Unknown. Final rule

40,904 words·~186 min read·/register/2006/10/31/06-55528·

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2006-10-31.xml --- 71 210 Tuesday, October 31, 2006 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Commodity Credit Corporation See Forest Service Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Plant-related quarantine, domestic: Boll weevil, 63707-63717 E6-18150 Chemical Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 63751-63752 06-9010 Coast Guard Coast Guard NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

National boating safety activities; national, nongovernmental, nonprofit public service organizations, 63776-63778 E6-18265 Commerce Commerce Department See Economic Development Administration See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commodity Commodity Credit Corporation RULES Loan and purchase programs: Cottonseed Payment Program, 63665-63668 E6-18249 Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment Program, 63668-63674 E6-18247 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63848-63854 06-8982 Defense Defense Department See Navy Department NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; membership, 63754 06-8970 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Cerilliant Corp., 63781 E6-18253 ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals, Inc., 63781-63782 E6-18251 Economic Economic Development Administration NOTICES Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.:

Windo-Therm LLC et al., 63752 E6-18275 Education Education Department NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Special education and rehabilitative services— Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, 64078-64084 E6-18185 E6-18192 Election Election Assistance Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63755-63756 06-8967 Employee Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63783-63786 E6-18230 E6-18231 E6-18232 E6-18233 Employee benefit plans; class exemptions:

Securities loans, 63786-63799 E6-18238 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.: Central Products Co. et al., 63799-63800 E6-18226 Coville, Inc., 63800 E6-18218 Liebert Corp., 63801 E6-18217 Marathon Electric, 63801 E6-18215 Salisbury Manufacturing Corp., 63801 E6-18227 Smith Die & Mold, Inc., 63801 E6-18228 Sunshine Scholl Uniforms et al., 63801-63802 E6-18225 Velcorex, Inc., 63803 E6-18219 Westpoint Home, Inc., 63803 E6-18216 Whittier Wood Products et al., 63803-63804 E6-18221 Employment Employment Standards Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63782-63783 E6-18282 Energy Energy Department See Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings:

Climate Change Science Program Product Development Advisory Committee, 63756 E6-18267 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board— Idaho National Laboratory, 63756-63757 E6-18268 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY, 63757 E6-18272 Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Meetings: State Energy Advisory Board, 63758 E6-18271 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: California, 63694-63698 E6-18167 E6-18173 Indiana, 63699-63701 E6-18169 PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States:

California, 63738 E6-18172 Indiana, 63737-63738 E6-18168 NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: National Environmental Education and Training Foundation, Inc., 63758-63759 E6-18262 Superfund; response and remedial actions, proposed settlements, etc.: Empire Canyon Site, UT, 63759 E6-18294 Water pollution control: Total maximum daily loads— Arkansas, 63759-63760 E6-18263 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents See Trade Representative, Office of United States FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness standards:

Special conditions— Boeing Model 737-700 IGW airplane, 63676-63678 E6-18281 Standard instrument approach procedures, 63679-63680 E6-18085 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness standards: Special conditions— Boeing Model 737-900ER airplane, 63718-63722 06-8974 Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. Model GV, GV-SP, and GIV-X airplanes, 63723-63725 E6-18288 Class D and Class E airspace, 63725-63726 E6-18264 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63828-63829 06-8972 Airport noise compatibility program:

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, FL, 63829-63834 06-8975 Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.: Springfield Airport Authority, IL, et al., 63834-63836 06-8973 FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63848-63854 06-8982 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 63760-63761 06-9005 06-9006 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Natural gas companies (Natural Gas Act):

Blanket certification and rates clarification, 63680-63694 E6-18027 Federal Housing Federal Housing Finance Board NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection, and retaliation laws; No Fear Act notice, 63761-63762 E6-18236 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; membership, 63762 E6-18237 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63848-63854 06-8982 Banks and bank holding companies:

Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 63762 E6-18245 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 63762 06-9012 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Buy America waivers: Mars Electronics International et al., 63836-63837 E6-18260 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, Job Access and Reverse Commute, and New Freedom Programs; coordinated planning guidance and circulars, 63838 E6-18259 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and threatened species:

Critical habitat designations— Fender's blue butterfly, Kincaid's lupine, and Willamette daisy, 63862-63977 06-8809 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and threatened species: Critical habitat designations— Cape Sable seaside sparrow, 63980-64002 06-8930 Food Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Human drugs, biological products, and animal drugs; foreign and domestic establishment registration and listing requirements Meeting, 63726-63728 E6-18310 Medical devices: General and plastic surgery devices— Absorbable hemostatic device; reclassification, 63728-63732 E6-18324 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63764-63773 E6-18190 E6-18198 E6-18200 E6-18203 E6-18313 Meetings:

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, 63773-63774 E6-18314 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Absorbable hemostatic device; Class II special controls, 63774-63775 E6-18318 Foreign Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Sanctions; blocked persons, specifically designated nationals, terrorists, narcotics traffickers, and foreign terrorist organizations: Narcotics-related blocked persons; additional designations, 63854-63856 E6-18279 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings:

Eastern Washington Cascades and Yakima Provincial Advisory Committees, 63751 06-8976 Health Health and Human Services Department See Food and Drug Administration See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63763 E6-18278 Meetings: American Health Information Community, 63763 06-8969 Bioethics, President's Council, 63763-63764 06-8968 Physical Fitness and Sports, President's Council, 63764 E6-18244 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Transportation Security Administration Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Electronic grant applications submission; early registration on Grants.gov, 64070-64076 E6-18224 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See Minerals Management Service See National Park Service IRS Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Income taxes: Section 901 and related matters; taxpayer definition Correction, 63732 E6-18205 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63856-63857 E6-18206 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; implementation:

Expatriation; individuals losing United States citizenship; quarterly listing, 63857-63858 E6-18207 Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panels, 63858 E6-18210 E6-18211 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping and countervailing duties: Administrative review requests, 63752-63753 E6-18291 Justice Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration Labor Labor Department See Employee Benefits Security Administration See Employment and Training Administration See Employment Standards Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings:

Resource Advisory Councils— Boise District, 63779 E6-18273 Oil and gas leases: New Mexico, 63779-63780 E6-18235 Millennium Millennium Challenge Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 63804 06-9014 Minerals Minerals Management Service NOTICES Meetings: Royalty Policy Committee, 63780 E6-18372 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Confidential business information, 63738-63749 E6-18285 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management:

Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Gulf of Alaska groundfish, 63704-63706 E6-18293 Northeastern United States fisheries— Tilefish, 63703-63704 06-8981 International fisheries regulations: West Coast States and Western Pacific fisheries— Fraser River sockeye salmon, 63702-63703 E6-18292 PROPOSED RULES Fishery conservation and management: Northeastern United States fisheries— New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils; hearings, 63749-63750 E6-18286 NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Enhanced Mobile Transmitter Unit Reimbursement Program, 63753-63754 06-8980 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places; pending nominations, 63780-63781 E6-18302 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego, CA, 63754-63755 E6-18248 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Safeguards information protection from inadvertent release and unauthorized disclosure, 64004-64068 06-8900 NOTICES Meetings;

Sunshine Act, 63805-63806 06-8997 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Dow Chemical Co., 63804-63805 E6-18243 Duke Power Co. LLC, 63805 E6-18241 Office of U.S. Trade Office of United States Trade Representative See Trade Representative, Office of United States Personnel Personnel Management Office RULES Absence and leave: Senior Executive Service; accrual and accumulation Correction, 63859 Z6-17389 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RULES Hazardous materials:

Rulemaking procedures; required information for rulemaking petitions; CFR correction, 63701-63702 06-55528 Presidential Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Democratic Republic of the Congo; blocking property of persons contributing to the conflict (EO 13413), 64103-64108 06-9020 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Weapons of mass destruction; continuation of national emergency (Notice of October 27, 2006), 64109 06-9021 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Investment companies:

Eligible portfolio company; definition, 64086-64092 E6-18255 PROPOSED RULES Investment companies: Eligible portfolio company; definition, 64093-64102 E6-18257 NOTICES Investment Company Act of 1940: Tactical Allocation Services, LLC, et al., 63807-63810 E6-18256 Privacy Act; systems of records, 63810-63811 E6-18234 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 63812-63816 E6-18250 E6-18252 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 63816-63818 E6-18254 SBA Small Business Administration RULES Organization, functions, and authority delegations:

Disaster Assistance Office; reorganization, 63674-63676 E6-18246 NOTICES Disaster loan areas: Florida, 63818 E6-18299 Hawaii, 63818-63819 E6-18295 Kentucky, 63819 E6-18289 New York, 63819-63820 E6-18296 Ohio, 63820 E6-18300 Virginia, 63820 E6-18298 State State Department NOTICES Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act: Serbia; proposed European Bank for reconstruction and development projects; U.S. position determination, 63821 E6-18305 Serbia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina; proposed European Bank for reconstruction and development projects;

U.S. position determination, 63820-63821 E6-18303 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Intensive Summer Language Institutes, 63821-63828 E6-18280 Meetings: International Telecommunication Advisory Committee, 63828 E6-18269 Private International Law Advisory Committee, 63828 E6-18274 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63775-63776 E6-18266 Thrift Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63848-63854 06-8982 Trade Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Generalized System of Preferences:

Import statistics relating to competitive need limitations; 2006 annual GSP review; petitions requesting CNL waivers, 63806-63807 E6-18304 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Transit Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Transportation Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63778-63779 E6-18212 Treasury Treasury Department See Comptroller of the Currency See Foreign Assets Control Office See Internal Revenue Service See Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:

Anti-terrorism financing guidelines for voluntary best practices for U.S.-based charities, 63838-63848 06-8961 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department PROPOSED RULES Adjudication; pensions, compensation, dependency, etc: Notice and assistance requirements provided to claimant, 63732-63737 E6-18180 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 63862-63977 06-8809 Part III Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 63980-64002 06-8930 Part IV Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 64004-64068 06-8900 Part V Housing and Urban Development Department, 64070-64076 E6-18224 Part VI Education Department, 64078-64084 E6-18185 E6-18192 Part VII Securities and Exchange Commission, 64086-64102 E6-18255 E6-18257 Part VIII Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 64103-64109 06-9020 06-9021 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 71 210 Tuesday, October 31, 2006 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation 7 CFR 1427 RIN 0560-AH63 2005 Cottonseed Payment Program AGENCIES: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule implements a portion of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery of 2006 to provide assistance to producers and first-handlers of the 2005 crop of cottonseed in counties which were declared a natural disaster area by the President of the United States, and contiguous counties, due to Hurricanes Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, Wilma or a related condition in 2005. DATES: This rule is effective October 31, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Kyer, phone:

(202)720-7935; e-mail: *chris.kyer@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion of Final Rule Section 3015(a) of Subtitle A of Title III of Pub. L. 109-234 states, “The Secretary shall use $15,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide assistance to producers and first-handlers of the 2005 crop of cottonseed in hurricane-affected counties.” (Title III, Subtitle A, 120 Stat. 477, June 15, 2006) (“2006 Act”). This rule provides the Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC)regulations for implementation of the 2005 Cottonseed Payment Program authorized by this provision. Assistance under the 2005 Cottonseed Payment Program is provided under the same terms and conditions, generally, as it was for the 2004 Cottonseed Payment Program. However, section 3015(b)(2) of the 2006 Act states that, for the 2005 program, funds will be distributed “* * * based on cottonseed production during the most recent year for which a disaster payment specifically for cottonseed was not authorized.” (120 Stat. 477) The most recent year for which a disaster payment specifically for cottonseed was not authorized was the 2003 cottonseed production year. Accordingly, this rule provides that 2003 cottonseed production will be used as a basis for payments provided under the 2005 Cottonseed Payment Program. Also, as provided in section 3015(b)(2) of the 2006 Act, payment calculations for the 2005 Cottonseed Payment Program will differ from those used for the 2004 Cottonseed Payment Program. The 2004 program payments were based upon a loss attributable to the disaster. The 2005 Cottonseed Payment Program shall be based solely upon production during the most recent year for which a disaster payment specifically for cottonseed was not authorized (the 2003 crop), without requiring proof of a loss. Another difference from the 2004 program is that this rule clarifies which counties are eligible for assistance. This rule clearly defines the term “hurricane affected counties” for the 2005 program as those counties designated as a disaster area resulting from Hurricanes Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, Wilma, or a related condition, and contiguous counties thereof, meaning counties directly adjoining the primary disaster county. Executive Order 12866 This rule has been determined to be “Significant” under Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because CCC is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for the subject of this rule. Environmental Assessment The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* , the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and FSA's regulations for compliance with NEOA, 7 CFR part 799. To the extent these authorities may apply, CCC has concluded that this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental review as evidenced by the completion of an environmental evaluation. No extraordinary circumstances or other foreseeable factors exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. A copy of the environmental evaluation is available for inspection and review upon request. Executive Order 12988 The rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988. This final rule preempts State laws to the extent such laws are inconsistent with it. This rule is not retroactive. Before judicial action may be brought concerning this rule, all administrative remedies set forth at 7 CFR part 11 and 780 must be exhausted. Executive Order 12372 This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 19115 (June 24, 1983). Unfunded Mandates Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)does not apply to this rule because CCC is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for the subject of this rule. Further, this rule contains no unfunded mandates as defined in sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Section 3034(b)(3) of the 2006 Act requires that this rule be implemented and administered without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, the normal 60-day public comment period and OMB approval do not apply to the information collections required by this rule. E-Government Act Compliance CCC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-GOV compliance related to this rule, please contact the person named above under the information contact section. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1427 Agriculture, Cottonseed. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1427 is amended as set forth below. PART 1427—COTTON 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1427 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7231-7236; 15 U.S.C. 714b, 714c; Pub. L. 108-324, Pub. L. 108-447, Pub. L. 109-234. Subpart H—2005 Cottonseed Payment Program 2. Add subpart H as follows: Subpart H—2005 Cottonseed Payment Program Sec. 1427.1300 Applicability. 1427.1301 Administration. 1427.1302 Definitions. 1427.1303 Eligible cottonseed. 1427.1304 Eligible applicants (first handlers). 1427.1305 Payment application and deadline. 1427.1306 Available funds. 1427.1307 Applicant payment quantity. 1427.1308 Total payment quantity. 1427.1309 Payment rate. 1427.1310 Payment calculation and form. 1427.1311 Liability of first handler. § 1427.1300 Applicability.

(a)Subject to the availability of funds, this subpart sets forth the terms and conditions under which the Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC)will provide payments under the cottonseed payment program for the 2005 crop year of cottonseed. Additional terms and conditions may be set forth in the application or other forms which must be executed to participate in the cottonseed payment program.

(b)Payments shall be available only as provided in this subpart and only with respect to 2005 crop cottonseed in hurricane-affected counties according to § 1427.1303 of this part. § 1427.1301 Administration.

(a)The cottonseed payment program shall be administered by the Executive Vice President, CCC, or a designee and carried out by employees of the Farm Service Agency (FSA).

(b)Representatives and employees of FSA have no authority to modify or waive any of the provisions of the regulations in this subpart.

(c)The Executive Vice President, CCC, or a designee, may determine any question arising under the program or reverse or modify any determination made by any FSA official or employee.

(d)The Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs, FSA, may specify, waive or modify deadlines and other program requirements where lateness or failure to meet such other requirements do not affect adversely the operation of the cottonseed payment program.

(e)A representative of CCC may execute cottonseed payment program applications and related documents only under the terms and conditions determined and announced by CCC.

(f)Payment applications and related documents not executed in accordance with the terms and conditions determined and announced by CCC, including any purported execution outside of the dates authorized by CCC, shall be null and void except as otherwise provided in this subpart. § 1427.1302 Definitions. The definitions in this section shall apply to the cottonseed payment program in this subpart. The terms defined in § 1427.3, Subpart A, Nonrecourse Cotton Loan and Loan Deficiency Payment shall also be applicable to this subpart. *Application period* means a period, as announced by CCC, during which applications for payments under the Cottonseed Payment Program must be received to be considered for payment. *Cottonseed* means the seed from any varieties of upland cotton and extra long staple

(ELS)cotton produced and ginned in the United States. *Gin* means a person ( *i.e.* , an individual, partnership, association, corporation, cooperative marketing association, estate, trust, State or political subdivision or agency thereof, or other legal entity) that removes cotton seed from cotton lint in commercial quantities. *Hurricane-affected county* means a county declared a natural disaster or included in the geographic area covered by a natural disaster declaration related to Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Ophelia, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Wilma, a related condition, or a county contiguous to such a county. *Lint* means cotton lint as contained in bales of cotton ordinarily marketed as cotton and excludes any linters, raw motes, re-ginned motes, cleaned motes, and any other gin waste or byproduct not traditionally defined as cotton lint. *Ton* means a unit of weight equal to 2,000 pounds avoirdupois (907.18 kilograms). § 1427.1303 Eligible cottonseed. To be eligible for payments under this subpart, cottonseed must:

(a)Have been produced from cotton grown in a hurricane-affected county as defined in section 1427.1302 during the 2005-crop production period.

(b)Have been the result of ginning 2005-crop cotton by the applicant.

(c)Not have been destroyed or damaged in any amount at the gin by fire, flood, or other events such that its loss or damage was compensated by any other local, State, or Federal government or private or public insurance or disaster relief payments. § 1427.1304 Eligible applicants (first handlers).

(a)An eligible applicant shall be a first handler of cottonseed or a gin that has an eligible payment quantity as determined under § 1427.1307. This is the gin(s) that ginned 2005 crop cotton for the producer except if the 2005 gin is no longer in business to the extent the company has no means to apply for payment on behalf of producers and distribute funds, the current gin becomes the applicant. Only an eligible first handler shall be eligible to file an application for payment in this subpart.

(b)Applicants must comply with the terms and conditions set forth in this subpart issued by CCC, and sign and submit an accurate, legible, and complete Cottonseed Payment Program Application and Certification.

(c)Applicants signing the cottonseed payment application or receiving payment in this subpart must share and distribute any payment with the producer of the cotton that was the basis for the cottonseed payment to the extent that the effect of the loss of 2005 crop cottonseed was borne by the producer rather than the gin. To the extent that such funds shall be shared with and distributed to the producer by the gin pursuant to this subpart, those funds will be considered to have been received by the applicant on behalf of such producers. § 1427.1305 Payment application and deadline.

(a)Payments in this subpart shall be made available only to eligible first handlers of cottonseed based on information provided on a Cottonseed Payment Program Application and Certification.

(b)The application deadline shall be 45 calendar days after the rules in this subpart become effective. A further extension of application time may be announced by CCC. Payment applications must be received by the program application deadline announced by CCC. Applications received after such application deadline will not be accepted for payment.

(c)The Cottonseed Payment Program Application and Certifications may be obtained from the CCC as announced by press release. In order to participate in the cottonseed payment program in this subpart, first handlers of cottonseed must execute and submit to CCC according to announced instructions the Cottonseed Payment Program Application and Certification. § 1427.1306 Available funds. The total available program funds for the 2005-crop cottonseed program provided for in this subpart shall be $15 million. § 1427.1307 Applicant payment quantity.

(a)The applicant's payment quantity of cottonseed will be calculated by the applicant and submitted on the Cottonseed Payment Application and Certification for approval by CCC.

(1)An applicant must be an eligible gin to which a producer delivered 2005 cotton and the applicant's payment eligibility will be based on the determination of the total amount of 2003 crop lint deliveries by cotton producers in eligible counties.

(2)The 2003 crop lint delivery determination will be made by the applicant for each eligible county producer by producer, based upon producer certification, ginning records, or other relevant information as applicable. If the producer delivered 2003 crop cotton to a gin(s) different from the gin that received 2005 crop deliveries, the 2005 gin shall contact the other gins for production information or obtain other proof of the eligible quantity from the cotton producer so as to make or verify the calculation called for in paragraph

(a)of this section.

(3)If the producer delivered cotton to more than one 2005 gin, each gin shall be an applicant. If the producer did not deliver cotton to the same gins in 2003, the applicants shall divide the total 2003 production, obtained according to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, equally between each applicant gin.

(4)If the producer did not grow any 2005 crop cotton in the eligible county, the applicant shall not apply for payment on behalf of the producer.

(5)If the producer grew 2005 crop cotton but did not produce 2003 crop cotton, the producer shall be considered a new producer. In this case, the applicant shall compute an assumed 2003 lint delivery amount by multiplying the 2003 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS)county average yield for the applicable county times the producer's 2005 cotton acreage in the eligible county. Proof of cotton acreage may be obtained by the applicant from producer certification, FSA county office acreage reports, or crop insurance records. If the NASS county average yield is not computed for the applicable county, the applicant shall use the NASS county average yield for the nearest cotton producing county with the highest NASS county average yield.

(b)The applicant's lint eligibility will be calculated individually with respect to all eligible cotton producers and those individual eligibilities for the gin will then be added together to determine the total lint eligibility of the gin. § 1427.1308 Total payment quantity.

(a)The total quantity of 2005-crop cottonseed eligible in this subpart shall be based on the total payment quantity of cottonseed as determined under this subpart for which timely applications are filed. Eligible cottonseed for which no application is received according to the announced application instructions shall not be included in the total payment quantity of cottonseed.

(b)The total payment quantity of cottonseed (ton-basis) shall be calculated by CCC by multiplying the weight of cotton lint (ton-basis) for which payment is requested by all applicants, as approved by CCC, by the Olympic average of estimated pounds of cottonseed per pound of ginned cotton lint, excluding the highest and lowest years' production, as determined by CCC for the 5 years preceding the 2005 crop. § 1427.1309 Payment rate. The payment rate (dollars per ton) for the purpose of calculating payments made available in accordance in this subpart shall be determined by CCC by dividing the total available program funds, less an amount reserved for approved corrections, by the total eligible payment quantity of cottonseed. However, in no event may the total payment to an eligible applicant exceed the national average price of 2005 crop cottonseed as determined by CCC, or $98 per ton, multiplied by the applicant's total eligible payment quantity. § 1427.1310 Payment calculation and form.

(a)Payment in accordance in subpart shall be determined for individual applicants by multiplying:

(1)The payment rate as determined in subpart § 1427.1309 by

(2)The eligible payment quantity of the applicant was determined in § 1427.1308 and other provisions in this part.

(b)After receipt of the application for payment, CCC will issue payments to the applicant by electronic funds transfer to the applicant's account except that applicants may request payment be made by mailed check. § 1427.1311 Liability of first handler.

(a)If any person makes any erroneous or fraudulent representation in obtaining a cottonseed payment in this part, or in connection with such a payment engages in a scheme or device that tends to defeat the purposes of this program, the person shall be liable to CCC for the amount of the payment and interest on such payment as determined by CCC. Such remedy will be in addition to whatever additional remedies may be allowed by law.

(b)If more than one person executes a program payment application with CCC on the same quantity and payments are made there under, each such person shall be jointly and severally liable for any violation of the terms and conditions for any payment made to anyone under that application or for any refund due from any person signing that application. Such liability shall remain until payment in full is made of any such refund and its related charges.

(c)If a person receives a program payment in excess of the amount authorized in this subpart, that person shall refund to CCC an amount equal to the excess payment, plus interest thereon, as determined by CCC.

(d)For three years after the date of the application for 2005-crop payments, the applicant shall keep records, including records supporting the quantity of cottonseed for which payment was requested, and furnish such information and reports relating to the application to CCC as requested. Such records shall be available at all reasonable times for an audit or inspection by authorized representatives of CCC, United States Department of Agriculture, or the Comptroller General of the United States. Failure to keep, or make available, such records may result in refund to CCC of all payment received, plus interest thereon, as determined by CCC. In the event of a controversy concerning payments, records must be kept for such longer period as may be specified by CCC until such controversy is resolved. Destruction of records at any time is at the risk of the applicant. Signed in Washington, DC, on October 25, 2006. Thomas B. Hofeller, Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-18249 Filed 10-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation 7 CFR Part 1430 RIN 0560-AH59 2005 Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment Program AGENCIES: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule sets forth the regulations for the 2005 Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment Program. This program will assist dairy producers by providing payments to those who suffered dairy production and milk spoilage losses due to hurricanes or a related condition in 2005. DATES: This rule is effective October 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danielle Cooke, Price Support Division, Farm Service Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, STOP 0512, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0512. *Telephone:*

(202)720-1919; e-mail: *Danielle.Cooke@wdc.usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice and Comment Section 3034 of the Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2006 (the 2006 Act) requires that the regulations necessary to implement Title III of the 2006 Act, which includes the regulations for this program, are to be promulgated without regard to the notice and comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 or the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 (36 FR 13804), relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in rulemaking. These regulations are thus issued as final. Executive Order 12866 This final rule has been determined to be significant under Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because CCC is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject of this rule. Environmental Assessment The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* , the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and FSA's regulations for compliance with NEPA, 7 CFR part 799. To the extent these authorities may apply, CCC has concluded that this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental review as evidenced by the completion of an environmental evaluation. No extraordinary circumstances or other unforeseeable factors exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. A copy of the environmental evaluation is available for inspection and review upon request. Executive Order 12988 The rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12998. This final rule preempts State laws to the extent such laws are inconsistent with it. This rule is not retroactive. Before judicial action may be brought concerning this rule, all administrative remedies set forth at 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 must be exhausted. Executive Order 12612 This rule does not have Federalism implications that warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Executive Order 12372 This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983). Unfunded Mandates Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(GPEA)and the Freedom to E-File Act, which require Government agencies in general, and FSA in particular, to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. The forms and other information collection activities required to be utilized by a person subject to this rule are not yet fully implemented in a way that would allow the public to conduct business with CCC electronically. Accordingly, at this time, all forms required to be submitted under this rule may be submitted to CCC by mail or FAX. Background Section 3014 of the 2006 Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to use $17 million to make payments to dairy producers for losses in counties affected by 2005 hurricanes. Hurricanes Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, and Wilma severely impacted dairy producers in certain areas of the Gulf region of the United States during the months of August through October of 2005. As a result, several dairy producers incurred devastating decreases in production due to cattle losses and milk that had to be dumped because of closed milk plants and damaged containment equipment. Also, the loss of electricity, the shortage of fuel, and infrastructure damage temporarily interrupted the flow of dairy products to markets. Pursuant to the legislation, this rule addresses the situation by establishing a program similar to the 2004 Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment (DDAP-I) Program authorized by section 103 of Division B of Public Law 108-324, for dairy production and spoilage losses incurred by producers in the southeastern region of the United States, due to 2004 Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne. The final rule for DDAP-I was published on September 26, 2005 (70 FR 56113). As with DDAP-I, the payments provided by this rule will offset a portion of the per-pound losses dairy producers have incurred commercially marketing milk in the United States. Dairy producers who suffered production losses and dairy spoilage losses, as a result of Hurricanes Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, and Wilma disaster, or a condition related to those hurricanes, may apply for compensation for losses incurred during the 2005 calendar year. Benefits will be provided to eligible dairy producers in those counties declared a natural disaster by the Secretary of Agriculture or designated a major disaster or emergency by the President of the United States, who meet all program eligibility requirements, and are subsequently approved for participation in the 2005 Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment Program. This program is similar to a program operated with respect to 2004 programs (DDAP-I) and will be referred to as DDAP-II. Dairy producers in counties contiguous to a directly eligible county are also eligible for DDAP-II benefits. Eligible dairy producers will receive an immediate payment to help pay operating expenses and meet other financial obligations. To be eligible, dairy producers must have produced milk in the United States during the 2005 calendar year as part of a dairy operation located in a county declared a natural disaster in 2005, or a contiguous county, because of Hurricane Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, or Wilma. Losses and declarations associated with Hurricane Dennis or other disasters are not covered. As a result of the hurricanes or related condition, the producer must have suffered dairy production losses and dairy spoilage losses in the eligible months. In addition, adequate evidence of dairy production losses and dairy spoilage losses must be provided to FSA to substantiate the losses suffered and certified by each producer. Payments will be made according to a formula and will be subject to funding and other limitations. Further, payments will not be reduced as a result of payments from a milk buyer or marketing cooperative for dumped or spoiled milk. Applicants must apply for benefits during the sign-up period announced by the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs. At the close of the sign-up period, the total production and spoilage losses from all eligible applicants will be determined. Payment eligibilities will be separately calculated on an operation by operation basis. An individual may be involved in more than one operation. Payments to eligible producers will be calculated by multiplying the eligible pounds by the average price received for commercial milk production in the affected areas during the eligible months. If the total amount of available funding ($17 million, less any reserve established to account for disputed claims) is insufficient to compensate eligible producers for eligible losses, then CCC will pay losses at two levels in an effort to more equitably distribute the limited funds and maximize the effectiveness of the program. Specifically, in case of inadequate funds for all eligible losses, CCC will calculate each operation's overall quarterly percentage reduction for the full disaster claim period that corresponds with the applicable hurricane, from the calculated base for the operation for the full quarter for the applicable hurricane. The disaster claim period applicable to:

(1)Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita are the months of August through December 2005; and

(2)Hurricane Ophelia and Hurricane Wilma are the months of October through December 2005. If a reduced payment is needed due to funding constraints, calculated losses over the applicable disaster claim period greater than 20 percent of a producer's normal production will be paid at the maximum per-pound payment rate. A loss over 20 percent in one or two of the eligible months will not qualify for the maximum per-pound payment. Payments for eligible losses below the 20-percent threshold will be made at a rate that will exhaust the available funds that remain following payment of eligible losses at the higher level. The 20 percent threshold mirrors that of DDAP-I and some other disaster programs. An example of how the apportionment might affect producers is set out below. If funds are adequate for all eligible losses, all eligible producers will be paid at the “maximum rate” which amounts to the average price received for commercial milk production in their area during the applicable months of August through December of 2005. The apportionment example is as follows: Example: Producer A (Louisiana) Producer B (Florida) Producer C (Alabama) Producer D (Texas) Total Base Production 800,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 600,000 Actual Production 485,000 1,820,000 1,070,000 490,000 Pounds Dumped or Spoiled 5,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 Total Eligible `Loss 320,000 200,000 450,000 120,000 20% of Base Production 160,000 400,000 300,000 120,000 Pounds of loss above 20% loss level 160,000 0 150,000 0 Payment Rate $0.1647/lb. $0.1819/lb. $0.1649/lb. $0.1419/lb. DDAP for loss above 20% $26,352 $0 $24,735 $0 DDAP for under 20% loss @ $0.12/lb. (example only) $19,200 $24,000 $36,000 $14,400 Total DDAP $45,552 $24,000 $60,735 $14,400 Eligible Losses x average price $52,704 $36,380 $74,205 $17,028 Percent production loss suffered 40 10 30 20 Percent financial losses recovered from DDAP 86 66 82 85 Dairy producers who have received a payment for the loss under the Dairy Indemnity Payment Program (7 CFR part 760) shall be ineligible for payments under this rule. Gross revenue and per-person payment limits do not apply. Payments are subject to all requirements of the regulations and program documents. Information provided on applications and supporting documentation will be subject to verification by FSA. False certifications by producers carry strict penalties and FSA will verify applications with random spot-checks. Dairy producers determined to have made any false certifications or adopted any misrepresentation, scheme, or device that defeats the program's purpose will be required to refund any payments issued under this program with interest, and may be subject to other civil, criminal, or administrative remedies. Payments will be made according to a formula and will be subject to limitations. During the application period, dairy producers may apply in person at FSA county offices during regular business hours. Applications may also be submitted to CCC by mail or FAX. Program applications may be obtained in person, by mail, telephone, and facsimile from producers' designated FSA county office or via the Internet at *www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/psd/* . List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1430 Dairy, Disaster assistance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1430 is amended as follows: PART 1430—DAIRY PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for part 1430 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7981 and 7982; 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c; Sec. 3014 of Pub. L. 109-234, 16 U.S.C. 3801 note, 120 Stat. 474. 2. Add subpart E to read as follows: Subpart E—2005 Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment Program (DDAP-II) Sec. 1430.300 Applicability. 1430.301 Administration. 1430.302 Definitions. 1430.303 Time and method of application. 1430.304 Eligibility. 1430.305 Proof of production. 1430.306 Determination of losses incurred. 1430.307 Rate of payment and limitations on funding. 1430.308 Availability of funds. 1430.309 Appeals. 1430.310 Misrepresentation and scheme or device. 1430.311 Death, incompetence, or disappearance. 1430.312 Maintaining records. 1430.313 Refunds; joint and several liability. 1430.314 Miscellaneous provisions. Subpart E—2005 Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment Program II (DDAP-II) § 1430.300 Applicability.

(a)Subject to the availability of funds, this subpart sets forth the terms and conditions applicable to DDAP-II authorized by section 3014 of Public Law 109-234. Benefits are available to eligible United States producers who have suffered in 2005 dairy production losses and dairy spoilage losses in eligible counties as a result of Hurricanes Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, and Wilma or conditions related to those hurricanes.

(b)To be eligible for this program, a producer must have been a milk producer in 2005 in a county declared a natural disaster by the Secretary of Agriculture or declared a major disaster or emergency designated by the President of the United States due to a 2005 hurricane or related condition thereof, or in a contiguous county to a county that is directly eligible by way of a natural disaster declaration. Only losses occurring in these counties are eligible for payment under this program.

(c)Subject to the availability of funds, benefits shall be provided by the Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC)to eligible dairy producers. Additional terms and conditions may be set forth in the payment application that must be executed by participants to receive a disaster assistance payment for dairy production losses and dairy spoilage losses.

(d)To be eligible for payments, producers must comply with the provisions of, and their losses must meet the conditions of, this subpart and any other conditions imposed by CCC. § 1430.301 Administration.

(a)DDAP-II shall be administered under the general supervision of the Executive Vice President, CCC, or a designee, and shall be carried out in the field by FSA State and county committees (State and county committees) and FSA employees.

(b)State and county committees, and representatives and employees thereof, do not have the authority to modify or waive any of the provisions of the regulations of this subpart.

(c)The State committee shall take any action required by the regulations of this subpart that has not been taken by the county committee. The State committee shall also:

(1)Correct, or require the county committee to correct, any action taken by such county committee that is not in accordance with the regulations of this subpart; and

(2)Require a county committee to withhold taking any action that is not in accordance with the regulations of this subpart.

(d)No provision of delegation in this subpart to a State or county committee shall preclude the Executive Vice President, CCC, or a designee, from determining any question arising under the program or from reversing or modifying any determination made by the State or county committee.

(e)The Deputy Administrator, Farm Programs, FSA, may authorize State and county committees to waive or modify deadlines in cases where lateness or failure to meet such requirements do not adversely affect the operation of the 2005 Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment Program II and does not violate statutory limitations on the program.

(f)Data furnished by the applicants is used to determine eligibility for program benefits. Although participation in DDAP-II is voluntary, program benefits are not provided unless the participant furnishes all requested data. § 1430.302 Definitions. The definitions in 7 CFR part 718 shall apply to this subpart except to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of this subpart. In addition, for the purpose of this subpart, the following definitions shall apply. *Application* means DDAP-II Application. *Application period* means the time period established by the Deputy Administrator for producers to apply for program benefits. *Base month* means the base month for the particular 2005 hurricane assigned in § 1430.304. *CCC* means the Commodity Credit Corporation of the Department. *Claim period* means as assigned in this subpart the qualifying months of calendar year 2005, following the base month, in which the loss occurred. *County committee* means the FSA county committee. *County office* means the FSA office responsible for administering FSA programs for farms located in a specific area in a State. *Dairy operation* means any person or group of persons who, as a single unit, as determined by CCC, produces and markets milk commercially from cows and whose production facilities are located in the United States. *Department or USDA* means the United States Department of Agriculture. *Deputy Administrator* means the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs (DAFP), FSA, or a designee. *Farm Service Agency or FSA* means the Farm Service Agency of the Department. *Hundredweight or cwt.* means 100 pounds. *Hurricane-affected county* means a county included in the geographic area covered by a natural disaster declaration related to Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Ophelia, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Wilma or conditions related to those hurricanes, and includes counties which qualify because they are contiguous to a county that qualifies by a natural disaster declaration. *Milk handler or cooperative* means the marketing agency to, or through which, the producer commercially markets whole milk. *Milk marketings* means a marketing of milk for which there is a verifiable sales or delivery record of milk marketed for commercial use. In counting milk toward production amounts, dumped milk will not be considered as marketed for commercial use. Such dumped milk shall be counted toward production but will be accounted for separately from milk that is marketed for normal commercial use as determined by the Deputy Administrator. All production in the months for which loss coverage is available will be counted in making determinations under this part, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, with care to avoid double counting, and with care to avoid a calculated loss that overstates the actual losses. Adjustments may be made as appropriate to accomplish these objectives. *Natural disaster declaration* means a natural disaster declaration issued by the Secretary of Agriculture during calendar year 2005 under section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961 (a)), or a major disaster or emergency designation by the President of the United States during calendar year 2005 under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, including declarations and designations by both the President and Secretary made during calendar year 2006 for which a request was pending as of December 31, 2005. *Payment pounds* means the pounds of milk production from a dairy operation for which the dairy producer is eligible to be paid under this subpart. *Producer* means any individual, group of individuals, partnership, corporation, estate, trust association, cooperative, or other business enterprise or other legal entity who is, or whose members are, citizens of, or legal resident aliens in the United States, and who directly or indirectly, as determined by the Secretary, share in the risk of producing milk, and make contributions (including land, labor, management, equipment, or capital) to the dairy farming operation of the individual or entity. *Reliable production records* means evidence provided by the producer that is used to substantiate the amount of production reported when verifiable records are not available, including copies of receipts, ledgers of income, income statements of deposit slips, register tapes, and records to verify production costs, contemporaneous measurements, and contemporaneous diaries that are determined acceptable by the county committee. *Starting base production* means actual commercial production marketed by the dairy operation during the base month applicable to the 2005 hurricane disaster, or alternative period established by the Deputy Administrator. *Verifiable production records* means evidence that is used to substantiate the amount of production including any part marketed normally, dumped, or otherwise disposed of, and that can be verified by CCC through an independent source. § 1430.303 Time and method of application.

(a)Dairy producers may obtain an Application, in person, by mail, by telephone, or by facsimile from any county FSA office. In addition, applicants may download a copy of the Application at *http://www.sc.egov.usda.gov.*

(b)A request for benefits under this subpart must be submitted on a completed Application as defined in § 1430.302. Applications and any other supporting documentation shall be submitted to the FSA county office serving the county where the dairy operation is located but, in any case, must be received by the FSA county office by the close of business on the date established by the Deputy Administrator. The closing date shall be no sooner than November 30, 2006. Applications not received by the close of business on such date will be disapproved as not having been timely filed and the dairy producer will not be eligible for benefits under this program.

(c)All persons who share in the risk of a dairy operation's total production must certify to the information on the Application before the Application is considered complete.

(d)Each dairy producer requesting benefits under this subpart must certify to the accuracy and truthfulness of the information provided in their application and any supporting documentation. All information provided is subject to verification by CCC. Refusal to allow CCC or any other agency of the Department of Agriculture to verify any information provided will result in a denial of eligibility. Furnishing the information is voluntary; however, without it program benefits will not be approved. § 1430.304 Eligibility.

(a)Producers in the United States are eligible to receive hurricane-related dairy disaster benefits under this part only if they have suffered dairy production or dairy spoilage losses in 2005 as a result of a hurricane disaster or related condition, in a hurricane-affected county. To be eligible to receive payments under this subpart, producers in a dairy operation must:

(1)Have produced and commercially marketed milk in the United States and commercially marketed the milk produced during the 2005 calendar year;

(2)Be a producer on a dairy farm operation physically located in an eligible county where dairy production and milk spoilage losses were incurred as a result of 2005 hurricanes, or a related condition, in and limiting their claims to losses occurring in those counties and contiguous counties;

(3)Provide adequate proof, to the satisfaction of the County Committee, of monthly milk production dumped and commercially marketed by all persons in the eligible dairy operation during the base month and claim period that corresponds with the applicable hurricane-related disaster during the 2005 milk marketing year, or other period as determined by CCC, to determine the total pounds of eligible losses that will be used for payment; and

(4)Apply for payments during the application period established by the Deputy Administrator.

(b)Payments may be made for losses suffered by an otherwise eligible producer who is now deceased or is a dissolved entity if a representative who currently has authority to enter into a contract for the producer or the producer's estate signs the application for payment. Proof of authority to sign for the deceased producer's estate or a dissolved entity must be provided. If a producer is now a dissolved general partnership or joint venture, all members of the general partnership or joint venture at the time of dissolution or their duly-authorized representatives must sign the application for payment.

(c)Producers associated with a dairy operation must submit a timely application and comply with terms and conditions of this subpart, instructions issued by CCC and instructions contained in the Application to be eligible for benefits under this subpart.

(d)As a condition to receive benefits under this part, a producer must have been in compliance with the Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation provisions of 7 CFR part 12 for the 2005 calendar year, as applicable, and must not otherwise be barred from receiving benefits under 7 CFR part 12 or any other law or regulation.

(e)Payments are limited to losses in eligible counties, in eligible months.

(f)All payments under this part are subject to the availability of funds.

(g)Eligible losses are determined from the applicable base month that corresponds to the hurricane disaster or related condition and must have occurred during the claim periods applicable to the disaster as follows:

(1)For Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita the base month is July 2005 and the corresponding claim period are the 2005 calendar months of August through December; and

(2)For Hurricane Ophelia and Hurricane Wilma the base month is September 2005 and the corresponding claim period are the 2005 calendar months of October through December. § 1430.305 Proof of production.

(a)Evidence of production is required to establish the commercial marketing and production history of the dairy operation so that dairy production and spoilage losses can be computed in accordance with § 1430.306.

(b)A dairy producer must, based on the instructions issued by the Deputy Administrator, provide adequate proof of the dairy operation's commercial production, including any dumped production and dairy cow purchases, for each month of the applicable base month and claim period that corresponds with the applicable 2005 hurricane disaster or related condition, and must specifically identify any production during the applicable claim period that is dumped. If a month other than the applicable base month is used for base creation purposes, records for that month must be provided.

(1)A producer must certify and provide such proof as requested that losses for which compensation is claimed were hurricane-related and occurred in an eligible county in an eligible month.

(2)Additional supporting documentation may be requested by CCC as necessary to verify production or spoilage losses and dairy herd increases or decreases to the satisfaction of CCC.

(c)Adequate proof of production history of the dairy operation under paragraph

(b)of this section must be based on milk marketing statements obtained from the dairy operation's milk handler or marketing cooperative. Supporting documents may include, but are not limited to: Tank records, milk handler records, daily milk marketings, copies of any payments received from other sources for production or spoilage losses, or any other documents available to confirm or adjust the production history and losses incurred by the dairy operation.

(d)Adequate proof of dairy cow additions to the milking herd during the eligible months can include, but is not limited to sales receipts, invoices, State health certificates, or any other documents available to confirm the cow purchases.

(e)If adequate proof of normally marketed production, dumped production, and any other production for relevant periods is not presented to the satisfaction of CCC, the request for benefits will be rejected. In the case of a new producer that had no verifiable, actual, commercial production marketed by the dairy operation during the applicable base month, but which suffered eligible losses, an alternate base period may be established by the Deputy Administrator. § 1430.306 Determination of losses incurred.

(a)Eligible payable losses are calculated on a dairy operation by dairy operation basis and are limited to those occurring during the applicable claim period, as provided by § 1430.304(g), that corresponds with the hurricane-related disaster. Specifically, dairy production and spoilage losses incurred by producers under this subpart are determined on the established history of the dairy operation's actual commercial production marketed during the applicable claim period that corresponds with the hurricane-related disaster, and actual production dumped or otherwise not marketed during that same claim period, as provided by the dairy operation consistent with § 1430.305. Except as otherwise provided in these regulations, the starting base production, as defined in § 1430.302 and established in § 1430.304(g), is adjusted downward by a percentage determined by CCC to determine the base production for the applicable claim period that corresponds to the hurricane-related disaster. These adjustments are made to account for the seasonal declines that can occur during the months within the claim period. The base production for each of the applicable claim period months is calculated by reducing the starting base production of the applicable base month, or alternate month approved by the Deputy Administrator for new producers, as follows:

(1)August 2005 base production is the starting base production reduced by 8 percent;

(2)September 2005 base production is the starting base production reduced by 17 percent;

(3)October 2005 base production is the starting base production reduced by 11 percent. However, if losses occurred only as a result of Hurricanes Ophelia and Wilma, for October 2005, base production is not reduced.

(4)November 2005 base production is the starting base production reduced by 6 percent, unless eligible losses occurred only as a result of Hurricanes Ophelia and Wilma, in which case, for November 2005, base production is not reduced.

(5)December 2005 base production is not reduced by a downward adjustment percentage.

(b)The eligible dairy production losses for a dairy operation for each of the claim period months of August through December 2005, as applicable, will be:

(1)The new base production for the dairy operation calculated under paragraph

(a)of this section less,

(2)For each such month for each dairy operation, the total of:

(i)Actual commercially-marketed production (not counting dumped production counted under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section); plus

(ii)The pounds of milk production dumped (whether related to the hurricane or not), or otherwise not commercially marketed (whether related to the hurricane or not). For dumping losses to be eligible for payment, however, they must, as with other program losses, be hurricane related, as described under paragraphs

(c)and

(d)of this section.

(c)Actual production losses may be adjusted to the extent the reduction in production is not certified by the producer to be the result of the hurricane or is determined by CCC not to be hurricane-related. Actual production, as adjusted, that exceeds the adjusted base production will mean that the dairy operation incurred no eligible production losses for the corresponding month as a result of the hurricane disaster, and that the production level for that month does not qualify for a production loss payment under this program.

(d)Eligible dairy spoilage losses incurred by producers under this subpart for each of the months August through December 2005, as applicable to the claim period that corresponds with the hurricane-related disaster, will be determined based on actual milk produced in those months that was dumped on the farm as a result of the 2005 hurricanes, or other related condition. Proper documentation of milk dumped on the farm as a result of spoilage due to a hurricane must be provided to CCC as provided in § 1430.305.

(e)Calculated production losses may be adjusted by CCC based on the monthly average of daily dairy cow additions or reductions to the milking herd during the applicable claim period that corresponds with the hurricane-related disaster, to account for production adjustments as a result of dairy cow purchases, sales, or death losses. Production adjustments can be calculated using the average number of dairy cows in a dairy operation's milking herd and the average production per cow during each applicable month. Per-cow production averages during the applicable claim period months will be determined based on the actual per-cow production average during the base month applicable to the hurricane-related disaster and reduced downward according to the seasonal decline percentages provided in paragraph

(a)of this section, to determine the total production that may be credited back to the dairy operation's total production losses. To qualify for the production adjustment credit:

(1)Producers in eligible dairy operations must report any increases to the dairy cow milking herd during the applicable base month and claim period that corresponds to the hurricane disaster condition to the eligible hurricane.

(2)Adequate supporting documentation according to § 1430.305 must be provided to the satisfaction of the COC to verify any claims of herd increases during the eligible period.

(3)Any cows purchased during the eligible period that would increase the dairy cow milking herd must have been to offset production losses as a result of the 2005 hurricanes, or other related condition.

(f)Eligible production and spoilage losses as otherwise determined under paragraphs

(a)through

(e)of this section are added together to determine total eligible losses incurred by the dairy operation subject to all other eligibility requirements as may be included in this part or elsewhere.

(g)Payment on eligible dairy operation losses is calculated using whole pounds of milk. No double counting is permitted, and only one payment will be made for each pound of milk calculated as an eligible loss after the distribution of the operation's eligible production loss among the producers of the dairy operation according to § 1420.307(b). Payments under this part will not be affected by any payments for dumped or spoiled milk that the dairy operation may have received from its milk handler, or marketing cooperative, or any other private party.

(h)If a producer is eligible to receive payments under this part and benefits under any other program administered by the Department of Agriculture

(USDA)for the same losses, the producer must choose whether to receive the other program benefits or payments under this part, but shall not be eligible for both. The limitation on multiple benefits prohibits a producer from being compensated more than once for the same losses. If the other USDA program benefits are not available until after an application for benefits has been filed under this part, the producer may, to avoid this restriction on such other benefits, refund the total amount of the payment to the FSA administrative office from which the payment was received. § 1430.307 Rate of payment and limitations on funding.

(a)Subject to the availability of funds, the payment rate for eligible production and spoilage losses determined according to § 1430.306 is, depending on the State, the amount set forth below which is derived from the monthly Mailbox milk price for the Florida, the Southeast, Western Texas or the Appalachian States Marketing Orders as reported by the Agricultural Marketing Service. Maximum payment rates for eligible losses for dairy operations located in specific states are as follows:

(1)Florida—$18.19 per hundredweight ($0.1819 per pound), which is averaged to account for the mailbox price during the months of August 2005 and October 2005 when the hurricane disasters occurred.

(2)Louisiana—$16.47 per hundredweight ($0.1647 per pound), which is averaged to account for the mailbox price during the months of August 2005 and September 2005 when the hurricane disasters occurred.

(3)Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and Mississippi—$16.49 per hundredweight ($0.1649 per pound).

(4)North Carolina—$15.39 per hundredweight ($0.1539 per pound).

(5)Texas—$14.19 per hundredweight ($0.1419 per pound).

(6)Tennessee—$15.38 per hundredweight ($0.1538 per pound).

(b)Subject to the availability of funds, each eligible dairy operation's payment is calculated by multiplying the applicable payment rate under paragraph

(a)of this section by the operation's total eligible losses. Where there are multiple producers in the dairy operation, individual producers' payments are disbursed according to each producer's share of the dairy operation's production as specified in the Application.

(c)If the total value of losses claimed under paragraph

(b)of this section exceeds the $17 million available for DDAP-II, less any reserve that may be created under paragraph

(e)of this section, total eligible losses of individual dairy operations that, as calculated as an overall percentage for the full disaster claim period that corresponds with the applicable hurricane-related disaster (not a monthly average for any one month), are greater than 20 percent of the total base production for those applicable claim period months will be paid at the maximum rate under paragraph

(a)of this section to the extent available funding allows. A loss of over 20 percent in only one or two of the eligible months does not itself qualify for the maximum per-pound payment. Total eligible losses for a producer, as calculated under § 1430.306, of less than or equal to 20 percent during the eligible claim period will then be paid at a rate determined by dividing the eligible losses of less than 20 percent by the funds remaining after making payments for all eligible losses above the 20-percent threshold.

(d)In no event shall the payment exceed the value determined by multiplying the producer's total eligible loss times the average price received for commercial milk production in their area as defined in paragraph

(a)of this section.

(e)A reserve may be created to handle pending or disputed claims, but claims shall not be payable once the available funding is expended. § 1430.308 Availability of funds. The total available program funds shall be $17 million as provided by section 3014 of Title III of Public Law 109-234. § 1430.309 Appeals. Any producer who is dissatisfied with a determination made pursuant to this subpart may request reconsideration or appeal of such determination in accordance with the appeal regulations set forth at 7 CFR parts 11 and 780. Appeals of determinations of ineligibility or payment amounts are subject to the limitations in §§ 1430.307 and 1430.308 and other limitations as may apply. § 1430.310 Misrepresentation and scheme or device.

(a)In addition to other penalties, sanctions or remedies as may apply, a dairy producer shall be ineligible to receive assistance under this program if the producer is determined by CCC to have:

(1)Adopted any scheme or device that tends to defeat the purpose of this program;

(2)Made any fraudulent representation; or

(3)Misrepresented any fact affecting a program determination.

(b)Any funds disbursed pursuant to this part to any person or operation engaged in a misrepresentation, scheme, or device, must be refunded with interest together with such other sums as may become due. Any dairy operation or person engaged in acts prohibited by this section and any dairy operation or person receiving payment under this subpart shall be jointly and severally liable with other persons or operations involved in such claim for benefits for any refund due under this section and for related charges. The remedies provided in this subpart shall be in addition to other civil, criminal, or administrative remedies that may apply. § 1430.311 Death, incompetence, or disappearance. In the case of death, incompetency, disappearance, or dissolution of a person that is eligible to receive benefits in accordance with this subpart, such alternate person or persons specified in 7 CFR part 707 may receive such benefits, as determined appropriate by CCC. § 1430.312 Maintaining records. Persons applying for benefits under this program must maintain records and accounts to document all eligibility requirements specified herein. Such records and accounts must be retained for 3 years after the date of payment to the dairy operations under this program. Destruction of the records after such date shall be at the risk of the party imposed with the recordkeeping requirements by this subpart. § 1430.313 Refunds; joint and several liability.

(a)Excess payments, payments provided as the result of erroneous information provided by any person, or payments resulting from a failure to comply with any requirement or condition for payment under the application or this subpart, must be refunded to CCC.

(b)A refund required under this section shall be due with interest determined in accordance with paragraph

(d)of this section and late payment charges as provided in 7 CFR part 1403.

(c)Persons signing a dairy operation's application as having an interest in the operation shall be jointly and severally liable for any refund and related charges found to be due under this section.

(d)In accord with parts 792 and 1403 of this title, interest shall be applicable to any refunds required under this subpart. Such interest shall be charged at the rate the United States Department of the Treasury charges CCC for funds, and shall accrue from the date FSA or CCC made the erroneous payment to the date of repayment.

(e)CCC may waive the accrual of interest if it determines that the cause of the erroneous determination was not due to any action of the person, or was beyond the control of the person committing the violation. Any waiver is at the discretion of CCC alone. § 1430.314 Miscellaneous provisions.

(a)CCC may offset or withhold any amount due CCC under this subpart in accordance with 7 CFR part 1403.

(b)Payments or any portion thereof due under this subpart shall be made without regard to questions of title under State law and without regard to any claim or lien against the livestock or property of any kind, or proceeds thereof, in favor of the owner or any other creditor except agencies and instrumentalities of the U.S. Government.

(c)Any producer entitled to any payment under this part may assign any payments in accordance with the provisions of 7 CFR part 1404. Signed at Washington, DC, on October 25, 2006. Thomas B. Hofeller, Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-18247 Filed 10-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Parts 101 and 123 RIN 3245-AF42 Administration and Disaster Loan Program AGENCY: Small Business Administration (SBA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: The purpose of this direct final rule is to amend SBA regulations to reflect the new structure of the Office of Disaster Assistance

(ODA)following an office reorganization. This rule amends the regulation to name and list five disaster centers, four that serve the public (disaster assistance customer service center, disaster assistance processing and disbursement center, disaster assistance field operations center east, disaster assistance field operations center west) and one that provides personnel and administrative services to the other disaster centers and also houses the Disaster Credit Management System

(DCMS)operations center, the field inspection team headquarters, and the administrative law function (disaster assistance personnel and administrative services center). This rule also amends the regulation by making conforming amendments to existing regulations on SBA's Disaster Loan Program. DATES: This rule is effective November 30, 2006 without further action, unless adverse comment is received on or before the effective date. If adverse comment is received, SBA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by RIN 3245-AF42 by any of the following methods

(1)*Mail/Hand Delivery:* James E. Rivera, Deputy Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416;

(2)*Fax:*

(202)205-7728;

(3)*E-mail: James.Rivera@sba.gov* ; or Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* , following the specific instructions for submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James E. Rivera, Deputy Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416;

(202)205-6734; fax

(202)205-7728; or e-mail *James.Rivera@sba.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background Prior to the office reorganization, ODA was comprised of four disaster area offices located in Niagara Falls, NY, Sacramento, CA, Atlanta, GA, and Fort Worth, TX. Disaster area offices were managed by Area Directors who reported to the Deputy Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance at SBA Headquarters in Washington, DC. Each area office responded to declared disasters in a defined geographic area of the country primarily by providing loan services to disaster victims. Each area office was a full-service loan processing facility with electronic and paper-based systems operated and monitored by staff in each office. Those systems were not web-enabled or integrated. As a result, the Disaster area offices may have adopted varying standards and procedures for processing loans. B. Office Reorganization In 2004, following the introduction of a 5-year strategic plan and the development of a paperless, web-enabled loan processing system, known as the DCMS system, ODA began to study the best methods of program delivery given the benefits the new loan processing system would bring to bear. Following the year and a half study of ODA's program, its processes and organization, SBA decided to reorganize the office and realign its employees and space to operate more efficiently and better serve its customers, the disaster victims. The reorganization is substantially complete, and SBA aims to fully complete it by the end of fiscal year 2006. ODA is maintaining offices in its four current locations to take full advantage of the existing infrastructure in each location, and the existing personnel resources (the Niagara Falls, NY disaster area office relocated to Buffalo, NY). Those four disaster centers are: disaster assistance customer service center, disaster assistance processing and disbursement center, disaster assistance field operations center east, and disaster assistance field operations center west. There is a fifth center located in Herndon, VA which serves as a personnel and administrative services center for the other disaster centers. As part of the reorganization, SBA is also implementing DCMS, a fully web-enabled technology, which allows ODA to process disaster loans anywhere at any time. DCMS ensures continuity of ODA's loan processing capabilities even if operations at the disaster assistance processing and disbursement center in Ft. Worth are disrupted. C. Five Disaster Centers The location of each center and general descriptions of their functions are listed below. Each center will be managed by a Center Director who reports to the Deputy Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance at SBA Headquarters. 1. Customer Support Center The customer support center located in Buffalo, NY performs the following functions: tele-registration (referrals from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)), mail-out (distribution of application materials to disaster victims), and customer support (telephonic and electronic contact for disaster victims nationwide to obtain application and loan status information). This will eliminate the need for four independent phone banks, four sets of technology supporting them, and four sets of customer support personnel operating them. 2. Processing and Disbursement Center All loan processes, including application entry and scanning, loan processing, and loan closing and disbursement, previously performed independently by the four area offices, are now performed in one central processing and disbursement center located in Ft. Worth, TX. SBA anticipates that this new approach will achieve efficiencies of scale, consistency in the loan processing, closing and disbursement functions, consistent application of SBA policy, and the elimination of varying processing approaches and standards. 3. Field Operations Centers East and West Field operations centers east and west, located in Atlanta, GA and Sacramento, CA respectively, manage and coordinate ODA field response and all field resources necessary to implement the disaster loan program. They also respond to congressional inquiries and perform public information functions. Additionally, they respond to requests by State governors for SBA disaster declarations. Such requests are to be submitted to the field operations center serving the jurisdiction in which the disaster occurred. The addresses, phone numbers, and jurisdictions served by the field operations centers are published in the **Federal Register** . Establishing two field operations centers will result in greater efficiencies and economies of scale by stabilizing the workload that, due to the intermittent nature of disaster field work, had been variable and uneven under the old structure. 4. Personnel and Administrative Support Center This center, located in Herndon VA, provides administrative, personnel, and administrative law functions for the Disaster Assistance Program. It also houses the Disaster Credit Management System operations center and the Field Inspection Team headquarters. This center consolidates functions which were performed separately in the four areas, thus leading to greater efficiencies and economies of scale. D. Amendments to SBA Regulations SBA is amending Part 101 to name and list the five disaster centers, four that serve the public, and one that provides personnel, administrative, computer operations, and other services to the other disaster centers. SBA is amending Part 123 by making conforming amendments to existing regulations on SBA's Disaster Loan Program. E. Direct Final Rule SBA is publishing this regulation as a direct final rule because it believes the rule is non-controversial since the changes are largely transparent to the public and few external parties will be affected. In addition, the costs of the transformation are expected to be offset by the savings in overhead and travel costs. SBA believes that this rule will not elicit any significant adverse comments. Compliance With Executive Orders 13132, 12988 and 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch.35) This direct final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, for the purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA determines that this direct final rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has determined that this rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. This direct final rule meets applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. This rule does not have retroactive or preemptive effect. SBA has determined that this direct final rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small entities, small non-profit enterprises, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rulemaking, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Within the meaning of RFA, SBA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is only changing the designations of the agency's disaster offices and making conforming amendments to existing regulations on SBA's Disaster Loan Program. List of Subjects in 13 CFR Parts 101 and 123 13 CFR Part 101 Authority delegations, Organization and function. 13 CFR Part 123 Disaster assistance, Loan programs—business, Small businesses. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Small Business Administration amends parts 101 and 123 of title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 101—ADMINISTRATION 1. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552 and App. 3, secs. 2, 4(a), 6(a), and 9(a)(1)(T); 15 U.S.C. 633, 634, 687; 31 U.S.C. 6506; 44 U.S.C. 3512; E.O. 12372 (July 14, 1982), 47 FR 30959, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 197, as amended by E.O. 12416 (April 8, 1983), 48 FR 15887, 3 CFR, 1983 Comp., p. 186. 2. Revise § 101.104(d) to read as follows: § 101.104 What are the functions of SBA's field offices?

(d)Disaster assistance offices. The Office of Disaster Assistance maintains five permanent field offices which are named according to the particular functions they perform in the disaster loan making process. The office names are: Disaster Assistance Customer Service Center, Disaster Assistance Processing and Disbursement Center, Disaster Assistance Field Operations Center East, Disaster Assistance Field Operations Center West, and the Disaster Assistance Personnel and Administrative Services Center. Each office is managed by a Center Director who reports to the Deputy Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. The offices provide loan services to victims of declared disasters, or support the efforts of the other offices to do so. Temporary disaster offices may be established in areas where disasters have occurred. PART 123—DISASTER LOAN PROGRAM 3. The authority citation for part 123 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), 636(b), 636(c); Pub. L. 102-395, 106 Stat. 1828, 1864; and Pub. L. 103-75, 107 Stat. 739; and Pub. L 106-50, 113 Stat. 245 4. Amend § 123.3 by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and (a)(5) to read as follows: § 123.3 How are disaster declarations made?

(a)* * *

(3)* * *

(iii)The Governor of the State in which the disaster occurred submits a written request to SBA for a physical disaster declaration by SBA (OMB Approval No. 3245-0121). This request should be delivered to the Disaster Assistance Field Operations Center serving the jurisdiction within 60 days of the date of the disaster. The addresses, phone numbers, and jurisdictions served by the field operations centers are published in the **Federal Register** .

(4)* * *

(5)SBA makes an economic injury declaration in reliance on a state certification that at least five small business concerns in a disaster area have suffered substantial economic injury as a result of the disaster and are in need of financial assistance not otherwise available on reasonable terms. The state certification must be signed by the Governor, must specify the county or counties or other political subdivision in which the disaster occurred, and must be delivered (with supporting documentation) to the Disaster Assistance Field Operations Center serving the jurisdiction within 120 days of the disaster occurrence. * * * 5. Amend § 123.13 by revising paragraphs (c), (e), and

(f)to read as follows: § 123.13 What happens if my loan application is declined?

(c)Any request for reconsideration must be received by SBA's Disaster Assistance Processing and Disbursement Center (DAPDC) within six months of the date of the decline notice. After six months, a new loan application is required.

(d)* * *

(e)If SBA declines your application a second time, you have the right to appeal in writing to the Director, Disaster Assistance Processing and Disbursement Center. All appeals must be received by the processing center within 30 days of the decline action. Your request must state that you are appealing, and must give specific reasons why the decline action should be reversed.

(f)The decision of the Director, DAPDC, is final unless:

(1)The Director, DAPDC, does not have the authority to approve the requested loan;

(2)The Director, DAPDC, refers the matter to the AA/DA; or

(3)The AA/DA, upon a showing of special circumstances, requests that the Director, DAPDC, forward the matter to him or her for final consideration. Special circumstances may include, but are not limited to, policy considerations or alleged improper acts by SBA personnel or others in processing the application. Dated: October 24, 2006. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-18246 Filed 10-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM356; Special Conditions No. 25-334-SC] Special Conditions: Boeing Model 737-700 IGW Airplane (BBJ, S/N 34683); Certification of Cooktops AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA issues these special conditions for the Boeing Model 737- 700 IGW airplane (BBJ serial number 34683). This airplane, as modified by PATS Aircraft LLC, will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The modification consists of installing an electrically heated surface, called a cooktop. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is October 13, 2006. We must receive your comments by December 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail or deliver comments on these special conditions in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM356, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356. You must mark your comments: Docket No. NM356. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Shelden, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2785; facsimile

(425)227-1100; e-mail *john.shelden@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment for these special conditions is impracticable because this procedure would significantly delay certification and delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. We therefore find that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. However, we invite interested persons to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel about these special conditions. You may inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive. If you want us to let you know we received your comments on these special conditions, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background On August 31, 2005, PATS Aircraft LLC applied for a supplemental type certificate for the Boeing Model 737-700 IGW airplane (BBJ serial number 34683). The Boeing Model 737-700 IGW airplane is one of the Boeing Business Jet

(BBJ)variants of Model 737 airplanes. It is a large transport category airplane powered by two CFM 56 engines, with a maximum takeoff weight of 171,000 pounds. The modified Boeing Model 737-700 IGW airplane, BBJ serial number 34683, operates with a 2-pilot crew, up to 4 flight attendants, and can hold up to 18 passengers. The modification consists of installing an electrically heated surface, called a cooktop. Cooktops introduce high heat, smoke, and the possibility of fire into the passenger cabin environment. These potential hazards to the airplane and its occupants must be satisfactorily addressed. Since existing airworthiness regulations do not contain safety standards addressing cooktops, we issue these special conditions. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of § 21.101, PATS Aircraft LLC must show that the 737-700 IGW, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A16WE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in A16WE are part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-77, with reversions to earlier amendments, voluntary compliance to later amendments, special conditions, equivalent safety findings, and exemptions listed in the type certificate data sheet. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (14 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part 25, as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the 737-700 IGW because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the 737-700 IGW must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features As noted earlier, the modification of the Boeing Model 737-700 IGW airplane, BBJ serial number 34683, will incorporate a cooktop in the passenger cabin. Cooktops introduce high heat, smoke, and the possibility of fire into the passenger cabin environment. The current airworthiness standards of part 25 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards to protect the airplane and its occupants from these potential hazards. So this system is considered to be a novel or unusual design feature. Discussion Currently, ovens are the prevailing means of heating food on airplanes. Ovens are characterized by an enclosure that contains both the heat source and the food being heated. The hazards presented by ovens are thus inherently limited, and are well understood through years of service experience. Cooktops, on the other hand, are characterized by exposed heat sources and the presence of relatively unrestrained hot cookware and heated food. These may represent unprecedented hazards to both occupants and the airplane. Cooktops could have serious implications for passenger and airplane safety if appropriate requirements are not established for their installation and use. These special conditions apply to cooktops with electrically powered burners. Use of an open flame cooktop (employing natural gas, for example) is beyond the scope of these special conditions and would require separate rulemaking action. The requirements identified in these special conditions are in addition to those considerations identified in Advisory Circular

(AC)25-10, “Guidance for Installation of Miscellaneous Non-required Electrical Equipment,” and those in AC 25-17, “Transport Airplane Cabin Interiors Crashworthiness Handbook.” The intent of these special conditions is to provide a level of safety consistent with that on similar airplanes without cooktops. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the 737-700 IGW airplane, BBJ serial number 34683, modified by PATS Aircraft LLC. Should PATS Aircraft LLC apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A16WE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . However, because the certification date for the subject modification to the Boeing Model 737-700 IGW is imminent, the FAA finds that good cause exists to make these special conditions effective upon issuance. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 737-700 IGW BBJ airplane, BBJ serial number 34683, modified by PATS Aircraft LLC: Cooktop Installations With Electrically-Powered Burners 1. A design feature must be installed to minimize potential for inadvertent personnel contact with hot surfaces of both the cooktop and cookware. Examples of such safety features are conspicuous burner-on indicators, physical barriers, or handholds. Conditions of turbulence must be considered. 2. The design must include sufficient means to restrain cookware and representative contents, such as soups or sauces, while in place on the cooktop, from effects of flight loads and turbulence.

(a)Restraints must be provided to preclude hazardous movement of cookware and contents. These restraints must accommodate any cookware identified for use with the cooktop.

(b)Restraints must be designed to be easily used and effective in service. The cookware restraint system should also be designed so it cannot be easily disabled, thus rendering it unusable.

(c)Placarding must be installed that prohibits use of cookware that cannot be accommodated by the restraint system. 3. Placarding must be installed that prohibits use of cooktops (power on any burner) during taxi, takeoff, and landing (TTL). 4. Means must be provided to address the possibility of a fire occurring on or in the immediate vicinity of the cooktop caused by materials or grease inadvertently coming in contact with the burners. Note: Two acceptable means of complying with this requirement are as follows: • Placarding must be installed that prohibits power on any burner when the cooktop is unattended. This would prohibit a single person from cooking on the cooktop and intermittently serving food to passengers while any burner is powered. A fire detector which provides an audible warning in the passenger cabin must be installed in the vicinity of the cooktop. In addition, a fire extinguisher of appropriate size and extinguishing agent must be installed in the immediate vicinity of the cooktop. A fire on or around the cooktop must not block access to the extinguisher. One of the fire extinguishers required by § 25.851 may be used to satisfy this requirement if the total complement of extinguishers can be evenly distributed throughout the cabin. If this is not possible, then the extinguisher in the galley area would be additional. or • An automatic, thermally-activated fire suppression system must be installed to extinguish a fire on the cooktop and immediately adjacent surfaces. The agent used in the system must be an approved total flooding agent suitable for use in occupied areas. The fire suppression system must have a manual override. Automatic activation of the fire suppression system must also automatically shut off power to the cooktop. 5. Galley surfaces surrounding the cooktop, which would be exposed to a fire on the cooktop surface or in cookware on the cooktop, must be constructed of materials complying with flammability requirements of 14 CFR part 25, Appendix F part III. This requirement is in addition to the flammability standards typically required of these galley surface materials. During selection of these materials, consideration must also be given to ensuring that the flammability characteristics of the materials will not be adversely affected by cleaning agents and utensils used to remove cooking stains. 6. The cooktop must be ventilated with a system independent of the airplane cabin and cargo ventilation system. Procedures and time intervals must be established to inspect and clean or replace the ventilation system to prevent a fire hazard from accumulation of flammable oils. These procedures and time intervals must be included in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA). The ventilation system ducting must be protected by a flame arrestor. Note: The applicant may find additional useful information in “Air Conditioning Systems for Subsonic Airplanes,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Aerospace Recommended Practice 85, Rev. E, dated August 1, 1991. 7. Means must be provided to contain spilled foods or fluids in a manner that will prevent creation of a slipping hazard to occupants and will not lead to loss of structural strength due to airplane corrosion. 8. Cooktop installations must provide adequate space for the user to immediately escape a hazardous cooktop condition. 9. A means to shut off power to the cooktop must be provided both in the galley containing the cooktop and in the cockpit. If additional switches are introduced in the cockpit, revisions to smoke or fire emergency procedures of the AFM will be required. 10. A readily deployable cover must be provided to cover the cooktop during taxi, takeoff, and landing (TT&L) operation. Deployment of the cover must automatically shut off power to the cooktop. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 13, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-18281 Filed 10-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30520; Amdt. No. 3191] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment amends Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective October 31, 2006. The compliance date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which affected airport is located; or 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* *For Purchase* —Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. *By Subscription* —Copies of all SIAPs, mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73169 ( *Mail Address:* P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) *telephone:*

(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) amends Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), which is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs. The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days. Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in TERPS. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC, on October 20, 2006. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows: * * * Effective Upon Publication FDC date State City Airport FDC number Subject 10/05/06 IN Indianapolis Indianapolis Intl 6/2576 ILS or LOC Rwy 14 Amdt 5. 10/07/06 WY Big Piney Big Piney-Marbleton 6/2781 VOR Rwy 31, Amdt 3B. 10/11/06 AL Mobile Mobile Downtown 6/3096 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 18, Orig. 10/11/06 AR Pine Bluff Grider Field 6/3054 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 18 Orig. 10/11/06 FL Boca Raton Boca Raton 6/3070 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 5, Orig. 10/11/06 IN Evansville Evansville Regional 6/3059 ILS or LOC Rwy 4, Amdt 1A. 10/11/06 NY White Plains Westchester County 6/3148 This Notam Replaces FDC 6/2223 Published in TL06-23. ILS Rwy 34, Amdt 3B. 10/11/06 OH Lorain/Elyria Lorain County Regional 6/3162 ILS Rwy 7, Amdt 6A. 10/11/06 PA Meadville Port Meadville 6/3157 LOC Rwy 25, Amdt 5. 10/11/06 WV Huntington Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson 6/3071 ILS or LOC Rwy 12, Amdt 11A. 10/12/06 WA Spokane Spokane Intl 6/3220 ILS or LOC Rwy 21, Amdt 20. 10/12/06 WA Spokane Spokane Intl 6/3222 ILS Rwy 21 (Cat III), Amdt 20. 10/12/06 WA Spokane Spokane Intl 6/3224 ILS Rwy 21(Cat II), Amdt 20. 10/13/06 FM Kosrae Island Kosrae 6/3242 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 5, Orig. 10/13/06 FM Kosrae Island Kosrae 6/3241 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 23, Orig. 10/13/06 TN Somerville Fayette Co 6/3413 NDB Rwy 19, Amdt 1. 10/16/06 CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Intl 6/3645 ILS Rwy 6L, Amdt 11. 10/16/06 CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Intl 6/3646 ILS or LOC Rwy 24R, Amdt 23. 10/16/06 CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Intl 6/3647 ILS or LOC Rwy 25R, Amdt 15. 10/16/06 CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Intl 6/3648 ILS or LOC Rwy 24L, Amdt 24. 10/17/06 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 6/3720 ILS Rwy 16R, Amdt 10A. 10/17/06 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 6/3721 LOC 2 Rwy 16R, Amdt 6B. 10/17/06 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 6/3722 VOR or GPS-D, Amdt 6. 10/17/06 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 6/3723 LOC/DME BC Rwy 34L, Amdt 1B. 10/18/06 FL Marathon The Florida Keys Marathon 6/3849 NDB or GPS Rwy 7, Amdt 3A. 10/18/06 NY Elmira/Corning Regional Elmira 6/3847 ILS Rwy 24, Amdt 18A. [FR Doc. E6-18085 Filed 10-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 157 [Docket No. RM06-7-000; Order No. 686] Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Regulations and Clarification Regarding Rates October 19, 2006. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending its blanket certification regulations to expand the scope and scale of activities that may be undertaken pursuant to blanket certificate authority. The Commission is expanding the types of natural gas projects permitted under blanket certificate authority and increasing the cost limits that apply to blanket projects. In addition, the Commission clarifies that a natural gas company is not necessarily engaged in an unduly discriminatory practice if it charges different customers different rates for the same service based on the date that customers commit to service. Rather than rely on the more demanding process of submitting an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for certificate authorization for every project, the revised regulations will allow interstate natural gas pipelines to employ the streamlined blanket certificate procedures for larger projects and for a wider variety of types of projects, thereby increasing efficiencies, and decreasing time and costs, associated with the construction and maintenance of the nation's natural gas infrastructure. DATES: The rule will become effective January 2, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon Wagner, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. *gordon.wagner@ferc.gov.*

(202)502-8947. Michael McGehee, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. *michael.mcgehee@ferc.gov.*

(202)502-8962. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Before Commissioners* : Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff. 1. On June 16, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NOPR)in this proceeding. 1 In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to amend its Part 157, Subpart F, regulations to expand the scope and scale of activities that may be undertaken pursuant to blanket certificate authority and clarified that existing Commission policies permit natural gas companies to charge different rates to different classes of customers. This Final Rule considers comments submitted in response to the NOPR, and as a result, makes certain relatively minor modifications to the regulatory revisions described in the NOPR, and affirms the clarification regarding rate treatment described in the NOPR. 1 71 FR 36276 (June 26, 2006); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,606 (2006); 115 FERC ¶ 61,338 (2006). I. Background 2. A natural gas company must obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act

(NGA)to construct, acquire, alter, abandon, or operate jurisdictional gas facilities or to provide jurisdictional gas services. Once issued a case-specific NGA section 7(c) certificate, a gas company may also obtain a blanket certificate under NGA section 7(c) and Part 157, Subpart F, of the Commission's regulations to construct, acquire, alter, or abandon certain types of facilities without the need for further case-by-case certificate authorization for each particular project. 2 Currently, blanket activities are limited to a maximum cost of $8,200,000 per project undertaken without prior notice (also referred to as self-implementing or automatic authorization projects) and $22,700,000 per project undertaken subject to prior notice. 3 Blanket certificate authority only applies to a restricted set of facilities and services, and currently does not extend to mainlines, storage field facilities, and facilities receiving gas from a liquefied natural gas

(LNG)plant or a synthetic gas plant. 2 Certain activities are exempted from the certificate requirements of NGA section 7(c). For example, 18 CFR 2.55 in the Commission's regulations exempts auxiliary installations and the replacement of physically deteriorated or obsolete facilities, and Part 284, Subpart I, of the regulations provides for the construction and operation of facilities needed to alleviate a gas emergency. 3 These are the current cost limits for calendar year 2006. Cost limits are adjusted annually. *See* 18 CFR 157.208(d), Table I (2006), as updated. As noted in the NOPR, in response to the impacts of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, these cost limits have been temporarily doubled for blanket projects that are built and placed into service between November 2005 and February 2007 to increase access to gas supplies. In addition, blanket certificate authority has been temporarily extended to cover facilities that would otherwise require case-specific authorization, namely, an extension of a mainline; a facility, including compression and looping, that alters the capacity of a mainline; and temporary compression that raises the capacity of a mainline. *See Expediting Infrastructure Construction To Speed Hurricane Recovery,* 113 FERC ¶ 61,179

(2005)and 114 FERC ¶ 61,186 (2006). 3. This Final Rule expands the scope of activities that can be undertaken pursuant to blanket authority by

(1)increasing the project cost limit to $9,600,000 for an automatic authorization project and $27,400,000 for a prior notice project 4 and

(2)expanding the types of facilities that may be acquired, constructed, modified, replaced, abandoned, and operated under blanket certificate authority to include mainline facilities, certain LNG and synthetic gas facilities, and certain storage facilities. In addition, the Commission clarifies that a natural gas company is not necessarily engaged in an unduly discriminatory practice if it charges different customers different rates for the same service based on the date that customers commit to service. 4 Upon the effective date of this Final Rule, these higher project cost limits will be substituted for the amounts that now appear for the current calendar year in 18 CFR 157.208(d), Table I, with these higher amounts then subject to the annual inflation adjustment. II. Notice and Comment A. Petition To Expand the Blanket Certificate Program and Clarify Criteria Defining Just and Reasonable Rates 4. On November 22, 2005, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) and the Natural Gas Supply Association

(NGSA)jointly filed a petition under § 385.207(a) of the Commission's regulations proposing that the blanket certificate provisions be expanded to include mainline facilities, LNG takeaway facilities, and certain underground storage field facilities which are currently excluded from the blanket certificate program, and that the cost limits for all categories of blanket projects be raised. Petitioners also argue in favor of preferential rate treatment for “foundation shippers,” *i.e.* , customers that sign up early for firm service and thereby establish the financial foundation for a new project, and seek assurance that providing customers that commit early to a proposed project a more favorable rate than customers that seek service later will not be viewed as unduly discriminatory. 5. Notice of the INGAA/NGSA petition was published in the **Federal Register** on December 9, 2005, 5 and comments on the petition were filed by the American Gas Association (AGA); American Public Gas Association (APGA); Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko); Devon Energy Corporation (Devon); Duke Energy Gas Transmission Corporation (Duke); Enstor Operating Company, LLC (Enstor); Honeoye Storage Corporation (Honeoye Storage); Illinois Municipal Gas Agency (Illinois Municipal); Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA); Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC (Kinder Morgan); NiSource Inc. (NiSource); Process Gas Consumers Group (Process Gas Consumers); Public Service Commission of New York (PSCNY); and Sempra Global (Sempra). 5 70 FR 73232 (Dec. 9, 2005). B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 6. After consideration of the petition and comments thereto, the Commission issued a NOPR that

(1)proposed adopting the petitioners' requested regulatory revisions, with relatively minor modifications, and

(2)clarified that the petitioners' hypothetical tiered rate structure for a new project could be accepted under the Commission's current policies. Notice of the NOPR was published in the **Federal Register** on June 29, 2006. 6 Comments on the NOPR were filed by the AGA; APGA; Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP (Boardwalk); Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) jointly with Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (Orange and Rockland); Dominion Transmission, Inc., Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, and Dominion South Pipeline Company, LP (Dominion); Duke; HFP Acoustical Consultants Inc. (HFP Acoustical); INGAA; IPAA; NGSA; Process Gas Consumers; Sempra; and Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston). Further comments were filed by INGAA jointly with NGSA, and by AGA. 6 71 FR 36276 (June 26, 2006). III. Discussion 7. The blanket certificate program was designed to provide an administratively efficient means to authorize a generic class of routine activities, without subjecting each minor project to a full, case-specific NGA section 7 certificate proceeding. In 1982, in instituting the blanket certificate program, the Commission explained the new program as follows: [T]he final regulations divide the various actions that the Commission certificates into several categories. The first category applies to certain activities performed by interstate pipelines that either have relatively little impact on ratepayers, or little effect on pipeline operations. This first category also includes minor investments in facilities which are so well understood as an established industry practice that little scrutiny is required to determine their compatibility with the public convenience and necessity. The second category of activities provides for a notice and protest procedure and comprises certain activities in which various interested parties might have a concern. In such cases there is a need to provide an opportunity for a greater degree of review and to provide for possible adjudication of controversial aspects. Activities not authorized under the blanket certificate are those activities which may have a major potential impact on ratepayers, or which propose such important considerations that close scrutiny and case-specific deliberation by the Commission is warranted prior to the issuance of a certificate. 7 7 47 FR 24254 (June 4, 1982). 8. The Commission continues to apply the above criteria in an effort to distinguish those types of activities that may appropriately be constructed under blanket certificate authority from those projects that merit closer, case-specific scrutiny due to their potentially significant impact on rates, services, safety, security, competing natural gas companies or their customers, or on the environment. The Commission believes the regulatory revisions put in place by this Final Rule are consistent with the above-described rationale for and constraints on the blanket certificate program. 9. In addition, “[u]nder section 7 of the NGA, pursuant to which the blanket certificate rule is promulgated,” the Commission has “an obligation to issue certificates only where they are required by the public convenience and necessity. The blanket certificate rules set out a class of transactions, subject to specific conditions, that the Commission has determined to be in the public convenience and necessity.” 8 As discussed in the NOPR, and as further explained below, the Commission believes that the class of blanket-eligible transactions can be enlarged consistent with its statutory obligation to affirm that each new project or service is required by the public convenience and necessity. 8 *Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines After Partial Wellhead Decontrol* , Order No. 436, 50 FR 42408 (Oct. 18, 1985), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,665 at 31,554 (1985), *vacated and remanded* , *Associated Gas Distributors v. FERC* , 824 F.2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1987), *cert. denied* , 485 U.S. 1006 (1988), *readopted on an interim basis* , Order No. 500, 52 FR 30334 (Aug. 14, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,761 (1987), *remanded* , *American Gas Association v. FERC* , 888 F.2d 136 (D.C. Cir. 1989), *readopted* , Order No. 500-H, 54 FR 52344 (Dec. 21, 1989), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,867 (1989), *reh'g granted in part and denied in part* , Order No. 500-I, 55 FR 6605 (Feb. 26, 1990), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,880 (1990), *aff'd in part and remanded in part* , *American Gas Association v. FERC* , 912 F.2d 1496 (D.C. Cir. 1990), *cert. denied* , 111 S.Ct. 957 (1991). A. Proposed Regulatory Revisions, Comments, and Commission Response 10. The Commission proposes to expand the scope of blanket certificate activities to include facilities and services that have heretofore been excluded from the blanket program and to expand the scale of blanket certificate activities by raising the current project cost limits. B. Expanding Blanket Authority to Cover Currently Excluded Facilities 11. The Final Rule adds §§ 157.210, .212, and .213 to include, respectively, certain mainline, LNG and synthetic gas, and storage facilities within the blanket certificate program. As discussed in the NOPR, these facilities were initially barred from the blanket program out of concern that their cost and operation could adversely impact existing customers' rates and services. These concerns remain valid, and in addition, there has been increased attention to the environmental, safety, and security implications of all natural gas facilities. To ensure these matters receive appropriate review, all projects involving the additional types of facilities now permitted under the expanded blanket certificate program (with the exception of the remediation and maintenance of underground storage field facilities) will be subject to the prior notice provisions of the regulations regardless of their estimated costs. As explained in the NOPR, the Commission expects that by requiring prior public notice for blanket projects involving these previously excluded facilities, and by providing for more information to be included in notices to affected landowners and the public, and by providing additional time to assess proposed blanket projects, the Commission, affected landowners, and others will be afforded a reasonable opportunity to review the potential impacts of proposed projects prior to construction. 12. APGA asks that the Commission affirm these measures will ensure adequate staff review of prior notice submissions. The Commission expects that the revised regulations will enable staff to make a meaningful assessment of proposed blanket projects—and as appropriate, protest pursuant to § 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations—prior to a project going forward. 1. Section 157.210, Mainline Natural Gas Facilities 13. The Final Rule adds § 157.210 to allow blanket certificate holders to acquire, construct, modify, replace, and operate mainline gas facilities. The Final Rule makes the following modifications. At the end of the first sentence of this section, the phrase “natural gas mainline facilities,” is qualified by adding “including compression and looping, that are not eligible facilities under § 157.202(b)(2)(i).” This clarifies that blanket certificate authority can be employed for mainline projects that include compression and loop line facilities, and also clarifies, in response to INGAA's request, that this new section does not displace, but is in addition to, the existing provisions which state that certain mainline facilities are eligible to be replaced or rearranged under blanket authority. In addition, the reference in the NOPR to the authority to “abandon” is removed, since as Williston observes, blanket abandonment provisions are described in § 157.216 of the Commission's regulations. Instead, a cross-reference to § 157.210 will be added to § 157.216, so that the blanket abandonment authority and procedure now in place will be extended to new mainline facilities and services. 14. INGAA, Duke, and Dominion insist there is no need for prior notice for mainline projects that come under the automatic authorization cost limit, asserting that the Commission already has the capability to monitor mainline projects for adverse impacts, abuses, and segmenting by means of a review of annual reports and post-construction audits. On the other hand, APGA and IPAA argue in favor of prior notice for all § 157.210 mainline activity, regardless of cost. 15. Although the Commission is comfortable with its capability to assess and monitor the variety of activities currently included within the blanket certificate program, this Final Rule draws into the blanket program facilities which heretofore have been deliberately excluded due to the expectation that the limited regulatory oversight provided under the blanket program would be inadequate to properly review such facilities. Oversight via review of annual reports and post-construction audits, as suggested in comments, would only identify transgressions after the fact, whereas prior notice functions as a preventive measure. Given the Commission's lack of experience under the blanket program in supervising mainline, LNG and synthetic gas, and storage facility projects, the NOPR reasoned it would be prudent to provide prior notice for all projects involving these newly blanket-enfranchised facilities. The Commission affirms that reasoning here, with an exception described below for certain storage facilities. 16. In the NOPR, in response to a query by Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC (Kinder Morgan), the Commission stated its expectation that the proposed regulatory revisions would provide certificate holders with the option to construct mainline facilities under blanket certificate authority. This Final Rule does so. Accordingly, this rule renders moot Kinder Morgan's and Northern Natural Gas Company's joint petition in Docket No. CP06-418-000 for a temporary waiver of the blanket certificate program's exclusion of mainline facilities pending revision of the blanket regulations to permit the construction of mainline projects. 9 As of the effective date of this rule, mainline facilities may be constructed pursuant to a project sponsor's blanket certificate authority, provided the proposed facilities comply with the cost limits and other requirements of the blanket certificate program. 9 The Commission will issue a separate notice to dismiss Kinder Morgan's and Northern Natural Gas Company's petition in Docket No. CP06-418-000. 2. Section 157.212, LNG and Synthetic Natural Gas Facilities 17. The Final Rule adds § 157.212 to allow certificate holders to acquire, construct, modify, replace, and operate facilities used to transport LNG or synthetic gas. The Final Rule removes the reference in the NOPR to the authority to “abandon,” and instead adds a cross-reference to the blanket abandonment authority described in § 157.216 of the Commission's regulations. In addition, § 157.212 will be revised to clarify that it applies to facilities that transport a mix of synthetic and natural gas and to facilities that transport exclusively revaporized LNG. 10 10 The Commission's jurisdiction over the interstate transportation of natural gas does not extend to facilities that transport exclusively synthetic gas. See, *e.g.* , *Henry v. FPC* , 513 F.2d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1975). 18. As was the case regarding the issue of prior notice for mainline facilities, comments both favor and oppose applying prior notice to all LNG and synthetic gas facilities that are now newly subject to authorization under the blanket program. In accord with the above discussion regarding mainline facilities, the Commission will retain the prior notice requirement. In the NOPR, the Commission added that automatic authorization was unsuited to LNG and synthetic gas facilities because these projects raised fact-specific issues of safety, security, and gas interchangeability. 19. In opting for prior notice, INGAA contends the Commission is being “unduly cautious,” since “LNG supplies are not new to the natural gas industry and have been flowing into the U.S. grid for a long time now.” 11 INGAA's observation, while not wrong, overlooks the difficulties developers, producers, pipelines, LDCs, and gas consumers have encountered in trying to reach consensus on national natural gas quality and interchangeability standards. The concerted effort by representatives of these sectors of the gas industry to establish such standards, ongoing since 2004, was prompted by the prospect of increasing supplies of LNG, leading the industry and the Commission to consider whether revaporized LNG could contribute to the physical deterioration of existing gas lines and whether the substitution of one gaseous fuel for another in a combustion application could materially change operational safety, efficiency, performance, or air pollution emissions. In June 2006, the Commission denied an NGSA petition to establish natural gas quality and interchangeability standards 12 and issued a policy statement declaring its intent to address disputes over gas quality and interchangeability on a case-by-case basis. 13 Given the potential impact that a change in the makeup of a longstanding gas supply profile could have, the Commission believes that to the extent requiring prior notice for § 157.212 facilities may be characterized as cautious, caution is in order. Thus, the Commission will adopt the prior notice requirement for all LNG and synthetic gas facilities. 14 11 INGAA's Comments at 9 (Aug. 25, 2006). 12 115 FERC ¶ 61,327 (2006). 13 115 FERC ¶ 61,325 (2006). 14 In view of the issues that have arisen in the Commission proceeding regarding gas quality and interchangeability standards, Duke is incorrect in stating that “there are no construction, environmental, operational, or safety considerations that distinguish regasified LNG pipelines from other natural gas pipelines.” Duke's Comments at 9 (Aug. 25, 2006). 20. The NOPR states that “blanket certificate authority will not apply to the outlet pipe of an LNG or synthetic gas plant, but only to those facilities that attach to the directly interconnected pipe.” 15 APGA endorses this approach. INGAA, NGSA, Duke, and Dominion do not, and advocate extending blanket certificate authority to include takeaway lateral lines that connect directly to existing LNG terminals. AGA seeks clarification on this point. NGSA asserts that if a new lateral from an existing LNG terminal does not require modifying the terminal to accommodate the new lateral, the new lateral should not be subject to the mandatory prefiling specified in § 157.21 of the Commission's regulations. Dominion goes further, and recommends enlarging the blanket certificate program to include improvements and modifications to existing LNG terminals and LNG storage facilities that do not alter the facility's capacity. Duke goes further still, and claims that “if the Commission continues to believe that it is necessary to evaluate an LNG terminal and take-away pipeline in tandem, there is no reason why such pipeline facilities could not be both constructed pursuant to blanket authority and evaluated in connection with the construction of a new LNG terminal or expansion of an existing LNG terminal.” 16 15 71 FR 36276 at 36279 (June 26, 2006); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,606 at 32,876 (2006); 115 FERC ¶ 61,338 at P 28 (2006). 16 Duke's Comments at 10 (Aug. 25, 2006). 21. The Commission views Duke's suggestion as incompatible with the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to LNG terminal facilities. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that: LNG plant facilities are not within the class of minor, well-understood, routine activities that the blanket certificate program is intended to embrace; LNG plant facilities necessarily require a review of engineering, environmental, safety, and security issues that the Commission believes only can be properly considered on a case-by-case basis. 17 [Thus, b]ecause an LNG terminal and the facilities that attach directly to it are interdependent—inextricably bound in design and operation—a terminal and its takeaway facilities must be evaluated in tandem; both merit a similar degree of regulatory scrutiny.” 18 17 71 FR 36276 at 36279-80 (June 26, 2006); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,606 at 32,877 (2006); 115 FERC ¶ 61,338 at PP 29-30 (2006). 18 *Id.* 22. In view of the complexity of the issues raised by LNG terminals, § 157.21 requires that proposals to construct a new LNG terminal, or to make certain modifications to an existing LNG terminal, be subject to a mandatory 180-day prefiling procedure. The 180-day prefiling procedure conflicts with the expedited nature of the blanket certificate program. Thus, facilities subject to mandatory prefiling cannot be authorized under the blanket certificate program. 23. For example, in the case of a planned, but not yet authorized, LNG terminal, if the facilities that attach directly to the new terminal are “related jurisdictional natural gas facilities,” as defined by § 153.2(e)(1) of the Commission's regulations, they must be considered in conjunction with the LNG terminal in a 180-day mandatory prefiling procedure. In the case of an existing LNG terminal, if the construction or modification of facilities that attach directly to the terminal will result in modifications to the terminal, and those modifications to the terminal are subject to mandatory prefiling under § 157.21(e)(2), then the facilities that attach directly to the terminal are “related jurisdictional natural gas facilities” and must be considered along with the terminal modifications as part of a mandatory 180-day prefiling procedure. Because “related jurisdictional natural gas facilities” are to be reviewed in tandem with LNG terminals in a 180-day prefiling, these facilities are excluded from the blanket certificate program. 24. However, blanket certificate authority can be applied to facilities that attach directly to an existing LNG terminal if the construction and operation of the attached facilities will not involve any modifications to the terminal, or if there are modifications to the terminal, they are not significant modifications that trigger the 180-day mandatory prefiling process. In view of this latter category of facilities, the Commission qualifies its description in the NOPR on the applicability of the blanket program. Provided the construction and operation of facilities that attach directly to an existing LNG terminal do not involve modifications to the terminal that result in a mandatory prefiling process, blanket certificate authority extends to such facilities. 25. Sempra complains that an existing blanket certificate holder, in seeking to build a pipeline to attach to an LNG terminal, would have a competitive advantage over a new entrant compelled to seek case-specific authority. Sempra asks the Commission to preclude any project sponsor from using blanket certificate authority to gain a timing advantage over a new entrant in seeking to serve the same LNG supply source or market. 26. As discussed above, a new line to a new LNG terminal could not be built under the expanded blanket certificate authority, and depending on circumstances, neither could a new line to an existing LNG terminal. That notwithstanding, the Commission acknowledges that, to the extent proceeding under the blanket program provides an expedited authorization compared to a case-specific applicant, new entrants could be placed at a competitive disadvantage. However, the Commission notes that any timing-related advantage is diminished because a blanket-eligible line interconnecting directly with an LNG terminal will be subject to prior notice, and thus to protest, and an unresolved protest would cause the prior notice blanket application to be treated as an application for case-specific NGA section 7(c) authorization. 19 Further, while this Final Rule increases cost limits under the blanket certificate regulations, the cost limits nevertheless will continue to ensure that blanket authority extends only to relatively modest projects; hence, there would not necessarily be a substantial disparity in time in building under a blanket certificate and obtaining case-specific authorization for a modest proposal. The Commission concludes that the benefit the blanket certificate program provides in terms of administrative efficiency and cost savings outweigh any accompanying market distortion. Accordingly, Sempra's request to selectively revoke blanket certificate authority is denied. 19 *See* 18 CFR 157.205(f) (2006). 3. Section 157.213, Underground Storage Field Facilities 27. The Final Rule adds § 157.213 to allow certificate holders to acquire, construct, modify, replace, and operate certain underground storage facilities. As with § 157.210 and § 157.212, § 157.213 is revised to remove the reference in the NOPR to the authority to “abandon,” and instead a cross-reference is added to the blanket abandonment authority described in § 157.216 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission will further revise this section as described below. 28. Comments again both favor and oppose applying prior notice to all underground storage projects. However, in this instance, the Commission finds it appropriate to permit automatic authorization for certain types of storage projects. Dominion contends that automatic authorization should be allowed for storage projects limited to remediation and maintenance, on the grounds that such activities have little impact on customers or operations compared to projects to improve a storage facility. The Commission concurs and will provide for automatic authorization for storage remediation and maintenance activities under revised § 157.213(a). 20 20 The Commission consequently will modify 18 CFR 157.207 to include storage remediation and maintenance as an activity subject to the annual reporting requirements applicable to blanket projects undertaken pursuant to automatic authorization. 29. The NOPR states that “the proposed expanded blanket certificate authority is not intended to include storage reservoirs that are still under development or reservoirs which have yet to reach their inventory and pressure levels as determined from their original certificated construction parameters.” 21 Dominion asks the Commission to extend blanket certificate authority to activities at existing storage reservoirs that are not operated at their originally certificated maximum inventory and projected performance levels. Dominion argues that unlike a new storage reservoir, reliable operational data are available for existing storage facilities, even if an existing field has yet to reach its certificated maximum capacity or original projected performance. 21 71 FR 36276 at 362782 (June 26, 2006); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,606 at 32,880 (2006); 115 FERC ¶ 61,338 at P 43 (2006). 30. The Commission disagrees. While it may be true that reliable operational data are available for some existing fields that have yet to reach capacity, this is not always the case. Thus, the Commission does not believe that the blanket program, which permits an expedited and generic approval following a limited prior notice period, is the appropriate means to review and approve such projects. As stated in the NOPR, storage reservoirs that are still under development or reservoirs which have yet to reach their inventory: May or may not have reliable information available on geological confinement or operational parameters via data gathered throughout the life of a storage field, whereas new storage zones lack data collected over time on physical and operational aspects of a field. Therefore, for such facilities, the Commission finds it necessary to individually examine each reservoir to determine its potential operating parameters (capacity, cushion and working gas, operational limits, well locations, etc.) and to review data essential to understand and predict how modifications might affect the integrity, safety, and certificated parameters of the facility. 22 22 *Id.* 31. Dominion questions whether the Commission needs an inventory verification study, shut-in reservoir pressures, and cumulative gas-in-place data, which would be required for blanket projects under proposed §§ 157.213(b)(7) and (8), since the Commission does not currently require submission of this information in case-specific NGA section 7(c) applications for storage projects. 23 Dominion requests the Commission either remove these information requirements or require the data described in §§ 157.213(c)(1) through

(9)only to the extent necessary to demonstrate that the proposed project will not alter a storage reservoir's total inventory, maximum pressure, or buffer boundaries. 23 Note the regulatory revisions proposed in the NOPR as 18 CFR 157.213( *b* )(1) through (9), are codified in this Final Rule, and referred to hereafter, as 18 CFR 157.213( *c* )(1) through (9). 32. Dominion is correct in observing that the information specified in §§ 157.213(c)(1) through

(9)is not now required to be submitted under the existing regulations for case-specific certificate applications. However, the Commission considers this information necessary to make an informed decision on storage projects. Therefore, when this information is not included in a case-specific application, Commission staff, as a matter of routine practice, will request the data from the project sponsor. Section 157.213(c)(1) through

(9)merely codifies this practice. Were this information not included in a prior notice filing, in all likelihood, Commission staff would request this data from the project sponsor, and in the event the response was incomplete or staff lacked time to assess the information by the conclusion of the prior notice period, staff could be compelled to protest the filing. Thus, to ensure the timely consideration of a prior notice request for a storage project, the filing must contain the information specified in §§ 157.213(c)(1) through (9). However, the Commission acknowledges that not all the information specified in §§ 157.213(c)(1) through

(9)will be relevant in all cases, and will thus adopt Dominion's suggestion and qualify § 157.213(c) to state that the information requirements apply “to the extent necessary to demonstrate that the proposed project will not alter a storage reservoir's total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir or buffer boundaries, or certificated capacity, including injection and withdrawal capacity.” 4. Blanket Project Cost Limits 33. The NOPR proposes raising the blanket certificate program's 2006 cost limits from $8,200,000 to $9,600,000 for each automatic authorization project and from $22,700,000 to $27,400,000 for each prior notice project. AGA, APGA, Con Ed, and Orange and Rockland urge the Commission not to raise the cost limits, cautioning that permitting more expensive projects would risk transforming the nature of the blanket program from one intended to cover small and routine construction activities into a program under which projects with potentially significant rate and environmental impacts could be built. 24 On the other hand, INGAA, NGSA, and pipelines propose to raise the cost limits to $16,000,000 for an automatic authorization project and $50,000,000 for a prior notice project, repeating the claim that construction costs have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation, and noting that these higher cost limits have been in effect since November 2005, as a post-hurricane relief measure, with no apparent adverse impact. 24 AGA stresses that if a certificate holder with a relatively modest rate base relies on blanket certificate authority to undertake additional construction, then even a project that falls well within the blanket cost limits has the potential to alter existing customers' rates. AGA, Con Ed, and Orange and Rockland speculate that in the case of a large company, a blanket project could have a disproportionate impact if project costs are assigned to a limited number of customers, *e.g.* , customers in a single rate zone. The Commission expects such concerns to be raised in protest to the notice of a proposed blanket project. If concerns regarding disproportionate rate impacts are not resolved, the proposed project and its rate impacts would then be treated as a case-specific NGA section 7(c) certificate proceeding. For blanket projects which qualify for automatic authorization, and as a result, do not require public notice prior to construction, concerns about rate treatment can be raised when the certificate holder seeks to roll in the cost of the automatically authorized project in a future NGA section 4 rate proceeding. 34. While gas project costs, including environmental compliance and public outreach, have trended up since 1982, so have the blanket program cost limits, almost doubling since 1982. 25 Since 1982, the Commission has relied on the Department of Commerce's GDP implicit price deflator as a measure to make annual adjustments to the blanket cost limits. In the NOPR, the Commission applied an alternative price tracker that is focused more narrowly on gas utility construction costs, 26 and as a result proposed to raise the cost limits to account for the discrepancy between the two different inflation indicators. The comments do not propose any alternative criteria or methodology for affirming or altering the blanket project cost limits. 25 In considering how to gauge project costs over time, the NOPR observed that recently “certain project components—notably the price of steel pipe—have risen far faster than any measure of overall inflation. However, although steel prices have run up over the past several years, in looking back to 1982, there were periods during which steel prices fell substantially. Further, changing regulatory requirements and construction techniques, to which Petitioners attribute cost increases, do not always add to project costs, and may well contribute to cost reductions and efficiencies.” 71 FR 36276 at 36283 (June 26, 2006); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,606 at 32,884 (2006); 115 FERC ¶ 61,338 at P 57 (2006). 26 The Commission employed the *Handy-Whitman Index of Public Utility Construction Costs, Trends of Construction Costs* , Bulletin No. 162, 1912 to July 1, 2005. In doing so, the Commission cautioned, and reiterates here, that even if it were possible to mirror 1982 costs to costs today, the dollar amounts would not reflect proportionate impacts on pipeline customers' rates, since in 1982 the commodity cost of gas was a significant portion of pipeline customers' merchant service rate, whereas today, gas sales costs are no longer bundled with transportation service costs. 35. INGAA and NGSA propose making permanent the doubled project cost limits that are currently in place temporarily. 27 However, the currently effective cost limits for the blanket certificate program were put in place temporarily to expedite construction of projects that would increase access to gas supply to respond to the damage to gas production, processing, and transportation brought about by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In temporarily doubling blanket project cost limits, the Commission did not assess alternative inflation trackers or the costs associated with construction. Rather, the decision to expand the blanket program was based on the Commission's assessment of the damage done by the hurricanes and the magnitude of the effort that would be required to recover. There was no expectation that the temporary expansion of the blanket certificate program might be made permanent. If the blanket certificate program were expanded by approximately doubling the project cost limits as requested, the nature of the program would be changed such that the Commission could not be confident that far more expensive and extensive projects would not have adverse impacts on existing customers, existing services, competitors, landowners, or the environment. Accordingly, the Commission adopts an increase to $9,600,000 for each automatic authorization project and $27,400,000 for each prior notice project, and denies requests for a further increase at this time, other than annual inflation adjustments as provided for under § 157.208(d) of the Commission's regulations. 27 The current temporary increase in blanket cost limits expires on February 28, 2007. 5. Rate Treatment for Blanket Project Costs 36. Blanket services are provided at a certificate holder's existing Part 284 rates, and blanket project costs are afforded the presumption that they will qualify for rolled-in rate treatment in a future NGA section 4 proceeding. Since blanket costs are presumed to be so small as to have no more than a de minimis rate impact, the proposal to increase cost limits calls this presumption into question. Therefore, the NOPR sought comment on whether to permit project sponsors the option of requesting an incremental rate for a particular blanket certificate project. 37. Commenters generally support this option, and note that applying an incremental rate to blanket projects would address the worry that existing customers might be made to subsidize new projects. INGAA argues that because most incremental rate proposals are consensual, there is no need for the Commission to review an agreed-upon rate. To preclude existing customers from making unwarranted contributions to cover the costs of blanket projects, NGSA suggests requiring a project sponsor to file a tariff sheet in a limited NGA section 4 filing proposing an incremental rate, which the Commission will then act on as a normal tariff matter by accepting, rejecting, or suspending the rate at the end of the 30-day tariff notice period. In considering an incremental rate for a proposed blanket project, AGA, Con Ed, and Orange and Rockland urge the Commission to verify that each project will be consistent with the Policy Statement on New Facilities. 28 28 *Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities* , 88 FERC ¶ 61,227 (1999), *orders clarifying statement of policy* , 90 FERC ¶ 61,128 and 92 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2000), *order further clarifying statement of policy* , 92 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2000). 38. Commenters present no compelling reason to modify the current practice of presuming, initially, that blanket project costs will qualify for rolled-in rate treatment, then evaluating the validity of this presumption, subsequently, in an NGA section 4 rate proceeding. Accordingly, for the time being, the Commission will continue to apply a presumption that blanket costs will qualify for rolled-in rate treatment. However, the Commission will revisit this question if there is evidence that the enlargement of the blanket certificate program to permit additional facilities and higher cost limits materially alters the manner in which project sponsors employ their blanket certificate authority or otherwise undermines the basis for the presumption of rolled-in rate treatment. Absent any such indication, the Commission hesitates to put in place a procedure to assess and approve initial rates for proposed blanket projects, since the additional time necessary to complete such a review will inevitably stretch the span between notice of a project and commencement of construction. To the extent practicable, the Commission aims to retain the benefit of an expedited project authorization available under the current blanket certificate program. 39. Emphasizing that revised blanket certificate regulations do not require project sponsors to demonstrate that a proposal conforms to the Policy Statement on New Facilities, Con Ed and Orange and Rockland request that the Commission

(1)require that the prior notice of a proposed blanket project quantify impacts on existing customers and verify that the project will be fully functional without any additional construction;

(2)allow protests to a blanket project that raise legitimate rate-related issues to be resolved in a case-specific proceeding;

(3)extend the presumption of rolled-in rate treatment to a blanket project's costs only if the blanket project sponsor demonstrates the project will be fully subscribed or provide benefits to existing customers; and

(4)find that the presumption favoring rolled-in rate treatment is rebutted if a blanket project is subsequently determined to be a segmented portion of a larger undertaking. Sempra suggests requiring project sponsors that undertake blanket storage projects and that have an existing cost-based recourse rate to discuss the rate implications of a proposed project in the prior notice of the project in order to demonstrate that existing customers will not subsidize the new facilities. 40. The Commission believes that the existing blanket certificate regulations are adequate to address the matters Con Ed, Orange and Rockland, and Sempra raise. The existing prohibition against segmentation is intended to preclude projects that would not be functional without additional construction. The rate impacts of a blanket project, while not now reviewed in advance, are considered in a future rate proceeding—and in the rate proceeding, the issues of subsidization and system benefits can be addressed. The regulations permit any interested person to protest a blanket project subject to the prior notice provisions; each protest, whether rate related or otherwise, will be considered on its merits on a case-by-case basis. 41. Con Ed, Orange and Rockland complain that the presumption favoring rolling in blanket costs is rarely rebutted. 29 APGA contends certificate holders resist filing rate cases “due primarily to the fact that they are permitted under the current regime to over-recover their costs with impunity, [thus] by the time that most pipelines do file for increased rates, the cumulative dollar impact of the numerous no-notice and prior notice projects will be quite substantial, with no viable customer recourse.” 30 APGA requests the Commission compel certificate holders to file rate cases regularly, suggesting a three-year cycle. 29 The parties assert that the Commission is reluctant to reverse a presumption in favor of rolled-in rate treatment, citing *Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. (Transco),* 106 FERC ¶ 61,299

(2004)and 112 FERC ¶ 61,170 (2005). *Transco* did not focus on blanket project costs, but on the impact of a change in Commission rate policy, and how the changed policy should apply in an NGA section 4 proceeding to case-specific expansion projects built under the Commission's prior rate policy regime. In *Transco* , and in its policy statements, the Commission discussed its aspiration to provide as much up-front assurance as possible of how an expansion would be priced so that the pipeline and prospective shippers could make informed investment decisions. This holds true regardless of whether a project is constructed under blanket or case-specific authority; consequently, the Commission is reluctant to reverse either a predetermination or a presumption regarding future rate treatment. Nevertheless, in a subsequent NGA section 4 rate proceeding, the Commission may determine that its initial, provisional assessment of what the appropriate rate treatment would be was in error, and so reverse the predetermination or presumption. 30 APGA's Comments at 8 (Aug. 25, 2006). 42. The Commission acknowledges that in the vast majority of rate proceedings, the outcome affirms the presumption favoring rolling in blanket costs. The Commission notes that in rate proceedings, there is rarely any effort to rebut the presumption, which the Commission takes to be an indication of the legitimacy of the presumption. The Commission recognizes that a certificate holder is likely to weigh its own self interest when considering whether to initiate an NGA section 4 rate proceeding. However, if a company fails to initiate a rate proceeding in a timely manner, such that distortions over time have rendered its rates unjust and unreasonable, a complaint can be filed under NGA section 5. C. Changes in the Notice Procedures, Environmental Compliance Conditions, and Reporting Requirements 43. In initiating the blanket certificate program in 1982, the Commission explained that § 157.206(a)(1) was intended to “reserve the Commission's right to amend Subpart F so as to add, delete or modify the standard conditions and any procedural requirements * * * if changing circumstances or experience so warrant.” 31 In this case, increasing the scope and scale of the blanket certificate program increases the odds that projects authorized under the expanded blanket certificate program could have significant adverse impacts on the quality of the human environment. In view of this, the Commission proposed in the NOPR, and is adopting in this Final Rule, additional procedures and mitigation measures to adequately ensure against the potential for adverse environmental impacts due to the enlargement of the blanket certificate program. The current environmental requirements described in § 157.206(b), and the revisions to the environmental requirements implemented by this Final Rule, apply to all projects authorized under the blanket certificate program. 31 *Interstate Pipeline Certificates for Routine Transactions* , Order No. 234-A, 47 FR 38871 (Sept. 3 1982); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,389 (1982). 1. Notification Requirements a. Content of Landowner Notification 44. The NOPR proposed revising § 157.203(d)(2)(iv) to state that in the notice to affected landowners of a proposed project, the project sponsor include the most recent edition of the Commission pamphlet titled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?” INGAA and Williston point out that the current edition of the pamphlet describes the Part 157, Subpart A, case-specific certificate process generally, but does not describe the Part 157, Subpart F, blanket program specifically, and suggest the pamphlet be revised or a separate pamphlet be prepared to cover the blanket certificate procedures. The Commission will adopt the latter approach, and to enhance administrative efficiency and ensure information remains up-to-date, rather than a pamphlet, the Commission will require that notice include blanket-specific information that will be available on the Commission's Web site. Accordingly, § 157.203(d)(2)(iv) of the Commission's regulations is revised to read as follows: “A general description of the blanket certificate program and procedures, as posted on the Commission's website at the time the landowner notification is prepared, and the link to the information on the Commission's website.” 45. In response to Williston, the Commission clarifies that the information requirements stated in § 157.203(d)(1), including the additional requirements of revised § 157.203(d)(1)(iii), are applicable to landowner notification for proposed blanket certificate projects that qualify for automatic authorization. The information requirements stated in § 157.203(d)(2), including the additional requirements of revised § 157.203(d)(2)(i), (ii), (iv), (v), and (vii), are applicable to public notice for proposed blanket certificate projects that do not qualify for automatic authorization. Summary of Rights 46. Revised § 157.203(d)(2)(v) requires that in the notice to affected landowners of a proposed project, the project sponsor include a brief summary of the rights the landowner has in Commission proceedings and in proceedings under the eminent domain rules of the relevant state(s). INGAA contends affected landowners will perceive any discussion of eminent domain “as a threat that their property will be condemned if they do not consent to an easement agreement,” an interpretation that “could cause more harm than good,” 32 and comments that the description of state eminent domain rules may prove misleading if a project sponsor proceeds with condemnation actions under federal eminent domain law. Duke worries discussing landowner rights would “constitute the provision of legal advice in most jurisdictions,” and because “[m]any bar associations prohibit lawyers from giving advice to unrepresented third parties,” this could create a “potential legal conflict for natural gas companies.” 33 Duke recommends the contents of the notice be limited to informing affected landowners of their right to obtain local counsel. 32 INGAA's Comments at 16 (Aug. 25, 2006). 33 Duke's Comments at 15 (Aug. 25, 2006). 47. As INGAA recognizes, discussions concerning the potential to acquire property rights by means of eminent domain can be disconcerting to affected landowners. It has been the Commission's experience that such discussions are most prone to be perceived as threatening when the initial contact with landowners is made in person by a project sponsor's representative seeking physical access to the property. The Commission believes a far less provocative means to inform affected landowners is to present them with a brief, clear, and candid description of the eminent domain process in written form. Landowners cannot be expected to engage in negotiations and reach decisions regarding their property without such information. The Commission concurs with INGAA's apprehension that landowners may be confused by a description of state condemnation if federal condemnation is employed; accordingly, § 157.203(d)(2)(v) of the Commission's regulations is revised to omit the reference to state proceedings and to instead require a “brief summary of the rights the landowner has in Commission proceedings and in proceedings under the relevant eminent domain rules.” 48. The Commission agrees with Duke's observation that affected landowners ought to be informed of their right to obtain counsel, and this fact should be included in the required summary of landowner rights. In response to Duke's concern that complying with § 157.203(d)(2)(v) could constitute the practice of law or place project sponsors with an ethical quandary, the Commission clarifies that the required brief summary of rights and procedures is descriptive, not interpretative. Project sponsors are expected to summarize or recite applicable law, and no more. Not only need no advice be proffered, none should be. Finally, the Commission notes similar arguments were presented when the original landowner notification rule was instituted in 1999; 34 subsequently, there has been no evidence of significant difficulties in complying with the requirements of the rule. 34 *Landowner Notification, Expanded Categorical Exclusions, and Other Environmental Filing Requirements* , Order No. 609, 64 FR 57374 (Oct. 25, 1999); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶31,082 (1999). c. Landowner Contact 49. As proposed, § 157.203(d)(1)(B) requires that in a notice to affected landowners of a proposed project, the project sponsor include a local contact to call first with problems or concerns. INGAA points out that for certain projects, the personnel best able to respond to problems or concerns may be remotely located, *e.g.* , at a company's central office. Therefore, INGAA asks that the “local” specification be removed, and in its place, project sponsors be required to include the toll-free telephone number of a company representative responsible for responding to affected landowners. The Commission accepts INGAA's argument that its alternative procedure will provide the same protections for landowners. Therefore, § 157.203(d)(1)(B) of the Commission's regulations is revised to read as follows: “Provide a local or toll-free phone number and a name of a specific person to be contacted by landowners and with responsibility for responding to landowner problems and concerns, and who will indicate when a landowner should expect a response.” 2. Notification Times 50. Currently, under § 157.203(d)(1) of the Commission's regulations, before commencing construction of an automatically authorized blanket project, project sponsors are required to give affected landowners 30 days notice in advance of construction. For blanket projects that do not qualify for automatic authorization, under § 157.203(d)(2), project sponsors are required to provide a 45-day prior notice to the public, during which any person, or the Commission, can protest the proposal. The Final Rule extends each of these time frames by 15 days. INGAA, NGSA, and pipelines object to offering additional notice time, arguing that

(1)the proposed increase in project costs should not change the nature of the projects undertaken pursuant to blanket authority;

(2)there is no evidence the current notice periods are too short; and

(3)affected landowners and the public should be able to reach a decision on whether to protest well within the current notice periods. 35 35 As an alternative, Williston proposes that blanket projects that qualify for automatic authorization retain a 30-day landowner notification time period, with only larger, prior notice projects subject to a 45-day notice. Williston claims its suggestion will ensure that those parties affected by major projects, which are more likely to raise landowner concerns, will be afforded additional time, while minor and routine projects will be permitted to move forward faster. 51. The NOPR stated: In view of the proposed expanded scope and scale of blanket certificate authority, which can be expected to increase the number of automatic authorization projects undertaken and the number of people impacted, an additional 15 days offers greater assurance that there will be adequate time for landowners to state their concerns and for project sponsors and the Commission to respond * * * [T]he additional time will provide the Commission with a more reasonable period of time to conduct and conclude its environmental assessment

(EA)of a proposal. This NOPR contemplates an increase in the number, extent, kind, and complexity of facilities subject to blanket certificate authority, yet even for the types of projects currently permitted, 45 days has proved to be, on occasion, an unrealistically short time for the consultation and analysis required to complete an EA. The additional time will ensure the Commission is not forced to protest a prior notice project merely as a means to gain time to finish an EA. The Commission does not expect the extended landowner and public notice periods to unduly delay blanket certificate projects, since natural gas companies, in large part, can dictate when a blanket certificate project may begin construction by when the company elects to initiate the notice process. 52. It is not only the increase in project costs, *i.e.* , an expansion in scale of blanket authorized activities, it is also the far wider range in the types of projects permitted under the blanket authority that warrant adding time to allow for adequate consideration of what the Commission anticipates will be blanket proposals that are both more complex and more numerous. The Commission notes that to the extent issues raised by a prior notice proposal cannot be addressed in the time provided, a protest is the probable outcome, which if not resolved, would result in the proposal being treated as a case-specific NGA section 7(c) application necessitating the preparation and issuance of a Commission order on the merits. The Commission affirms the need to add 15 days to the notice periods, for the reasons stated in the NOPR. 3. Annual Report on Automatic Authorization Projects 53. Revised §§ 157.208(e)(4)(ii) and

(iii)require that the annual report filed for automatic authorization projects document the progress toward restoration and discuss problems or unusual construction issues and corrective actions. INGAA, Duke, and Williston contend that providing this information will be burdensome, especially for large pipelines that might rely on automatic authorization for numerous projects each year, and may require placing additional personnel on site to monitor progress on each project. 54. The Commission has a different perspective. Certificate holders are currently required to comply with all the conditions in § 157.206(b) of the Commission's blanket certificate regulations. Section 157.206(b), in addition to setting forth specific conditions, makes blanket certificate activities subject to the conditions in § 380.15 of the Commission's regulations implementing NEPA, as well as requiring that all blanket certificate activities be consistent with all applicable law implementing the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other statutes relating to environmental concerns. Consequently, in order to satisfy all the conditions applicable to blanket certificate activities, it is already necessary for project sponsors

(1)to have plans and procedures in place to ensure compliance with environmental conditions, and

(2)to have environmental inspectors in place to record a project's construction's compliance with environmental conditions. Hence, the Commission does not view the new § 157.208(e)(4)(ii) and

(iii)requirements as asking companies to gather and report new information, but rather, as having companies submit information that they are already obliged to compile. Similarly, to the extent project sponsors find they have to place personnel at construction sites to monitor a project's progress, this does not constitute a new requirement, but rather, is a means to fulfill an ongoing obligation to verify that projects are built in accord with all applicable environmental conditions. Consequently, the Commission adopts the expanded annual reporting requirements. 4. Environmental Conditions (a). Noise Levels (1). Compressor Station Site Property Boundary 55. Revised § 157.206(b)(5)(i) states that noise attributable to a compressor station “must not exceed a day-night level (L dn ) of 55 dBA at the site property boundary.” In contrast, the current regulations specify that noise attributable to a compressor station is to be measured “at any pre-existing noise-sensitive area.” 56. Duke contends this new noise criterion could compel companies to expand compressor site boundaries, which would add to the cost of new or additional compression and, potentially, an increase in environmental impacts associated with adding acreage to existing and new sites. INGAA argues that compressors were installed in anticipation of meeting noise level requirements as measured at the nearest noise sensitive area, and that it is inequitable to institute this change and compel ratepayers to bear the cost of compliance. Boardwalk objects to the revision. HFP Acoustical asks if compressor noise is to be measured as an average of noise levels at several spots on the perimeter of the property line or if every point on a site's property boundary must meet the 55 dBA standard. HFP Acoustical seeks clarification on whether there will be any acknowledgment of existing sources of noise unrelated to compressor operations. 57. The Commission clarifies that this new noise measurement criterion only applies to facilities placed in service after the effective date of this rule; 36 thus, existing compressor stations continue to be required to meet the 55 dBA standard as measured at pre-existing noise-sensitive areas, not at the site's property boundary. However, any increase in noise due to additions or modifications to an existing compressor station undertaken subsequent to the effective date of this rule will require that the noise attributable to additions or modifications be measured at the site's boundary. The Commission further clarifies that when measuring noise at new stations, the 55 dBA standard must be met at every point on a site's property boundary. 37 Finally, with respect to existing noise levels at the property boundary, the certificate holder will only be responsible for taking measures to reduce noise in excess of the 55 dBA standard that is attributable to the operation of the compressor station. 36 In enacting the blanket certificate program, the Commission expressed its expectation that any “amendments would most likely not affect facilities constructed or service undertaken before the effective date of an amendment, but would apply prospectively.” Order No. 234-A, 47 FR 38871 (Sept. 3, 1982); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,389; 20 FERC ¶ 61,271 (1982). 37 As a practical matter, the Commission expects noise readings to be taken at the boundary closest to the compressors or where noise is estimated to be loudest and at the site's ordinal points. 58. Although existing compressor stations are grandfathered, the Commission concurs with comments that anticipate the new standard may compel companies to extend existing compressor station boundaries if additions or modifications are made that increase noise at the site boundary. However, while this may entail additional costs, the Commission does not view it as adding to adverse environmental impacts. Indeed, overall environmental impacts may diminish, since land within a station boundary is frequently set aside for benign environmental use. Further, the Commission does not accept the contention that this revision will induce the development of new compressor stations, since the cost to mitigate noise attributable to adding compression at an existing site is likely to be less than acquiring a new site. (2). Noise Attributable to Drilling 59. In § 157.206(5)(ii), the Commission establishes the goal that perceived noise from drilling in between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. be kept at or below 55dBA in any preexisting noise-sensitive area. INGAA contends adherence to this goal would be impractical and costly. In particular, INGAA contends that suspending a horizontal directional drill

(HDD)at night to adhere to noise restrictions would be a poor engineering practice, creating a substantial risk of failure. INGAA asks that the Commission

(1)clarify the 55 dBA standard only applies if ambient noise at night is below that level;

(2)clarify that where the existing noise level is 55 dBA or more, the noise standard be that a new project produces no appreciable increase in the ambient noise; and

(3)clarify that mitigation measures may be employed to meet the 55 dBA noise level, such as temporarily relocating occupants of a noise sensitive area. 60. HFP Acoustical asks the Commission to clarify

(1)whether the nighttime noise constraint impacts daytime drilling noise standards;

(2)whether recirculation or other stabilizing activities could proceed at night; and

(3)whether the reference to nighttime as from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. should be changed to 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. to conform to the period during which a 10 dBA penalty currently applies. HFP Acoustical suggests that if the Commission intends to set a nighttime noise level limit, it state the limit in terms of the L eq night or L n value, rather than the L dn value, which covers a 24-hour period. 61. In response to a request by Williston, the Commission clarifies that the noise standard for drilling at night is a goal, not a regulatory requirement. The Commission also clarifies that the § 157.206(5)(ii) reference to “perceived noise from the drilling” has the same meaning as the § 157.206(5)(i) reference to “noise attributable to” compression. Consequently, where the existing ambient noise level at night is below 55 dBA, and drilling activity boosts it above that threshold, the goal is to reduce the level down to 55 dBA; where the ambient noise level at night is above 55 dBA, and drilling activity causes that level to rise, the goal to take action to bring noise back to its pre-drilling level. As an alternative to reducing the noise from drilling, the Commission agrees that appropriate mitigation measures can include temporarily relocating or compensating people residing in areas affected by drilling activities. 62. The Commission acknowledges that reaching the stated goal may involve incurring additional costs, and recognizes that at times the goal may be impractical. Further, reaching the goal should not be achieved at the expense of adding to a project's risk. For example, the Commission does not necessarily expect an ongoing HDD to be suspended at night if the interruption could cause the drill to fail, but does expect project sponsors to explore mitigation measures, such as erecting barriers so that continuous drilling can meet the 55 dBA goal. In response to HFP Acoustical, the Commission clarifies that all activities associated with drilling, such as recirculation or other stabilizing activities, are subject to the noise level goal; the Commission leaves it to the project sponsor's discretion when, during a 24-hour cycle, to undertake a particular activity. The Commission will adopt HFP Acoustical's suggestion and clarify that the nighttime noise goal will apply between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., and will be expressed as a nighttime level, L n , of 55 dBA. b. Environmental Inspector Report 63. Revised § 157.208(c)(10) requires the project sponsor to commit to have the Environmental Inspector's report filed weekly with the Commission for prior notice projects. INGAA, Duke, and Williston maintain this is unnecessary given blanket projects' relatively short construction time, and is impractical given that inspectors may not be on site on a weekly basis. INGAA proposes compliance be ensured by having a completion report filed within 30 days of a project's in-service date. INGAA believes this is adequate since the Commission “hotline” is available during construction to resolve allegations of improprieties. Williston suggests weekly reporting only be required when the Commission determines a particular blanket project merits such scrutiny. 64. The Commission does not believe that it can judge whether a particular project merits weekly reporting before the fact, or that its hotline can serve as a means to monitor ongoing construction progress, or that an after-the-fact summary can identify, prevent, or remedy irregularities in construction. The only practical means to monitor compliance with environmental requirements is to monitor progress during construction, hence the existing requirement that an Environmental Inspector be on site during a project's construction. The Commission views revised § 157.208(c)(10) as a clarification of how certificate holders are to verify their fulfillment of this existing obligation. Neither the additional cost or inconvenience of having an inspector available to review construction at multiple small project sites, nor the length of the construction phase of a project, has any bearing on the need for the regulatory requirement that a project sponsor have an inspector present. The Commission notes that an Environmental Inspector need not be an additional individual brought in to review a construction site; this function can be performed by someone on site, provided that individual has been properly trained and charged with inspecting and reporting on compliance with environmental plans and procedures and can perform all the Environmental Inspector's responsibilities. D. Different Rates for Different Customers for the Same Service 65. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed the belief that its existing policies permit a project sponsor to offer a rate incentive as an inducement to get customers to commit to a proposed project early ( *i.e.* , “foundation shippers”), while offering a less favorable rate to customers that commit later. Few comments take issue with the Commission's conclusion. 66. However, Process Gas Consumers stress the need for procedural fairness, *e.g.* , that all prospective customers receive the same notice of a proposal, so as to preclude parties from making private bi-lateral agreements in advance of a public offer of new capacity. Boardwalk asks that pipelines be permitted to set rules for open seasons, provided there is no discrimination in the announcement and application of the rules. The Commission affirms that there must be no discrimination in announcing an open season for new capacity and in accepting bids—all potential customers must have an equal opportunity to obtain firm capacity. Provided this condition holds, a project sponsor has the flexibility to set the parameters of the open season. 67. In the NOPR, the Commission observed that: [u]nder the Petitioners' proposal, the rate incentives a project sponsor offers to obtain early commitments to a project will be based solely on the timing of each shipper's contractual commitment to the project. However, the Commission can envision that different project sponsors may prefer to offer rate incentives based on something other than the timing of contractual commitments. Because Commission policies permit rate differentials among customers based on a number of grounds—including differing elasticities of demand, volumes to be transported, and length of service commitments—a project sponsor might wish to offer preferential rates to shippers who contract for larger volumes of service. 38 38 71 FR 36276 at 36289 (June 26, 2006); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,606 at 32,894 (2006); 115 FERC 61,338 at P 101

(2006)(footnote omitted). *See* , *e.g.* , *Rockies Express Pipeline LLC* , 116 FERC ¶ 61,272 at P 69-73 (2006). APGA challenges the Commission's conclusion that it is appropriate to permit project sponsors to offer preferential rates to customers willing to commit to greater capacity. APGA argues this is unfair because “a large LDC that gets a preferential rate can, for example, compete for new loads by offering lower delivery rates than the smaller LDC despite that fact that both entities committed for capacity at the same time.” 39 39 APGA's Comments at 12 (Aug. 25, 2006). 68. The Commission stresses that the foregoing discussion in the NOPR regarding rates constitutes a statement of the Commission's existing policies and practices and this rulemaking proceeding does not contemplate altering existing policies, practices, or regulations affecting rates. Indeed, with respect to rates, the Commission emphasized it did not intend to disturb the status quo, stating that: [g]iven the variety of rate incentives that might be offered consistent with Commission policy, the Commission believes it would be premature to go beyond our general finding above and seek to itemize every rate incentive that might be offered in an open season without risk of undue discrimination. Instead, the Commission prefers to review different rate incentives on a case-by-case basis. 40 40 71 FR 36276 at 36289 (June 26, 2006); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,606 at 32,894 (2006); 115 FERC ¶ 61,338 at P 102 (2006). Thus, in the NOPR, the Commission made no determination beyond its general observation that currently there are a variety of rate incentives available to project sponsors to induce potential customers to commit to a new proposal. As one such incentive, quantity can be a legitimate basis for awarding new capacity at a lower rate during an open season. When a project sponsor is weighing market conditions in order to determine whether to invest in the construction of a new pipeline or storage field, a lower rate bid by a potential customer can nevertheless represent a significant incentive for the company to go forward with the project if the customer is willing to commit at an early stage to a large quantity. 69. Given the fact-specific circumstances associated with a particular project proposal, the Commission stated its intent to review rate incentives on a case-by-case basis. If APGA believes a project sponsor has employed an unduly discriminatory rate preference in a particular case, APGA may raise this issue in the case in question, and the Commission will address the merits of the matter in the context of that case. 70. As a general observation, a project sponsor can diminish its risk of being charged with undue discrimination if its announcement of an open season clearly specifies the parameters of the bidding provisions and the available rate options so that all potential customers have an equal opportunity to sign up for new service. For example, in their petition, INGAA and NGSA describe the eligibility standard for Group I foundation shippers variously as

(1)the date established in the open season for executing contracts or

(2)the date the project sponsor makes a “go/no go” decision for the project. The first date would appear to involve less risk of discrimination, since it would be announced and set at the start of the open season, whereas the second date appears to give the project sponsor considerable discretion as to when to terminate eligibility for Group I. E. Additional Regulatory Revisions 71. To implement the above revisions, the Commission will make the following minor conforming revisions:

(1)§ 157.203(b) of the Commission's regulations is expanded to reference automatically authorized storage remediation and maintenance projects under § 157.213(a);

(2)§ 157.203(c) of the Commission's regulations is expanded to reference prior notice blanket projects under §§ 157.210, .212. and 213(b); 41

(3)§ 157.205(a) of the Commission's regulations is expanded to reference prior notice blanket projects under §§ 157.210, .212. and 213(b);

(4)§ 157.207 of the Commission's regulations is expanded to reference automatically authorized storage remediation and maintenance projects under § 157.213(a); and

(5)§ 157.216 of the Commission's regulations is expanded to provide for abandonment of facilities described by the expanded blanket certificate authority. 41 The revisions to 18 CFR 157.203 clarify, in response to a question raised by Dominion, that all the provisions of this section apply to projects proceeding under 18 CFR 157.210, .212. and .213. IV. Information Collection Statement 72. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting, record keeping, and public disclosure requirements (collections of information) imposed by an agency. 42 Therefore, the Commission is providing notice of its information collections to OMB for review in accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 43 Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. The only entities affected by this rule would be the natural gas companies under the Commission's jurisdiction. The information collection requirements in this Final Rule are identified as follows: 42 5 CFR 1320.11 (2006). 43 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2005). 73. FERC-537, “Gas Pipeline Certificates: Construction, Acquisition and Abandonment,” identifies the Commission's information collections relating to Part 157 of its regulations, which apply to natural gas facilities for which authorization under NGA section 7 is required, and includes all blanket certificate projects. 74. FERC-577, “Gas Pipeline Certificates: Environmental Impact Statements,” identifies the Commission's information collections relating to the requirements set forth in NEPA and Parts 2, 157, 284, and 380 of the Commission's regulations. Applicants have to conduct appropriate studies which are necessary to determine the impact of the construction and operation of proposed jurisdictional facilities on human and natural resources, and the measures which may be necessary to protect the values of the affected area. These information collection requirements are mandatory. 75. Because the expansion of the blanket certificate program will permit projects that are now processed under the case-specific NGA section 7(c) procedures to go forward under the streamlined blanket certificate program, although the burden under the expanded blanket certificate program will increase, the overall burden on the industry will decrease. The Commission estimates that the total annual hours for the blanket certificate program burden will increase by 7,727, whereas the total annual hours associated with case-specific application projects will decrease by 11,997. This represents an overall reduction of 4,270 hours. The Commission did not receive specific comments concerning the burden estimates in the NOPR, and uses the same estimates in this Final Rule. Several commenters did indicate that providing information for the Annual Report on Automatic Authorization Projects would be burdensome. However, as explained herein, the Commission believes that much of this information is already required to be compiled and therefore to report it to the Commission will not result in additional burdens to certificate holders. Data collection Number of respondents Number of responses/ filings Number of hours per response Total annual hours FERC-537 (Part 157) 76 206 −42.02 7,727 FERC-577 (Part 380) 76 −62 193.50 −11,997 *Information Collection Costs:* The above hours reflect the total blanket certificate program reporting burden as expanded. Because of the regional differences and the various staffing levels that will be involved in preparing the documentation (legal, technical and support) the Commission is using an hourly rate of $150 to estimate the costs for filing and other administrative processes (reviewing instructions, searching data sources, completing and transmitting the collection of information). The estimated cost is anticipated to be $2,748,900, an amount that is $640,500 less than the current estimated cost. *Title:* FERC-537 and FERC-577. *Action:* Proposed Data Collection. *OMB Control Nos.:* 1902-0060 and 1902-0128. *Respondents:* Natural gas pipeline companies. *Frequency of Responses:* On occasion. *Necessity of Information:* Submission of the information is necessary for the Commission to carry out its NGA statutory responsibilities and meet the Commission's objectives of expediting appropriate infrastructure development to ensure sufficient energy supplies while addressing landowner and environmental concerns fairly. The information is expected to permit the Commission to meet the request of the natural gas industry, as expressed in the INGAA and NGSA petition, to improve the industry's ability to ensure adequate infrastructure is added in time to meet increased market demands. By expanding the scope and scale of the blanket certificate program, the industry is provided a streamlined means to build new and maintain existing infrastructure. 76. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements or submit comments by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 (Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, 202-502-8415, or by e-mail to *michael.miller@ferc.gov* ). Comments may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, by fax to 202-395-7285, or by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.* ) (Re: OMB control nos. 1902-0060 and 1902-0128.) V. Environmental Analysis 77. The Commission is required to prepare an environmental assessment

(EA)or an environmental impact statement

(EIS)for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 44 In 1982, in promulgating the blanket certificate program, the Commission prepared an EA in which it determined that, subject to compliance with the standard environmental conditions, projects under the blanket program would not have a significant environmental impact. As a result, the Commission determined that automatic authorization projects would be categorically excluded from the need for an EA or EIS under § 380.4 of the Commission's regulations. However, the Commission specified that prior notice projects should be subject an EA to ensure each individual project would be environmentally benign. For the reasons set forth below, the Commission continues to believe this would be the case under the blanket certificate program as modified by this rule. 44 *Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act* , Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987). 78. First, the monetary limits on projects are simply being adjusted to account for inflationary effects which were not completely captured under the mechanism specified in the regulations (the gross domestic product implicit price deflator as determined by the Department of Commerce). As a result, the scale of projects which will be within the new cost limits will be comparable to those projects that were allowed when the blanket program was first created. Second, but for certain storage remediation and maintenance projects, all the additional types of projects permitted under the expanded blanket program will be subject to the prior notice provisions and will be subject to an EA. Finally, this Final Rule strengthens the standard environmental conditions applicable to all blanket projects. Therefore, the rule does not constitute a major federal action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 79. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA)45 generally requires a description and analysis of regulations that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission is not required to make such an analysis if regulations would not have such an effect. 46 Under the industry standards used for purposes of the RFA, a natural gas pipeline company qualifies as “a small entity” if it has annual revenues of $6.5 million or less. Most companies regulated by the Commission do not fall within the RFA's definition of a small entity. 47 45 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2005). 46 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (2005). 47 5 U.S.C. 601(3)

(2005)citing to section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 623 (2005). Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines a “small-business concern” as a business which is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation. 80. The procedural modifications should have no significant economic impact on those entities—be they large or small—subject to the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction under NGA section 3 or 7, and no significant economic impact on state agencies. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the revised regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. VII. Document Availability 81. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the **Federal Register** , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in the Commission's document management system, eLibrary. The full text of this document is available in eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type RM06-7 in the docket number field. 82. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours at

(202)502-8222 or the Public Reference Room at

(202)502-8371 Press 0, TTY

(202)502-8659. E-Mail the Public Reference Room at *public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.* VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification This Final Rule will take effect January 2, 2007. The Commission has determined with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, that this rule is not a major rule within the meaning of section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 48 The Commission will submit this Final Rule to both houses of Congress and the Government Accountability Office. 49 48 *See* 5 U.S.C. 804(2) (2005). 49 *See* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) (2005). List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 157 Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements By the Commission. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 157, Chapter I, Title 18, *Code of Federal Regulations* , as follows: PART 157—APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT 1. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w. 2. In § 157.6, paragraph (d)(2)(i) is revised to read as follows: § 157.6 Applications; general requirements.

(d)* * *

(2)* * *

(i)Is directly affected ( *i.e.* , crossed or used) by the proposed activity, including all facility sites (including compressor stations, well sites, and all above-ground facilities), rights of way, access roads, pipe and contractor yards, and temporary workspace; 3. In § 157.203, a. In paragraph (b), the phrase “§ 157.213(a),” is added immediately after the phrase “§ 157.211(a)(1),”; b. In paragraph (c), the phrase “§ 157.210,” is added immediately after the phrase “§ 157.208(b),” and the phrase “§ 157.212, § 157.213(b),” is added immediately after the phrase “§ 157.211(a)(2),”; c. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory text, the phrase “30 days” is removed and the phrase “45 days” is added in its place, and the phrase “30-day” is removed and the phrase “45-day” is added in its place; d. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), the phrase “; and” is removed and a semi-colon is added in its place; e. Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is redesignated as paragraph (d)(1)(iv) and a new paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is added; f. Paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) are revised; g. In paragraph (d)(2)(iii), the word “and” is removed; h. Paragraph (d)(2)(iv) is redesignated as paragraph (d)(2)(vi), and the phrase “45 days” is removed and the phrase “60 days” is added its place, and the final period is removed and the phrase “; and” is added in its place; i. Paragraphs (d)(2)(iv) and (d)(2)(v) are added; and j. A new paragraph (d)(2)(vii) is added to read as follows: § 157.203 Blanket certification.

(d)* * *

(1)* * *

(iii)A description of the company's environmental complaint resolution procedure that must:

(A)Provide landowners with clear and simple directions for identifying and resolving their environmental mitigation problems and concerns during construction of the project and restoration of the right-of way;

(B)Provide a local or toll-free phone number and a name of a specific person to be contacted by landowners and with responsibility for responding to landowner problems and concerns, and who will indicate when a landowner should expect a response;

(C)Instruct landowners that if they are not satisfied with the response, they should call the company's Hotline; and

(D)Instruct landowners that, if they are still not satisfied with the response, they should contact the Commission's Enforcement Hotline.

(2)* * *

(i)A brief description of the company and the proposed project, including the facilities to be constructed or replaced and the location (including a general location map), the purpose, and the timing of the project and the effect the construction activity will have on the landowner's property;

(ii)A general description of what the company will need from the landowner if the project is approved, and how the landowner may contact the company, including a local or toll-free phone number and a name of a specific person to contact who is knowledgeable about the project;

(iv)A general description of the blanket certificate program and procedures, as posted on the Commission's Web site at the time the landowner notification is prepared, and the link to the information on the Commission's Web site;

(v)A brief summary of the rights the landowner has in Commission proceedings and in proceedings under the relevant eminent domain rules; and

(vii)The description of the company's environmental complaint resolution procedure as described in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section. 4. In § 157.205: a. In paragraph

(a)introductory text, the phrase “§ 157.210,” is added immediately after the phrase “§ 157.208(b),” and the phrase “§ 157.212, § 157.213(b),” is added immediately after the phrase “§ 157.211(a)(2),”and b. In paragraph (d)(1), the phrase “45 days” is removed and the phrase “60 days” is added in its place. 5. In § 157.206, paragraph (b)(5) is revised to read as follows: § 157.206 Standard conditions.

(b)* * * (5)(i) The noise attributable to any new compressor station, compression added to an existing station, or any modification, upgrade or update of an existing station, must not exceed a day-night level (L dn ) of 55 dBA at the site property boundary.

(ii)Any horizontal directional drilling or drilling of wells which will occur between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. local time must be conducted with the goal of keeping the perceived noise from the drilling at any pre-existing noise-sensitive area (such as schools, hospitals, or residences) at or below a night level (L n ) of 55 dBA. 6. In § 157.207, paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and

(h)are redesignated, respectively, as paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i), and a new paragraph

(c)is added to read as follows: § 157.207 General reporting requirements.

(c)For each underground natural gas storage facility remediation and maintenance activity authorized under § 157.213(a), the information required by § 157.213(d); 7. In § 157.208, a. Paragraph (c)(9) is revised; b. Paragraph (c)(10) is added; c. In paragraph (d), Table I, “Year 2006,” in column 1, titled “Automatic project cost limit,” the phrase “8,200,000” is removed and the phrase “9,600,000” is added in its place, and in column 2, titled “Prior notice project cost limit,” the phrase “22,700,000” is removed and the phrase “27,400,000” is added in its place; and d. Paragraph (e)(4) is redesignated as (e)(4)(i) and paragraphs (e)(4)(ii) through (e)(4)(iv) are added to read as follows: § 157.208 Construction, acquisition, operation, replacement, and miscellaneous rearrangement of facilities.

(c)* * *

(9)A concise analysis discussing the relevant issues outlined in § 380.12 of this chapter. The analysis must identify the existing environmental conditions and the expected significant impacts that the proposed action, including proposed mitigation measures, will cause to the quality of the human environment, including impact expected to occur to sensitive environmental areas. When compressor facilities are proposed, the analysis must also describe how the proposed action will be made to comply with applicable State Implementation Plans developed under the Clean Air Act. The analysis must also include a description of the contacts made, reports produced, and results of consultations which took place to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act. Include a copy of the agreements received for compliance with the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Coastal Zone Management Act, or if no written concurrence is issued, a description of how the agency relayed its opinion to the company. Describe how drilling for wells or horizontal direction drilling would be designed to meet the goal of limiting the perceived noise at NSAs to an L dn of 55 dBA or what mitigation would be offered to landowners.

(10)A commitment to having the Environmental Inspector's report filed every week.

(e)* * *

(4)* * *

(ii)Documentation, including images, that restoration of work areas is progressing appropriately;

(iii)A discussion of problems or unusual construction issues, including those identified by affected landowners, and corrective actions taken or planned; and

(iv)For new or modified compression, a noise survey verifying compliance with § 157.206(b)(5). 8. Section 157.210 is added to read as follows: § 157.210 Mainline natural gas facilities. Subject to the notice requirements of §§ 157.205(b) and 157.208(c), the certificate holder is authorized to acquire, construct, modify, replace, and operate natural gas mainline facilities, including compression and looping, that are not eligible facilities under § 157.202(b)(2)(i). The cost of a project may not exceed the cost limitation provided in column 2 of Table I of § 157.208(d). The certificate holder must not segment projects in order to meet this cost limitation. 9. Sections 157.212 and 157.213 are added to read as follows: § 157.212 Synthetic and liquefied natural gas facilities. Subject to the notice requirements of §§ 157.205(b) and 157.208(c), the certificate holder is authorized to acquire, construct, modify, replace, and operate natural gas facilities that are used to transport either a mix of synthetic and natural gas or exclusively revaporized liquefied natural gas and that are not “related jurisdictional natural gas facilities” as defined in § 153.2(e) of this chapter. The cost of a project may not exceed the cost limitation provided in column 2 of Table I in § 157.208(d). The certificate holder must not segment projects in order to meet this cost limitation. § 157.213 Underground storage field facilities.

(a)*Automatic authorization.* If the project cost does not exceed the cost limitations provided in column 1 of Table I in § 157.208(d), the certificate holder may acquire, construct, modify, replace, and operate facilities for the remediation and maintenance of an existing underground storage facility, provided the storage facility's certificated physical parameters—including total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer boundaries, and certificated capacity remain unchanged—and provided compliance with environmental and safety provisions is not affected. The certificate holder must not alter the function of any well that is drilled into or is active in the management of the storage facility. The certificate holder must not segment projects in order to meet this cost limitation.

(b)*Prior Notice.* Subject to the notice requirements of §§ 157.205(b) and 157.208(c), the certificate holder is authorized to acquire, construct, modify, replace, and operate natural gas underground storage facilities, provided the storage facility's certificated physical parameters—including total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer boundaries, and certificated capacity, including injection and withdrawal capacity, remain unchanged—and provided compliance with environmental and safety provisions is not affected unchanged. The cost of a project may not exceed the cost limitation provided in column 2 of Table I in § 157.208(d). The certificate holder must not segment projects in order to meet this cost limitation.

(c)*Contents of request.* In addition to the requirements of §§ 157.206(b) and 157.208(c), requests for activities authorized under paragraph

(b)of this section must contain, to the extent necessary to demonstrate that the proposed project will not alter a storage reservoir's total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir or buffer boundaries, or certificated capacity, including injection and withdrawal capacity:

(1)A description of the current geological interpretation of the storage reservoir, including both the storage formation and the caprock, including summary analysis of any recent cross-sections, well logs, quantitative porosity and permeability data, and any other relevant data for both the storage reservoir and caprock;

(2)The latest isopach and structural maps of the storage field, showing the storage reservoir boundary, as defined by fluid contacts or natural geological barriers; the protective buffer boundary; the surface and bottomhole locations of the existing and proposed injection/withdrawal wells and observation wells; and the lengths of open-hole sections of existing and proposed injection/withdrawal wells;

(3)Isobaric maps (data from the end of each injection and withdrawal cycle) for the last three injection/withdrawal seasons, which include all wells, both inside and outside the storage reservoir and within the buffer area;

(4)A detailed description of present storage operations and how they may change as a result of the new facilities or modifications. Include a detailed discussion of all existing operational problems for the storage field, including but not limited to gas migration and gas loss;

(5)Current and proposed working gas volume, cushion gas volume, native gas volume, deliverability (at maximum and minimum pressure), maximum and minimum storage pressures, at the present certificated maximum capacity or pressure, with volumes and rates in MMcf and pressures in psia;

(6)The latest field injection/withdrawal capability studies including curves at present and proposed working gas capacity, including average field back pressure curves and all other related data;

(7)The latest inventory verification study for the storage field, including methodology, data, and work papers;

(8)The shut-in reservoir pressures (average) and cumulative gas-in-place (including native gas) at the beginning of each injection and withdrawal season for the last 10 years; and

(9)A detailed analysis, including data and work papers, to support the need for additional facilities (wells, gathering lines, headers, compression, dehydration, or other appurtenant facilities) for the modification of working gas/cushion gas ratio and/or to improve the capability of the storage field. 10. In § 157.216: a. Paragraph (a)(2) is amended by adding the phrase “or § 157.213(a)” immediately after the phrase “§ 157.211”; b. Paragraph (b)(2) is amended by adding the phrase “or a facility constructed under § 157.210, § 157.212, or § 157.213(b),” immediately after the phrase “paragraph (a)(2) of this section,”; and c. Paragraph (c)(5) is amended by adding, at the end, the phrase “and a concise analysis discussing the relevant issues outlined in § 380.12 of this chapter.” [FR Doc. E6-18027 Filed 10-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2005-0557e; FRL-8225-7] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2006 and concern volatile organic compound

(VOC)emissions from organic liquid storage and transfer facilities. We are approving YSAQMD Rule 2.21 that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on November 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2005-0557e for this action. The index to the docket 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: Jerry 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. I. Proposed Action On February 1, 2006 (71 FR 5172), EPA took direct final action with a concurrent proposal to approve the following rule into the California SIP. Local agency Rule Rule title Adopted Submitted YSAQMD 2.21 Organic Liquid Storage & Transfer 09/14/05 10/20/05 We took direct final action to approve this rule because we determined that it complied with the relevant CAA requirements and we did not expect adverse public comment. Our direct final action contains more information on this rule and our evaluation. However, we did receive adverse public comments on our direct final approval action. Consequently, we withdrew our direct final action on April 11, 2006 (see 71 FR 18219). Our February 1, 2006 concurrent proposed action (see 71 FR 5211) provides the basis for today's final action. II. Public Comments and EPA Responses. EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received a comment from David Moralez, a private citizen, in a letter dated March 3, 2006, sent and received via electronic mail March 3, 2006. Mr. Moralez said that by approving into the SIP the September 14, 2005 amendments to Rule 2.21, EPA will remove two provisions, Section 502.4 concerning annual bulk plant compliance monitoring and Section 607 specifying a test method for determining bulk plant compliance with Section 309.1's vapor recovery standard; thereby relaxing significantly existing SIP requirements. Regarding the SIP relaxation issue, we acknowledge that an annual compliance testing requirement, in Section 502.4, and its related test method, in Section 607, is being removed from the SIP. However, we disagree that removing these provisions represent a significant or problematic relaxation of the SIP. Bulk plants are required to maintain continuous compliance with the Section 309 requirements and these requirements are unchanged. Under the provisions of Section 309, either CARB or YSAQMD may require a bulk plant recertify or retest a vapor recovery system at any time using CP-202 “Certification Procedure for Vapor Recovery Systems of Bulk Plants”, TP-202.1 “Determination of Emission Factor of Vapor Recovery Systems of Bulk Plants,” or Executive Order G-846 “Screening Test Procedures for Certification of Gasoline Bulk Vapor Recovery Systems”. Furthermore, at any time, YSAQMD may inspect a bulk plant using the test methods described in Sections 605 and 608. Section 605 includes test methods for determining leaks and whether or not a bulk plant meets the “gas tight” requirements of Section 309.2. Section 608 describes several test methods for determining vapor recovery system efficiency, including a reference to the applicable CARB Executive Orders needed to determine compliance and an annual compliance check using a static pressure decay test. Should a bulk plant fail any of these tests, YSAQMD can order the source to do further compliance testing using either the methods in the rule, or TP-202.1. In turn, YSAQMD can request that CARB recertify the source, using either CARB E.O. G-846, or CP-201 once any corrective repairs have been made. In sum, we have reviewed Rule 2.21's bulk plant requirements, the test methods remaining within the rule, related CARB Executive orders, as well as CARB and YSAMQD legal authority and find that the rule is enforceable with adequate provisions to determine compliance despite the removal of Sections 502.4 and 607. Consequently, we find that the YSAQMD amendments to Rule 2.21 are consistent with the Clean Air Act, section 110(l) and do not significantly relax the SIP. Mr. Moralez also commented that EPA did not follow its guidance in proposing to approve Rule 2.21. First, the 2004 SIP approved rule included an annual source testing requirement consistent with federal guidance, Control Technique Guideline

(CTG)document EPA-450/77-035. Second, deleting CARB test method TP-202.1 (formerly within Section 607) from the SIP approved rule does not meet EPA guidance requiring that SIP rules specify all sampling and analysis methods needed to determine compliance with the rule. We examined the CTG entitled “Guideline Series: Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Bulk Plants,” EPA-450/2-77-035, December 1977 and found that this CTG does not contain an annual source (compliance) test requirement consistent with the mass balance methodology cited in Section 502.4 using California Air Resources Board

(CARB)test method TM-202.1. Furthermore, we found no reference within the CTG to any annual source test requirement of any kind. Consequently, removing Section 502.4 from the rule and the SIP does not make the rule inconsistent with the CTG and the requirements of Section 182(c)(3) of the CAA. Regarding Mr. Moralez's assertion that the rule does not include all sampling and analysis methods needed to determine compliance, as we discussed earlier, we believe that existing test methods and compliance checks within the rule are adequate to determine compliance and enforce Section 309's bulk plant requirements. Finally, Mr. Moralez asserted several times that YSAQMD's action to amend Rule 2.21 and remove Section 502.4 and Section 607 is unsupported and, consequently, EPA cannot approve it. However, we found that YSAQMD's amendments are supported adequately, allowing EPA consideration of this SIP submittal. The YSAQMD's August 10, 2005 staff report and September 13, 2005 addendum to its staff report explain its revisions to the rule. The September 13, 2005 addendum to the staff report addressed the amendments to the rule concerning bulk plants and Mr. Moralez's comments to the YSAQMD, in particular. These rule amendments and supporting material received adequate public notice and were duly adopted by the YSAQMD governing board. III. EPA Action No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the submitted rule complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP. On January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3012), we published a limited approval and limited disapproval of YSAQMD Rule 2.21 as adopted locally on June 12, 2002 and submitted by the State on August 6, 2002. This disapproval action started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions on August 22, 2005 and highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to section 179 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA)and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. In our February 1, 2006 proposal, we found that YSAQMD's September 14, 2005 revisions to Rule 2.21 corrected the deficiencies identified in our limited disapproval action. Because no comments were submitted that change our February 1, 2006 assessment of Rule 2.21, all sanctions and Federal Implementation Plan obligations associated with our January 22, 2004 limited disapproval of the rule will be terminated on the effective date of this final rule approval action. IV. 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 *January 2, 2007* . 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: July 24, 2006. Alexis Strauss, Acting 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 F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(342)(i)(A) and (c)(342)(i)(A)( *1* ) to read as follows: § 52.220 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(342)* * *

(i)* * *

(A)Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. ( *1* ) Rule 2.21, adopted on March 23, 1994, and amended on September 14, 2005. [FR Doc. E6-18167 Filed 10-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0747; FRL-8231-5] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic compound

(VOC)emissions from the usage of solvents. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: This rule is effective on January 2, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 30, 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-2006-0747, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions. • *E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* • *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes 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 *http://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: Al Petersen, EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4118, *petersen.alfred@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What Rule Did the State Submit? B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule? C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? B. Do the Rule Revisions Meet the Evaluation Criteria? C. EPA Recommendation To Further Improve a Rule D. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. the State's Submittal A. What Rule Did the State Submit? Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the date that the amended rule was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Table 1.—Submitted Rule for Direct Final Approval Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted AVAQMD 442 Usage of Solvents 11/15/05 03/10/06 On March 30, 2006, the submittal of March 10, 2006 was determined to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule? We approved a version of AVAQMD Rule 442 into the SIP on November 16, 1983 (48 FR 52054). C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions? VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. This rule was developed as part of the local air district's programs to control these pollutants. The purposes of the AVAQMD Rule 442 revisions relative to the SIP rule are as follows: • The rule is revised to conform to present AVAQMD rule format and to be consistent with other District rules. • A section on purpose is added for clarity. • A section on applicability is added to clarify that the rule is not applicable to other rules with VOC emission limits in Regulation IV (such as Rules 461, 462, 463, and 464) and Regulation XI (such as Rules 1102 and 1151). • A section with definitions is added for clarity. • A section with monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements is added to determine compliance. • A section describing specific test methods is added to determine compliance. • The current VOC emissions limit that allows disposal of up to 1.3 gallons per day of VOC by any means is made more stringent by prohibiting disposal of VOC in a manner that would allow evaporation of VOC into the atmosphere. • The current emissions limit for VOC of 18 kg (39.6 pounds) per day is retained and converted to the equivalent monthly emission limit of 540 kg (1,190 pounds) per month. • The current VOC emissions limit for organic materials that come in contact with a flame, are baked, are heat cured, or are heat polymerized of 195 kg (429 pounds) per month is removed; however, the VOC emissions limit for these processes are covered by other rules in Regulations IV and XI. • The current VOC emissions limit deletes the 8,036 kg (18,000 pounds) per day limit for “non-photochemically reactive” solvents. A part of these solvents are covered by the “VOC” limit and a part do not have a limit because they are not precursors to ozone. • A limit on VOC emissions from coating aerospace assemblies and a limit for tire manufacturers expired by their own terms. • A limit on VOC emissions from primer or topcoat application to motor vehicles is covered by Rule 1151. • An exemption for aerosol cans is added, because they are regulated by Rule 1102. • Exemptions for high solid or ultra-high solid materials are removed due to a change in VOC terminology. EPA's technical support document

(TSD)has more information about this rule. II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the CAA), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology

(RACT)for major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The AVAQMD regulates a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81). However, RACT is not required for Rule 442, because no major sources of VOC are expected to be covered by Rule 442. Major sources are covered by other rules in Regulations IV and XI. Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate specific enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following: • *Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans,* U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51. • Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987. • *Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,* EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook). • *Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies* , EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook). B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria? We believe the rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation. C. EPA Recommendation To Further Improve a Rule The TSD describes an additional revision to AVAQMD Rule 442 that does not affect EPA's current action but is recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rule. D. Public Comment and Final Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully approving the submitted AVAQMD Rule 442 because we believe it fulfills 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 rule. If we receive adverse comments by November 30, 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 January 2, 2007. This will incorporate the rule into the federally enforceable SIP. 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 January 2, 2007. 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: September 1, 2006. Laura Yoshii, Acting 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 F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(344) to read as follows: § 52.220 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(344)New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on March 10, 2006, by the Governor's designee.

(i)Incorporation by reference.

(A)Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. ( *1* ) Rule 442, adopted on May 7, 1976 and amended on November 15, 2005. [FR Doc. E6-18173 Filed 10-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0539, EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0610; FRL-8224-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving requests submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management

(IDEM)on December 21, 2005 and June 27, 2006 to revise the Indiana State Implementation Plan

(SIP)in two areas: to amend 326 IAC 1-3-4, ambient air quality standards, to provide consistency between State and Federal reference conditions for measurements of particulate matter air quality; and to update the references to the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)from the 2002 edition to the 2004 edition. DATES: This rule is effective on January 2, 2007, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by November 30, 2006. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0539, EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0610 by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *mooney.john@epa.gov.* • Fax: (312)886-5824. • Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0539, EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0610. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *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 at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Jonathan Nichols, Life Scientist, at

(312)353-7942 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Nichols, Life Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)353-7942, *nichols.jonathan@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? A. Submitting CBI B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments II. Background A. When Did the State Submit the Requested Rule Revisions to EPA? B. Did Indiana Hold Public Hearings for Each of These Rule Revisions? III. What Are the Revisions That the State Requests Be Incorporated Into the SIP? A. CFR Reference B. Reference Conditions for PM Measurements IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? A. Submitting CBI Do not submit this information to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments When submitting comments, remember to: 1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). 2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. When Did the State Submit the Requested Rule Revisions to EPA? IDEM submitted the requested rule revisions related to an update to the CFR reference on December 21, 2005, followed by the update providing consistency between State and Federal particulate matter reference conditions on June 27, 2006. B. Did Indiana Hold Public Hearings for Each of These Rule Revisions? IDEM held public hearings for both of the rule revisions that were submitted: particulate matter reference condition standards rule revision public hearings were held on October 5, 2005, and December 7, 2005; and CFR reference update public hearings were held on February 2, 2005 and June 1, 2005. IDEM did not receive any comments concerning either rule revision. III. What Are the Revisions That the State Requests Be Incorporated Into the SIP? The State has requested the following revisions: Changes to 1-1-3, References to the Code of Federal Regulations; and changes to 326 IAC 1-3-4, to provide consistency between State and Federal particulate matter measurement reference standards. The revisions are described in more detail below. A. CFR Reference The reference to the CFR was updated in 326 IAC 1-1-3 from the 2002 edition to the 2004 edition. This is solely an administrative change that allows Indiana to reference a more current CFR. B. Reference Conditions for PM Measurement IDEM is requesting the amendment of 326 IAC 1-3-4, ambient air quality standards, to provide consistency between State (326 IAC 1-3-4) and Federal (40 CFR 50.3) reference conditions for measurements of particulate matter air quality. In 1997, EPA promulgated revised particulate matter national ambient air quality standard revisions at 40 CFR part 50 for both PM 10 (coarse particulate matter) and PM2.5 (fine particulate matter). Measurement of both standards was to be reported based on ambient air volume measured at the actual ambient temperature and pressure at the monitoring site during the measurement period. The Indiana Air Pollution Control Board adopted these standards on September 1, 2004. As a result of litigation over the 1997 standards in which the PM 10 standard was vacated, EPA revised 40 CFR 50.3 on July 30, 2004 (69 FR 45592, 45595). 1 It now reflects the former standard reference conditions, i.e., 25 degrees Celsius (temperature) and 760 millimeters of mercury (1,013.2 millibars) (pressure) for PM 10 . The submitted revisions to 326 IAC 1-3-4 should ensure that specified reference measurement conditions in the Indiana SIP are consistent with 40 CFR 50.3, as revised. 1 See *American Trucking Associations, Inc.* v. *EPA,* 175 F.3d (D.C. Cir. 1999); affirmed inpart, reversed in part, 531 U.S. 457 (2001). IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? We are approving revisions to the Indiana SIP in two areas:

(1)To amend 326 IAC 1-3-4, ambient air quality standards, to provide consistency between State (326 IAC 1-3-4) and Federal (40 CFR 50.3) reference conditions for measurements of particulate matter air quality; and

(2)to update the references to the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)from the 2002 edition to the 2004 edition. We are publishing this action 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 State plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective January 2, 2007 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by November 30, 2006. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective January 2, 2007. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review 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. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” 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). Regulatory Flexibility Act 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.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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). Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 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 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13132 Federalism 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. Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks 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. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act 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. Paperwork Reduction Act 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.* ). 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. section 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 January 2, 2007. 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: September 14, 2006. Norman Niedergang, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of 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 P—Indiana 2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(177) to read as follows: § 52.770 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(177)The Indiana Department of Environmental Management submitted revisions to Indiana's State Implementation plan on December 21, 2005, and June 27, 2006. Revisions to 326 IAC 1-3-4 provide consistency between State (326 IAC 1-3-4) and Federal (40 CFR 50.3) reference conditions for measurements of particulate matter air quality; and amendments to 326 IAC 1-1-3 update the references to the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)from the 2002 edition to the 2004 edition.

(i)Incorporation by reference. The following sections of the Indiana Administrative Code are incorporated by reference.

(A)Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 1: General Provisions, Rule 1: Provisions Applicable Throughout Title 326, Section 3: References to the Code of Federal Regulations. Filed with the Secretary of State on October 14, 2005 and effective on November 13, 2005. Published at Indiana Register, Volume 29, Number 3, December 1, 2005 (29 IR 795).

(B)Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 1: General Provisions, Rule 3: Ambient Air Quality Standards, Section 4: Ambient Air Quality Standards. Filed with the Secretary of State on March 6, 2006 and effective on April 5, 2006. Published at Indiana Register, Volume 29, Number 7, April 1, 2006 (29 IR 2179). [FR Doc. E6-18169 Filed 10-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 106 Rulemaking Procedures CFR Correction In Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 100 to 185, revised as of October 1, 2005, on page 17, part 106 is corrected by reinstating § 106.100 to read as follows: § 106.100 Required information for a petition for rulemaking.

(a)You must include the following information in your petition for rulemaking:

(1)A summary of your proposed action and an explanation of its purpose.

(2)The language you propose for a new or amended rule, or the language you would delete from a current rule.

(3)An explanation of your interest in your proposed action and the interest of anyone you may represent.

(4)Information and arguments that support your proposed action, including relevant technical and scientific data available to you.

(5)Any specific cases that support or demonstrate the need for your proposed action.

(b)If the impact of your proposed action is substantial, and data or other information about that impact are available to you, we may ask that you provide information about the following:

(1)The costs and benefits of your proposed action to society in general, and identifiable groups within society in particular.

(2)The direct effects, including preemption effects under section 5125 of Federal hazardous materials transportation law, of your proposed action on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, and on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. (See 49 CFR part 107, subpart C, regarding preemption.)

(3)The regulatory burden of your proposed action on small businesses, small organizations, small governmental jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.

(4)The recordkeeping and reporting burdens of your proposed action and whom they would affect.

(5)The effect of your proposed action on the quality of the natural and social environments. [FR Doc. 06-55528 Filed 10-30-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 37

Traces to 37 documents