If this year class does not persist as expected, the stock assessment model could show a much lower estimate of the population's productivity at the next stock assessment workshop. In the 41st SAW stock assessment report there were eight specific sources of uncertainty noted, with two major sources of uncertainty, that could impact the estimate of tilefish population estimates. The two major sources of uncertainty involved the catch per unit of effort measurement, which was not able to take into account changes in fishing practices or spatial distribution of tilefish, and the estimate of population biomass and size structure, since these estimates were derived from sparse length frequency data and fishery dependent data sources. These sources of uncertainty are due primarily to the fact that tilefish are rarely captured in the NEFSC bottom trawl surveys, resulting in full reliance on fishery dependent bottom longline data, for which only trip-level data are captured. Based on this uncertainty in the 2005 stock assessment, and the fact that the next stock assessment for tilefish is not scheduled to be completed until at least late 2007, affording little time to make any necessary adjustments to the TAL if population productivity estimates prove to be lower than that given in the 2005 stock assessment, and given the 10-year rebuilding period ends in 2011, an increase in the tilefish TAL is not justified at this time. Thus, the TAL for 2007 will remain unchanged from the current level. Comments and Responses During the comment period on the proposed rule seven comments were received. Two comments were opposed to an increase in the TAL, and five comments supported the proposed increase in the TAL. Commenters included individual fishermen, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Montauk Tilefish Association, the New Bedford Seafood Consulting, and the general public. *Comment 1* : Two comments were received opposing the increase in the tilefish TAL. One commenter did not offer a reason or justification for the opposition, just asking that the quota not be changed. A second comment opposed the increase in the tilefish TAL due to a lack of trust in fisheries data. *Response* : Due to high scientific uncertainty in the 2005 tilefish stock assessment and the timing of the next stock assessment in relation to the end of the tilefish stock rebuilding period, NMFS is withdrawing the proposed rule. NMFS is concerned that there would be significant time to meet the FMP's rebuilding goal should the results of the most recent assessment be overly optimistic. Therefore the TAL will remain unchanged. *Comment 2* : Five comments were received in favor of the increase in the tilefish TAL. In general all five comments supported the increase based upon the Council's rationale that the tilefish fishery has been operating at or near the proposed TAL due to an accounting error, without any observed adverse consequences to the stock. Two commenters expressed the view that the proposed 9-percent increase in the TAL was a correction of miscommunication made during the early implementation of the FMP that eventually resulted in the TAL being effectively reduced by 9-percent in May 2005 when the accounting error was corrected (the 9-percent reduction in the TAL was the result of the mathematical conversion of the landed weight to whole weight for the purposes of monitoring the quota). *Response* : Although NMFS acknowledges that there was miscommunication in the early implementation of the FMP regarding the correct weight by which to monitor the quota, NMFS has the responsibility to correct the error to reflect what is specified in the FMP. It is clear, after discussions with both the Council and the NEFSC, that the annual TAL specified in the FMP is based on live (whole) fish weight. The proposed rule to increase the TAL, and effectively regain quota levels equivalent to that prior to May 2005, is not justified due to the high degree of scientific uncertainty in the 2005 tilefish stock assessment and the fact that the stock is not yet rebuilt. As a result of the withdrawal of the aforementioned proposed rule, the tilefish TAL for FY 2007 and subsequent years of the rebuilding program will remain at 1.995 million lb (905 mt), unless superceded by additional rulemaking consistent with the provisions of the FMP. The FMP dictates that the TAL be divided between the three limited access tilefish permit categories after the TAL is reduced by 5 percent to account for incidental tilefish landings (open-access Incidental permit category) as follows: Sixty-six percent (1,250,865 lb (466,875 kg)) to Full-time Tier 1; 15 percent (284,288 lb (106,108 kg)) to Full-time Tier 2; and 19 percent (360,098 lb (163,338 kg)) to Part-time vessels. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: October 23, 2006. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-18187 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 209 Monday, October 30, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of the Scientific Review Panel at the National Animal Disease Center, Ames, IA AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics, Agricultural Research Service (ARS). ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The United States Department of Agriculture announces a meeting of the Scientific Review Panel at the National Animal Disease Center, Ames, Iowa. DATES: November 16-17, 2006, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Central Time. Written requests to make oral comments at the meeting must be received by the contact person identified herein at least three business days before the meeting. ADDRESSES: City Council Chambers, City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Shafer, Midwest Area Director, USDA-ARS, 1815 North University Street, Peoria, Illinois 61604; Telephone
(309)681-6602; Fax
(309)681-6684; E-mail *sshafer@mwa.ars.usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 4, 2006, the City of Ames, Iowa, received allegations that wastes from areas at the National Animal Disease Center
(NADC)with animals challenged with prions were not properly treated prior to discharge to the City wastewater plant. USDA, in cooperation with the City of Ames, has convened an expert panel to review scientific information about deactivation of prions and assess practices used at NADC to treat liquid wastes from areas where animals with prions are housed and handled that enter the Ames wastewater treatment system. (Note: For the purposes of this panel and its review, prions are defined as specific proteins that are abnormally shaped and can cause transmissible diseases associated with the allegations). The panel had its first meeting on August 23, 2006, at the Ames City Hall; preparatory work on August 23, August 24, and September 20; a conference call meeting on October 18, 2006; and (pending at the time of this writing) a conference call on November 3. A meeting of the panel on November 16-17, 2006, in Ames will complete implementation of the panel's charge to evaluate four main issues related to the handling and disposal of potentially prion-contaminated materials in wastewater from the NADC:
(1)Identify scientifically accepted methods for effectively destroying prions;
(2)Assess the concerns raised regarding NADC's current and past methods for the destruction of prions;
(3)Determine the risk posed to humans and the environment from the current, as well as previous, methods for the destruction of prions utilized at NADC; and
(4)If remediation is needed, provide scientifically sound approaches for corrective action(s) that may be taken. Final conclusions of the review will be announced on November 17, when the panel will present to the City of Ames and USDA a written report that documents the panel's findings for the four main issues being evaluated. On November 17, 2006, after the panel concludes business, reasonable provision (up to 30 minutes total) will be made for verbal comments of no more than three minutes each in duration. The meeting will be open to the public, but space is limited. If you want to be assured of a seat at this meeting, you must register by contacting the contact person named above at least 5 days prior to the meeting. Please provide your name, title, business affiliation, address, and telephone and fax numbers when you register. If you require a sign language interpreter or other special accommodation due to disability, please indicate those needs at the time of registration. Pre-registrations will be limited to 80 people; others may be able to attend on a space-available basis. Dated: October 24, 2006. Caird E. Rexroad, Jr., Associate Administrator, Agricultural Research Service. [FR Doc. E6-18191 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of the Scientific Review Panel at the National Animal Disease Center, Ames, IA AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics, Agricultural Research Service (ARS). ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The United States Department of Agriculture announces a conference call meeting of the Scientific Review Panel at the National Animal Disease Center, Ames, Iowa. DATES: November 3, 2006, 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. Central Time. ADDRESSES: City Council Chambers, City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010 (access to a monitor of the conference call). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Shafer, Midwest Area Director, USDA-ARS, 1815 North University Street, Peoria, Illinois 61604; Telephone
(309)681-6602; Fax
(309)681-6684; E-mail *sshafer@mwa.ars.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 4, 2006, the City of Ames, Iowa, received allegations that wastes from areas at the National Animal Disease Center
(NADC)with animals challenged with prions were not properly treated prior to discharge to the City wastewater plant. USDA, in cooperation with the City of Ames, has convened an expert panel to review scientific information about deactivation of prions and assess practices used at NADC to treat liquid wastes from areas where animals with prions are housed and handled that enter the Ames wastewater treatment system. (Note: For the purposes of this panel and its review, prions are defined as specific proteins that are abnormally shaped and can cause transmissible diseases associated with the allegations). The panel had its first meeting on August 23, 2006, at the Ames City Hall; preparatory work on August 23, August 24, and September 20; and a conference call meeting on October 18, 2006. A conference call meeting on November 3, 2006, will continue implementation of the panel's charge to evaluate four main issues related to the handling and disposal of potentially prion-contaminated materials in wastewater from the NADC:
(1)Identify scientifically accepted methods for effectively destroying prions;
(2)Assess the concerns raised regarding NADC's current and past methods for the destruction of prions;
(3)Determine the risk posed to humans and the environment from the current, as well as previous, methods for the destruction of prions utilized at NADC; and
(4)If remediation is needed, provide scientifically sound approaches for corrective action(s) that may be taken. Final conclusions of the review will be developed during a meeting at a later date, also to be announced. At the conclusion of its review, the panel will prepare a written report that documents the panel's findings for the four main issues being evaluated. The meeting on November 3 will be held by conference call. The public may monitor the panel's discussion via a speaker phone in the Ames City Hall's Council Chamber. No oral comments will be accepted from the public during the call, however, written public comment received by letter, fax, or e-mail to the contact person named above by close of business on Friday, November 10, 2006, will be provided to the panel members. Although access to the conference call monitor will be open to the public, space is limited. If you want to be assured of a seat at this meeting, you must register by contacting the contact person named above at least 5 days prior to the meeting. Please provide your name, title, business affiliation, address, and telephone and fax numbers when you register. If you require a sign language interpreter or other special accommodation due to disability, please indicate those needs at the time of registration. Pre-registrations will be limited to 80 people; others may be able to attend on a space-available basis. Dated: October 24, 2006. Caird E. Rexroad, Jr., Associate Administrator, Agricultural Research Service. [FR Doc. E6-18189 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0032] Codex Alimentarius Commission: Sixth Session of the Codex ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived From Biotechnology AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food And Drug Administration
(FDA)are sponsoring a public meeting on November 14, 2006 to discuss the agenda items coming before the Sixth Session of the Codex *ad hoc* Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology
(FBT)of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) and present draft U.S. positions on the agenda items. The Sixth Session of the FBT will be held in Chiba, Japan, November 27-December 1, 2006. The Under Secretary and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to comment on the agenda items that will be debated at this forthcoming Session of the FBT. DATES: The public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 14, 2006 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in Room 107A, Jamie Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC. Documents related to the Sixth Session of the FBT will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.* *For Further Information About the Sixth Session of the FBT, Contact:* U.S. Delegate, Dr. Eric Flamm, Senior Advisor, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (HF-23), Parklawn Building, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone
(301)827-0591, Fax
(301)827-4774, E-mail: *eric.flamm@fda.hhs.gov.* *For Further Information About the Public Meeting Contact:* Edith Kennard, Staff Officer, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:
(202)720-5261, Fax:
(202)720-3157, E-mail: *edith.kennard@fsis.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Codex Alimentarius (Codex) was established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in trade. In the United States, USDA, FDA, and the Environmental Protection Agency manage and carry out U.S. Codex activities. The Codex *ad hoc* Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology was established by the 23rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1999 to elaborate standards, guidelines, or other principles as relates to foods derived from biotechnology. The Task Force completed its mandates within its four-year timeframe and was dissolved by the 26th Session of the Commission. The 27th Session re-established the Task Force for another four-year period. The Task Force is hosted by the government of Japan. Issues To Be Discussed at the Public Meeting The following items on the agenda for the Sixth Session of the FBT will be discussed during the public meeting: • Matters referred to the Committee from other Codex bodies. • Review of the Work by International Organizations on the Evaluation of the Safety and Nutrition Aspects of Foods Derived from Biotechnology. • Proposed Draft Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Animals. • Proposed Draft Annex (scoping document) to the Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants; Food Safety Assessment of Food Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants Modified for Nutritional or Health Benefits. • Discussion Paper on Comparative Food Composition Analysis of Staple Foods. • Discussion Paper on Sanitary Surveillance after Placing on the Market Foods Derived from Biotechnology. • Discussion Paper on Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Animals Exposed to Protection against Disease through Gene Therapy or Recombinant-DNA Vaccines. Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Japanese Secretariat to the Meeting. Members of the public may access copies of these documents at *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/ current.asp.* Public Meeting At the November 14, 2006 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on these agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate of the FBT, Dr. Eric Flamm at *eric.flamm@fda.hhs.gov.* Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the Sixth Session of the FBT. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ regulations/2006_Notices _Index/.* FSIS also will make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and _events/email_subscription/* . Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account. Done at Washington, DC, on: October 25, 2006. F. Edward Scarbrough, U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. [FR Doc. E6-18145 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD Meeting AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has scheduled its regular business meetings to take place in Washington, DC, Monday and Wednesday, November 13 and 15, 2006, at the times and location noted below. DATES: The schedule of events is as follows: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:30 a.m.-Noon, Planning and Evaluation Committee. 1:30-2:30 p.m., Budget Committee. 2:30-4:30, Technical Programs Committee. Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10 a.m.-Noon, Committee of the Whole on Rulemaking (Closed Session). 1:30-3 p.m., Board Meeting. 3-4:30 p.m., Courthouse Access Advisory Committee Presentation. ADDRESSES: All meetings will be held at the Marriott at Metro Center Hotel, 775 12th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the meetings, please contact Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director,
(202)272-0001 (voice) and
(202)272-0082 (TTY). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the Board meeting, the Access Board will consider the following agenda items: • Approval of the July 25, 2006 draft Board Meeting Minutes. • Planning and Evaluation Committee Report. • Budget Committee Report. • Technical Programs Committee Report. • Committee of the Whole on Rulemaking Report. Immediately following the Board meeting, the Access Board will hear the final report of the Courthouse Access Advisory Committee (CAAC); the CAAC presentation is noticed separately in today's **Federal Register** . All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, computer assisted real-time transcription (CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants. Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E6-18165 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD Courthouse Access Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has established an advisory committee to advise the Board on issues related to the accessibility of courthouses covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. The Courthouse Access Advisory Committee (Committee) includes organizations with an interest in courthouse accessibility. This notice announces the dates, times and location of the next Committee meeting, which will be open to the public. DATES: The Committee is scheduled to present its recommendations to the Board on November 15, 2006 at 3 p.m. The Committee may tentatively meet on November 14, 2006 (beginning at 1 p.m. and ending at 5 p.m.) and on November 15, 2006 (beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 12 p.m.) to discuss and approve final deliverables and its presentation to the Board. Changes to this schedule will be posted on the Board's Web site at *http:// www.access-board.gov/caac/index.htm.* ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Marriott at Metro Center Hotel, 775 12th Street NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Yanchulis, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number
(202)272-0026 (Voice);
(202)272-0082 (TTY). E-mail *yanchulis@access-board.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2004, as part of the outreach efforts on courthouse accessibility, the Access Board established a Federal advisory committee to advise the Access Board on issues related to the accessibility of courthouses, particularly courtrooms, including best practices, design solutions, promotion of accessible features, educational opportunities, and the gathering of information on existing barriers, practices, recommendations, and guidelines. On October 12, 2004, the Access Board published a notice appointing 31 members to the Courthouse Access Advisory Committee. 69 FR 60608 (October 12, 2004). Members of the Committee include designers and architects, disability groups, members of the judiciary, court administrators, representatives of the codes community and standard-setting entities, government agencies, and others with an interest in the issues to be explored. The Committee held its initial meeting in November 2004. Members discussed the current requirements for accessibility, committee goals and objectives, and the establishment of subcommittees. The Committee established three subcommittees: Education, Courtrooms and Courthouses (areas unique to courthouses other than courtrooms). The Committee has held quarterly meetings in the following cities: Phoenix (February 2005), Washington, DC (May 2005), Chicago (August 2005), San Francisco (November 2005), Washington, DC (February 2006), Miami (May 2006), and Boston (July 2006). At each of these meetings, Committee members toured area courthouses and held full Committee and subcommittee sessions. At its next and final meeting in Washington, DC, the Committee will present its recommendations to the Board. Meeting minutes and other information about the Committee are available on the Access Board's Web site at *http://www.access-board.gov/caac/index.htm.* Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons can attend the meetings and communicate their views. The meeting will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Real-time captioning will be provided. Individuals who require sign language interpreters should contact David Yanchulis by November 7, 2006. Persons attending Committee meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants. This document is available in alternate formats (cassette tape, Braille, large print, or computer disk). This document is also available on the Board's Internet site ( *http://www.access-board.gov/caac/meeting.htm* ). Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E6-18166 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request DOC will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* The 2007 Economic Census of Island Areas, which includes Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. *Form Number(s):* IA-97120, IA-97220, IA-97123, IA-97223, IA-97130, IA-97230, IA-97142, IA-97242, IA-97144, IA-97244, IA-97152, IA-97252, IA-97172, IA-97272, IA-97180, IA-97280, IA-97190, IA-97290, IA-98163, IA-98173, IA-98183, IA-98193. *Agency Approval Number:* None. *Type of Request:* New collection. *Burden:* 54,500 hours in Fiscal Year 2008. *Number of Respondents:* 59,000. *Avg Hours Per Response:* .92 hours. *Needs and Uses:* The 2007 Economic Census of Island Areas, which includes Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, is part of the 2007 Economic Census. The 2007 Economic Census of Island Areas will cover the following sectors (as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)): Mining, Utilities, Construction, Manufacturing; Wholesale and Retail Trades, Transportation and Warehousing, Information; Finance and Insurance; Real Estate and Rental and Leasing; Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; Management of Companies and Enterprises; Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services; Educational Services; Health Care and Social Assistance; Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation; Accommodation and Food Services; and Other Services (except Public Administration). This scope is equivalent to that of the stateside economic census. The economic census provides the only source for dependable, comparable data at a geographic level consistent with U.S. counties. The 2007 Economic Census of Island Areas is particularly important because of the rapid and varied changes taking place in the economies of these areas. The economic census is the primary source of dependable facts about the structure and functioning of the economies of each Island Area, and features the only recognized source of data at a geographic level equivalent to U.S. counties. Economic census statistics serve as part of the framework for the national accounts of the Island Areas and provide essential information for government (Federal and local), business, and the general public. The governments of the Island Areas rely on the economic census as an important part of the framework for their income and product accounts, input-output tables, economic indexes, and other composite measures that serve as the factual basis for economic policy-making, planning, and program administration. Further, the census provides benchmarks for surveys of business which track short-term economic trends, serve as economic indicators, and contribute critical source data for current estimates of the gross product of the Island Areas. In addition, industry, business, academia, and the general public use information from the economic census for evaluating markets, preparing business plans, making business decisions, developing economic models and forecasts, conducting economic research, and establishing benchmarks for their own sample surveys. If the economic census were not conducted in the Island Areas, the Federal government would lose the only dependable source of detailed comprehensive information of the economies of these areas. Additionally, the governments of the Island Areas would lose vital source data and benchmarks for their national accounts, input-output tables, and other composite measures of economic activity, causing a substantial degradation in the quality of these important statistics. Further, the governments of the Island Areas would lose critical benchmarks for sample-based economic surveys. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Frequency:* One time. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13, U.S.C., Sections 131 and 224. *OMB Desk Officer:* Brian Harris-Kojetin,
(202)395-7314. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dhynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail ( *bharrisk@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: October 25, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-18163 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census [Docket Number 061012263-6263-01] Annual Wholesale Trade Survey AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of determination. SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is conducting the Annual Wholesale Trade Survey (AWTS), formerly named the Annual Trade Survey. The Census Bureau has determined a need to collect data covering annual sales, e-commerce sales, inventories, purchases, commissions, and operating expenses for the wholesale trade sector. These data are important inputs to the Bureau of Economic Analysis's preparation of National Income and Products accounts and its annual input-output tables. ADDRESSES: The Census Bureau will furnish report forms to organizations included in the survey. Additional copies are available upon written request to the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-0101. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John R. Trimble, Chief, Annual Wholesale and Special Projects Branch, Service Sector Statistics Division, on
(301)763-7223 or by e-mail on *John.R.Trimble@census.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The AWTS is a continuation of similar wholesale trade surveys conducted each year since 1978 for wholesale distributors, since 2003 for manufacturers' sales branches and offices (MSBOs), and since 2005 for agents, brokers and electronic markets (AGBRs). This survey provides data on annual sales, e-commerce sales, inventories, and total operating expenses for wholesale distributors and MSBOs; purchases of goods for sale for wholesale distributors; and commissions and sales on the account of others for AGBRs. The Census Bureau will require a selected sample of firms operating wholesale establishments in the United States (with sales size determining the probability of selection) to report in the 2006 AWTS. The sample will provide, with measurable reliability, statistics on the subjects specified above. We will furnish report forms to the firms covered by this survey and will require their submission within 30 days after receipt by mail, fax, or over the Internet, using the Census Taker option. Census Taker is a software system that provides a highly secure and user-friendly means of collecting survey and census information. The Census Bureau is authorized to take surveys that are necessary to furnish current data on the subject covered by the censuses authorized by Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 182, 224, and 225. This survey will provide continuing and timely national statistics data on wholesale trade for the period between economic censuses. For 2006, the survey will include separate samples for wholesale distributors, MSBOs and AGBRs companies in the wholesale sector. The data collected in this survey will be similar and within the general scope and nature of those in the economic census. The data collected will provide a sound statistical basis for the formation of policy by various government agencies. These data also apply to a variety of public and business needs. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)unless that collection of information displays a current valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. In accordance with the PRA, Title 44, U.S.C., Chapter 35, OMB approved this survey under OMB control number 0607-0195. Based upon the foregoing, I have directed that an annual survey be conducted for the purpose of collecting these data. Dated: October 24, 2006. Charles Louis Kincannon, Director, Bureau of the Census. [FR Doc. E6-18075 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Docket T-4-2006 Foreign-Trade Zone 222 Montgomery, AL Application for Temporary/Interim Manufacturing Authority Arvin Meritor, Inc. (Automotive Parts) An application has been submitted to the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Montgomery Area Chamber of Commerce, grantee of FTZ 222, requesting temporary/interim manufacturing (T/IM) authority within FTZ 222 at the Arvin Meritor, Inc. (Arvin Meritor) automotive parts manufacturing facility located in Montgomery, Alabama. The application was filed on October 20, 2006. The Arvin Meritor facility (150 employees, annual capacity for up to 1.5 million door modules) is located at 139 Folmar Parkway, within the Interstate Industrial Park (FTZ 222 - Site 1). Under T/IM procedures, Arvin Meritor would assemble door modules (HTSUS 8708.29) for the Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC plant (SZ 222A) using foreign-sourced latch assemblies (HTSUS 8301.20). T/IM authority could be granted for a period of up to two years. Arvin Meritor has also submitted a request for permanent FTZ manufacturing authority (for which Board filing is pending), which includes a range of additional inputs. FTZ procedures would exempt Arvin Meritor from Customs duty payments on the foreign components used in production for export to non-NAFTA countries. On domestic shipments transferred in-bond to U.S. automobile assembly plants with subzone status, no duties would be paid on the foreign origin latch assemblies used in automobile and light truck production until the finished vehicles are formally entered for consumption, at which time the finished automobile duty rate (2.5%) would be applied to the foreign-origin components. For the individual door modules withdrawn directly by Arvin Meritor for Customs entry, the finished automotive part rate (2.5%) could be applied to the foreign origin latch assemblies (5.7%). The company indicates that it would also realize savings under FTZ procedures for the following reasons: duty deferral, duty exemption on scrap/waste, and logistical/paperwork efficiencies. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the following address: Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 1115, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The closing period for their receipt is November 29, 2006. A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at the address listed above. Dated: October 20, 2006. Pierre V. Duy, Acting Executive Secretary [FR Doc. E6-18179 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on November 16, 2006 at 9 a.m. in Room 3884 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology. Agenda 1. Opening Remarks and Introductions. 2. Presentation of Papers and Comments by the Public. 3. Presentation from the Office of Technology Evaluation. 4. Report on Wassenaar Experts Meeting. 5. Discussion of MPETAC 2007 Proposal. 6. MPETAC Future Activities. 7. Report on Proposed Changes to the Export Administration Regulation. 8. Other Business. The meeting will be open to the public and a limited number of seats will be available. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials two weeks prior to Yvette Springer at *Yspringer@bis.doc.gov.* For more information, please contact Ms. Springer at 202-482-2813. Dated: October 24, 2006. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 06-8956 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 30
Traces to 30 documents
CFR
- Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA, including South and Southwest Passes.§ 110.195
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
- Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention.§ 201.40
- New construction.§ 36.401
- General requirements: References.§ 21.21
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
register
U.S. Code
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Transferred§ 471
- Copyright Office regulations§ 702
- Definitions§ 601
- Purposes§ 3501
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Authorized State hazardous waste programs§ 6926
- Indian country defined§ 1151
- Authorities of Administrator§ 6912
- General powers§ 322
- Rule making§ 553
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
- Final regulatory flexibility analysis§ 604
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
59 references not yet in our index
- 33 CFR 110
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- 37 CFR 201
- 40 CFR 52
- 40 CFR 51
- 40 CFR 93
- 167 F.3d 641
- 40 CFR 93.101
- 40 CFR 93.102
- 40 CFR 93.104
- 40 CFR 93.106
- 40 CFR 93.109
- 40 CFR 93.110
- 40 CFR 93.116
- 40 CFR 93.118
- 40 CFR 93.119
- 40 CFR 93.120
- 40 CFR 93.121
- 40 CFR 93.117
- 40 CFR 93.124-93
- 40 CFR 93.105
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 CFR 81
- 40 CFR 271
- 40 CFR 262
- 40 CFR 270.1(c)
- 40 CFR 260.10
- 40 CFR 273.13
- 40 CFR 273.9
- 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4)
- 40 CFR 261.6(c)(2)
- 40 CFR 264.13(a)(1)
- 40 CFR 264.13(2)
- 40 CFR 261
- 40 CFR 261.4(a)(20)
- 40 CFR 261.38
+ 19 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Final rule
Cite33 CFR 110
Cite5 USC 601-612
Cites 89 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources