Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT)
Action: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Citation: 71 FR (No. 214) · FR Doc. 06-9102 · RIN 2120-AA64 · Docket No. FAA-2006-26250; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-104-AD · 14 CFR 39

Summary

The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300-600 airplanes. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if certain spoiler actuators having certain part numbers are installed, and eventual replacement of all affected actuators. This proposed AD results from failure of a distribution block, which was detected during fatigue qualification tests of certain spoiler actuators. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the distribution block, which could result in leakage of the hydraulic fluid that supplies those actuators. This failure could cause failure of one of the three spoiler actuators and the associated hydraulic circuits, which could result in loss of those hydraulic circuits and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

Dates

We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 6, 2006.

Supplementary Information

Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26250; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-104-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that during fatigue qualification tests of certain spoiler actuators a failure of the distribution block was detected. This failure could lead to a leak of the hydraulic fluid that supplies the actuator, and could cause failure of one of the three spoiler actuators and the associated hydraulic circuits, which could result in loss of those hydraulic circuits. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-27-6057, including Appendix 01, dated May 17, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for an inspection to determine if certain spoiler actuators having certain part numbers are installed, and eventual replacement of all affected actuators. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-125, dated July 20, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 1 airplane of U.S. registry. The proposed inspection would take about 1 hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed inspection for U.S. operators is $80. The proposed replacements, if accomplished, would take about 5 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost would be minimal. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed replacements for U.S. operators is $400. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2006-26250; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-104-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December 6, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300-600 airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6057, dated May 17, 2005. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from failure of a distribution block, which was detected during fatigue qualification tests of certain spoiler actuators. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the distribution block, which could result in leakage of the hydraulic fluid that supplies those actuators. This failure could cause failure of one of the three spoiler actuators and the associated hydraulic circuits, which could result in loss of those hydraulic circuits and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection for Actuator Part Numbers and Corrective Action (f) Within 700 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Inspect to determine if a spoiler actuator with part number P376A0002-04 or P376A0002-08 is installed, by doing all the applicable actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6057, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 17, 2005. (1) If no actuator with either identified part number is installed, no further action is required by this paragraph. (2) If any actuator with any identified part number is installed and the three associated hydraulic circuits are affected (at least one actuator supplied by the yellow circuit and at least one actuator supplied by the blue circuit and at least one actuator supplied by the green circuit): Within 100 flight hours after accomplishing the inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD, replace all affected actuators on one of the hydraulic circuits with new actuators in accordance with the service bulletin. Within 12 months after accomplishing that replacement, replace all the remaining affected actuators with new actuators in accordance with the service bulletin. (3) If any actuator with any identified part number is installed and one or two of the associated hydraulic circuits are affected: Within 12 months after accomplishing the inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD, replace all affected actuators with new actuators in accordance with the service bulletin. Parts Installation (g) After the effective date of this AD, no spoiler actuator with part number P376A0002-04 or P376A0002-08 may be installed on any airplane. No Reporting Required (h) Although Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6057, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 17, 2005, specifies to submit an inspection report to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (j) French airworthiness directive F-2005-125, dated July 20, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 30, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-18685 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0837; FRL-8239-2] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the state of Missouri to add a test method for compliance testing to the rule that controls emissions of nitrogen oxides of major sources in the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by December 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0837 by one of the following methods: 1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail : algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov. 3. Mail : Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier . Deliver your comments to: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at (913) 551-7942, or by e-mail at algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal Register , EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register . Dated: October 25, 2006. Martha Cuppy, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E6-18566 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0676-200622(b); FRL-8239-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; NC; Redesignation of the Rocky Mount 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: On June 19, 2006, the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality, submitted a final request: To redesignate the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, and to approve a North Carolina State Implementation Plan revision containing a maintenance plan for Rocky Mount, North Carolina. The Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is comprised of two counties, Edgecombe and Nash. EPA is proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone redesignation request for the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Rocky Mount, North Carolina. This proposal is based on EPA's determination that the State of North Carolina has demonstrated that the Rocky Mount area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act, including the determination that the entire Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. In this action, EPA is also finding adequate and proposing to approve the 2008 and 2017 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (for both Edgecombe and Nash counties) that are contained in the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Rocky Mount nonattainment area. North Carolina has established subarea MVEBs at the county level so each county must consider its individual subarea MVEBs for the purposes of implementing transportation conformity. Further, in this action, EPA is proposing to find adequate and to approve the insignificance determination for volatile organic compounds' contribution from motor vehicle emissions to the 8-hour ozone pollution in the Rocky Mount, North Carolina area. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0676, by one of the following methods: 1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: ward.nacosta@epa.gov or wood.amanetta@epa.gov. 3. Fax: 404-562-9019. 4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0676”, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Nacosta C. Ward or Amanetta Wood, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9140 and via electronic mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. Amanetta Wood may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9025 and via electronic mail at wood.amanetta@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules section of this Federal Register. Dated: October 24, 2006. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E6-18582 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0171; FRL-8239-8] RIN 2060-AM14 National Emission Standards for Hospital Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing two primary regulatory alternatives for new and existing hospital sterilizers that emit hazardous air pollutants and are area sources within the meaning of Clean Air Act section 112(a)(2). The first alternative proposes a generally available management practice requirement for new and existing hospital sterilizers that are area sources. The second alternative proposes that there are no generally available control technologies or management practices within the meaning of Clean Air Act section 112(d)(5) for this source category. We are proposing these two different alternatives because we currently have imperfect information concerning the ability of the proposed management practice to reduce hazardous air pollutant emissions and the cost-effectiveness of such management practice. This action is being proposed as part of EPA's obligation to regulate area sources listed for regulation pursuant to Clean Air Act section 112(c)(3). DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received on or before January 5, 2007. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA by November 27, 2006 requesting to speak at a public hearing, a public hearing will be held on December 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0171, by one of the following methods: • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. • Fax: (202) 566-1741. • Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. We request that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-102, Washington, DC 20014. Please include a total of two copies. Such deliveries are accepted only during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. We request that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0171. 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 Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g. , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0171, EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on docket operations, locations, and telephone numbers. The Docket Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for submitting comments to www.regulations.gov are not affected by the flooding and will remain the same. Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate site nearby. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposal, contact Mr. David Markwordt, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-0837; fax number (919) 541-0246; e-mail address: markwordt.david@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by the proposed action are hospitals which sterilize with ethylene oxide. The proposed action would affect the following categories of sources: Category NAICS 1 code Example of potentially regulated entities General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 622110 Hospital sterilizers. Specialty (Except Psychiatric and Substance Abuse) Hospitals 622310 Hospital sterilizers. 1 North American Industrial Classification Code. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed action to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information which you claim to be CBI to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 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. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 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. Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mr. David Markwordt, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0837, e-mail address: markwordt.david@epa.gov , at least 2 days in advance of the potential date of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Mr. David Markwordt to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. A public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed action. World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed rule is also available on the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed rule will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg . The TTN at EPA's Web site provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Organization of this Document. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. Background II. Summary of the Proposed Standards A. What Source Category Would Be Affected By This Proposal? B. Proposed Regulatory Alternative 1 C. Proposed Regulatory Alternative 2 III. Rationale for the Proposed Standards IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts of the Proposed Standards V. Solicitation of Public Comments A. Introduction and General Solicitation B. Specific Comment and Data Solicitations VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Background Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to identify not less than 30 hazardous air pollutants (HAP) which, as the result of emissions from area sources, present the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas, and section 112(c) requires us to list sufficient area source categories or subcategories to ensure that emissions representing 90 percent of the 30 listed HAP (area source HAP) are subject to regulation under section 112(d) of the CAA. The Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy), issued on July 19, 1999 (64 FR 38706) included a list of 30 area source HAP and a list of area source categories emitting the listed HAP. CAA Section 112(d) includes authority to issue new and existing source maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards, health threshold standards, and generally available control technology (GACT) or management practice standards for area sources. We are issuing today's proposal pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5) to address our obligation under CAA section 112(c)(3) to subject to regulation the listed area source category of hospital sterilizers. II. Summary of the Proposed Standards The source category at issue in this proposal is hospital sterilizers that emit HAP and that are area sources. EPA is proposing two primary regulatory alternatives for this source category. The first alternative (Regulatory Alternative 1) proposes a management practice to reduce HAP emissions from hospital sterilizers that do not use control devices to reduce ethylene oxide emissions. The second alternative (Regulatory Alternative 2) proposes that there are no generally available control technologies or management practices within the meaning of section 112(d)(5) for this particular source category. We are proposing these two alternatives because we currently have limited information concerning the ability of the proposed management practice to reduce HAP emissions and the cost-effectiveness of such management practice. As explained below, we believe this proposal meets the requirements of CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 112(d)(5). A. What Source Category Would Be Affected by This Proposal? The source category that is affected by this proposed action is the hospital sterilizer area source category. This source category includes area source facilities that perform the operations necessary to sterilize medical items with ethylene oxide at hospitals. B. Proposed Regulatory Alternative 1 1. What Would Be the Affected Sources and Emission Points? The affected source to which the proposed management practice applies is the group of ethylene oxide sterilizers at a hospital and that are located at hospitals that emit less than major source quantities of HAP. If EPA finalizes Regulatory Alternative 1, you would be subject to the requirements in the proposed subpart if you own or operate one or more of the affected sources identified above. These requirements would apply nationwide. We are also considering applying proposed Regulatory Alternative 1 to urban areas only and are taking comment on this approach. In a separate action, we are proposing various definitions related to the urban only approach ( e.g. , definitions for “Metropolitan Statistical Area,” “Urban,” “Urban 1 areas,” and “Urban 2 areas”). These proposed definitions are included in the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities, and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities; this proposal is in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406. If we decide to finalize the urban-only approach, we would include in this final rule definitions related to that approach. The emission source subject to the management practice is the sterilization unit. 2. What Would Be the Emission Limits, Equipment Standards, and/or Management Practice Standards? Under Regulatory Alternative 1, we are proposing two different alternatives with regard to uncontrolled hospital sterilizers. First, we propose to require that hospitals with uncontrolled sterilizers follow the management practice of sterilizing full loads of items having a common aeration time, except where emergency circumstances dictate the use of less than full loads to protect human health. As discussed below, we are soliciting comment on particular circumstances where an exemption to the full load requirement would be necessary for medical or other reasons. Alternatively, we propose that hospitals with uncontrolled sterilizers follow the management practice of sterilizing full loads of items having a common aeration to the extent practical. Unlike the first proposed approach, this alternative would eliminate the need for a specific list of exemptions. As for hospitals with controlled sterilizers, we propose that these hospitals be required to certify that the control devices are operating and will continue to operate in accordance with applicable State and/or local laws or, if controls are voluntary, in accordance with manufacturers' specifications. If controls are subsequently removed, the management practice would take effect. 3. What Would Be the Testing and Initial Compliance Demonstration Requirements? There are no performance test requirements for the proposed management practice standard. 4. What Would Be the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? We are proposing an initial compliance notification/certification status that would require affected sources to notify EPA that they operate a sterilizer covered by the rule and certify that they will operate the sterilizer in accordance with the requirements of the rule. We are taking comment on the costs and benefits of this initial compliance notification/certification status and whether or not there should be annual compliance certifications. For Regulatory Alternative 1, we are also proposing two options for recordkeeping. The first option does not require recordkeeping. The second option requires that affected sources maintain records on-site of the date and time of each sterilization operation. If less than a full load is sterilized at any time, the operator must, in addition to noting the date and time of the sterilization operation, identify the reason why a less-than-full load was sterilized. We are soliciting comment on the particular circumstances where a hospital may need to run the sterilizer with less than a full load, and whether to require records of such loads and the reason they were run. C. Proposed Regulatory Alternative 2 As explained further below, we alternatively propose today that there are no generally available control technologies or management practices within the meaning of section 112(d)(5) for this category of sources. We are proposing this alternative in addition to Regulatory Alternative 1 because of the possibility that the proposed management standard will not result in meaningful or cost-effective reductions in ethylene oxide. That is, given the incentives that operators have to minimize ethylene oxide emissions to reduce operating costs as well as their own exposures, it is uncertain whether the issuance of additional work practice standards would result in meaningful HAP emission reductions. Even if such reductions occurred, they could be expensive. For example, as noted above, we assume that work practice standards would reduce emissions by 2 to 9 tons per year (tpy), and that recordkeeping costs can be as high as $1.3 million per year, resulting in reductions that cost $150,000 to $650,000 per ton. Costs would be reduced significantly without recordkeeping requirements, but emission reductions would be expected to be lower in this instance. For these reasons, the Agency is alternatively proposing today to find that there are no GACT or management practices within the meaning of CAA section 112(d)(5) for this category of sources. We believe that this would be a reasonable approach given the high costs of controlling emissions of ethylene oxide from hospital sterilizers using the identified control technology and the uncertainties as to whether the proposed work practice standard will result in HAP emission reductions and whether such reductions are cost-effective. We request comment on this alternative. III. Rationale for the Proposed Standards Ethylene oxide is used in hospitals to sterilize medical items, particularly heat-sensitive items that cannot be steam sterilized. Ethylene oxide can be used directly in pure gaseous form or in gaseous mixtures. The ethylene oxide sterilization process includes preparation of the sterilization chamber (temperature, evacuation, humidification, and ethylene oxide gas concentration), the sterilization cycle when the medical item is exposed to ethylene oxide, evacuation and air washes, and the aeration (or off-gas) cycle. Emissions points from hospital ethylene oxide sterilization processes include: (1) Emissions from evacuating the chamber following sterilization, (2) emissions from the chamber during aeration, and (3) emissions that occur when the sterilizer door is opened. Most hospitals have eliminated another potential source of emissions, the once-through water-sealed vacuum pump used to evacuate the ethylene oxide from the chamber, in order to meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines for worker exposure. Hospitals now use recirculating vacuum-sealed pumps. There were an estimated 5,800 hospitals nationwide in the United States in 2002. Based on a nationwide and State search for permits and inventory data, we specifically compared the number of hospitals identified and the number confirmed to conduct ethylene oxide sterilization, and extrapolated to nationwide numbers. The percentage of hospitals with ethylene oxide sterilization ranges from 28 to 33 percent. Based on this range, there are approximately 1,600 to 1,900 hospitals nationwide that conduct ethylene oxide sterilization. The predominant type of air pollution control devices are the EtO-Abator TM and the Safe-Cell technology. Both technologies reduce emissions by approximately 99 percent. The EtO-Abator TM oxidizes the ethylene oxide with a catalyst to form carbon dioxide and water vapor. The latest version of the EtO-Abator TM (sold by 3M) is sold only for use with pure ethylene oxide systems; however, earlier versions were used with gas blends. The Safe-Cell technology, which can be used with either pure ethylene oxide or ethylene oxide gas blends, is a two-stage process. In the first stage, an acid hydrolysis scrubber removes ethylene oxide from the gas stream and converts it to ethylene glycol; in the second stage, the remaining ethylene oxide is captured and destroyed on a dry bed filter impregnated with a chemical reactant. We estimated that ethylene oxide emissions were 1,060 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (1,170 tpy) from hospital sterilization processes nationwide in 1990. As discussed below, there have been declines in ethylene oxide usage and emissions for sterilization processes. Nationwide ethylene oxide usage was estimated to be 192 Mg/yr (212 tpy) in 2000 and 122 Mg/yr (135 tpy) in 2005. We estimate that at least half of the ethylene oxide being used by hospitals with controlled sterilizers, which would emit negligible amounts of ethylene oxide, and the other half is used in uncontrolled sterilizers. This resulted in about 40 Mg/yr (44 tpy) of ethylene oxide emissions in 2005. We estimate approximately 0.05 cases of cancer per year resulting from the release of the 40 Mg/yr of ethylene oxide to the atmosphere. Ethylene oxide emissions for hospital sterilizers therefore have decreased over 90 percent from 1990 to 2005 (from 1,060 to 40 Mg/yr reduction). The decline in ethylene oxide usage for hospital sterilization is due mainly to: (1) New regulations and excise taxes on chlorofluorocarbons, (2) development of new sterilization processes, such as liquid peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide plasma processes, for certain medical items, (3) increased concern over the toxicity of ethylene oxide residuals, and (4) new restrictions on reprocessing single use devices (SUD). As a corollary to the decline in EO usage and emissions, the number of hospitals that conduct ethylene oxide sterilization has been declining. Regulation of ethylene oxide sterilization at hospitals has contributed to the decline in the number of hospitals that conduct sterilization processes. In California, there were approximately 600 hospitals that operated ethylene oxide sterilizers in 1991. Since implementation of the California Air Resources Board regulation for hospital sterilizers in 1991, at least 60 percent of these hospitals are no longer conducting sterilization operations. In 2000, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated the reprocessing of SUD, and these regulations have made it more difficult for hospitals to continue the reprocessing. Many hospitals have reacted to the 2000 FDA regulations by discontinuing the reuse of SUD or by outsourcing the sterilization processing of SUD. With the trends mentioned, hospitals in urban areas have begun to consolidate ethylene oxide sterilization processes, and one hospital with a large sterilizer may conduct sterilization processes for its neighbor or affiliated hospitals or those in close proximity. As a result of the many SUD reuse issues, when hospitals are outsourcing and using reprocessed devices, ethylene oxide usage by contract sterilizers is increasing, and when hospitals are not reprocessing SUD, ethylene oxide usage by medical device manufacturers has increased as they manufacture more SUD. (Sterilization processes by commercial sterilizers, which include commercial contract sterilizers and medical device manufacturers, are subject to MACT controls under 40 CFR part 63, subpart O.) Emissions from controlled hospital sterilizers are negligible, and we are not aware of any practical emission reduction strategies to further reduce emissions after control. The ethylene oxide emissions from hospitals average less than 300 pounds per year. The capital costs of add-on controls for these facilities range from $23,000 to $130,000 per hospital and the annualized costs of add-on controls range from $10,000 to $46,000 per year. These costs do not include any potential monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) costs that would be necessary to ensure continuous compliance if controls were required. Total nationwide annualized cost to control all uncontrolled facilities would be approximately $8.5 million. The cost to reduce a ton of ethylene oxide emissions is over $200,000 per year. As a first step in our analysis, we considered the option of applying a MACT standard to hospital sterilizers under CAA section 112(d)(2). Hospitals that are currently controlling their ethylene oxide sterilizers generally are doing so to comply with existing State or local requirements. More than half of the hospital sterilizers have add-on controls. Due to this widespread use of controls on hospital sterilizers, the MACT floor level of control would be add-on controls if we were to develop this area source rule based on CAA section 112(d)(2). We propose to reject the application of MACT and the requirement to control all presently uncontrolled hospital sterilizers based on the small amount of ethylene oxide emissions from uncontrolled hospital sterilizers and the poor cost-effectiveness associated with requiring add-on controls on the currently uncontrolled sources. The average hospital emits less than 300 pounds per year of ethylene oxide. The cost-effectiveness of applying MACT is over $200,000 per ton of ethylene oxide reduced, excluding any potential MRR costs, which we think is excessive for control of these emissions. Consequently, the Administrator is exercising his discretion to promulgate standards or requirements under CAA section 112(d)(5) which provide for the use of management practices to reduce emissions of HAP from uncontrolled sterilizers. The FDA regulates the hospital sterilizer as a medical device; these requirements help ensure sterility of the sterilized product. The FDA requires the manufacturer follow the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) standards for sterilizers. The FDA does not directly regulate the hospital use of the sterilizer unit. However, the amount of ethylene oxide used per sterilizer cycle is factory set by the manufacturers to comply with the AAMI standards, i.e. , for a given sterilizer cycle, one uses the same amount of ethylene oxide whether the sterilizer is full or not. Because of this, hospital sterilizer operators have little discretion in the operation of the sterilizer other than to minimize the use of the sterilizer by only running full loads. Under Regulatory Alternative 1, we are therefore proposing the management practice that requires the sterilization of full loads to minimize the number of times the sterilizer is operated. As explained above, we are considering two different approaches for framing the standard under Regulatory Alternative 1. This management practice is consistent with the American National Standards Institute, Inc. (ANSI) and the AAMI jointly developed American National Standard ANSI/AAMI ST41:1999. The ANSI/AAMI ST41:1999 standard is recognized by the FDA as a consensus standard. The ANSI/AAMI standard requires the operator sterilize full loads of items having a common aeration time, to the extent practical. The rationale provided in the standard states the following: As compared to sterilizing the same volume in partial loads, sterilizing full loads of items having a common aeration time is cost-effective and reduces the potential for occupational exposure and for environmental release of ethylene oxide. This practice also reduces the temptation for workers to attempt to retrieve items with short aeration times from cabinets in which other items might not be fully aerated and thus helps avoid unnecessary exposure to ethylene oxide.” It is possible that not all hospitals sterilize every load consistent with this standard. We believe that the management practice should increase the awareness of pollution prevention and that it has the potential to reduce emissions from uncontrolled hospital sterilizers. For purposes of Regulatory Alternative 1, we assume that the cost of implementing the management practice is low. We believe the cost of performing the management practice may be off-set by the reduced purchasing costs of ethylene oxide and other operating costs resulting from fewer loads. We also believe the implementation of the management practice can be done relatively quickly due to the expected low effort to set up the recordkeeping necessary for the practice. For these reasons, we are proposing Regulatory Alternative 1, which would require compliance with the management practice requirements within 1 year after the effective date of the final rule. Under Regulatory Alternative 1, we are proposing that the management practice apply to uncontrolled hospital sterilizers. Hospitals controlling their sterilizers with add-on emission control devices would be required to certify either compliance with all State or local requirements applicable to the controls or, if controls are voluntary, certify that they are operating the controls in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. If controls are subsequently removed, the management practice would take effect. Facilities complying with the management practice will be required to maintain records on-site of the date and time of sterilization and whether a full load was sterilized, and the reason for not running a full load. We estimated the costs to keep records at $1.3 million per year for the uncontrolled facilities. We are assuming the controlled facilities will certify compliance with either State or local requirements, or they are operating the controls consistent with the manufacturer's specifications. The cost estimates noted above are only estimates, however. We are taking comment on the costs and benefits of this recordkeeping requirement and on whether this rule should apply nationally or only to hospitals in urban areas. We are considering applying today's proposal only to urban areas as defined in the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities, and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406. Based on the information and assumptions noted above, we are proposing two options for Regulatory Alternative 1. First, we propose that full loads of items having a common aeration time be sterilized, except where emergency circumstances dictate the use of less than full loads to protect human health. With regard to this proposed option, we specifically solicit comment on whether there are other exemptions to the full load requirement that are appropriate. Alternatively, we propose that operators be required to sterilize full loads of items having a common aeration time to the extent practical. Under this alternative approach, there is no need for a specified list of exemptions for specific circumstances, as is the case with the first proposed approach. Rather, the operator must fully load the sterilizer to the extent practical. Both options recognize that hospital sterilizers have strong economic incentives to operate sterilizers with a full load because doing so reduces the quantity of ethylene oxide needed to run their operation and, accordingly, reduces costs. This alternative approach is consistent with the ANSI/AAMI standard described above. Indeed, as noted by the AAMI and FDA, operation at full loads reduces operating costs by reducing the consumption of ethylene oxide, minimizing wear and tear on machines, and reducing associated labor costs. We solicit comment on these two alternative approaches. Under Regulatory Alternative 2, we are proposing that there are no GACT or management practices within the meaning of section 112(d)(5) of the CAA for this source category. We are currently not aware of any control technology or management practice other than those discussed in this proposal that would reduce ethylene oxide emissions from hospital sterilizers. We have already identified that there is a high cost of controlling emissions of ethylene oxide from hospital sterilizers using the identified control technology, such that we currently do not believe that there is any GACT. We also have limited information to conclude either that the proposed management practice reduces emissions of ethylene oxide or that the proposed practice is cost-effective. We are therefore co-proposing Regulatory Alternative 2. We are soliciting comment on whether, for this source category, it is reasonable to conclude that no such generally available means of reducing emissions is available. In this regard, we specifically solicit comment on whether there is any other control technology or management practice that is not described in this proposal, but that may provide a cost-effective means of reducing ethylene oxide emissions from hospital sterilizers. To the extent a commenter identifies such an alternative means of emission reduction, we request information relating to the nature of the emission reduction and the cost of obtaining such reduction. Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that EPA may exempt one or more area sources from the requirements of title V if EPA finds that compliance with such requirements is “impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome” on such area sources. EPA must determine whether to exempt an area source from title V at the time we issue the relevant CAA section 112 standard (40 CFR 70.3(b)(2)). If we pursue Regulatory Alternative 1 in the final rule, we are proposing today to exempt hospital sterilizer area sources from the requirements of title V. Hospital sterilizer area sources would not be required to obtain title V permits solely as a function of being the subject of today's proposed national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP); however, if they were otherwise required to obtain title V permits, such requirement(s) would not be affected by today's proposed exemption. Consistent with the statute, EPA has found that compliance with title V permitting is “unnecessarily burdensome” for hospital sterilizer area sources. EPA's inquiry into whether this criterion was satisfied was based primarily upon consideration of the following four factors: (1) Whether title V would result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements that we are proposing for this area source category; (2) whether title V permitting would impose a significant burden on hospital sterilizer area sources; (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for hospital sterilizer area sources would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources; and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient for assuring compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. Additionally, EPA also considered whether exempting hospital sterilizer area sources would adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment. We first determined the extent to which these factors were present for this area source category. We then determined whether those factors collectively demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome for hospital sterilizer area sources. In our consideration of these factors, we believe the addition of title V permitting would not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements that we are proposing for this area source category. Under Regulatory Alternative 1, we are unaware of any additional compliance procedures, in or outside the title V program, which would improve the assurance of significantly more gains in compliance and emission reductions. We have not identified any adverse effect on public health, welfare, or the environment by the proposed title V exemption. We also believe that title V permitting may impose a significant burden on facilities within this source category, some of which are small businesses. For many facilities, the cost of obtaining a title V permit may far exceed the cost of complying with this proposed rule without significant gains in compliance. Based on the above analysis, we conclude that title V permitting would be “unnecessarily burdensome” for hospital sterilizer area sources. We are therefore proposing that this area source category be exempt from title V permitting requirements if we pursue Regulatory Alternative 1. We have prepared regulatory text for proposed Regulatory Alternative 1. The proposed regulatory text implements the first option described above for Regulatory Alternative 1 and includes proposed recordkeeping requirements. We have included regulatory text for this proposed approach because it is the approach that would involve the most extensive regulatory text. If we finalize the second option described above for Regulatory Alternative 1 ( i.e. , following the ANSI/AAMI standard), we will modify the regulatory text appropriately. IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts of the Proposed Standards We estimate that in 2002 there were, at most, 1,900 hospital area sources, of which approximately 630 do not presently have add-on controls. The management practice that we are proposing today as Regulatory Alternative 1 is estimated to reduce the 40 Mg/yr emitted from uncontrolled sterilizers from 2 to 9 Mg/yr per year based on a range of assumptions for the extent to which hospital sterilizers are presently not being run with full loads. We estimate cancer incidence would be reduced from approximately 0.05 to 0.044 cases of cancer per year. We further believe that if we pursue Regulatory Alternative 1 in the final rule, there will be minimal effect on other air quality or non-air quality environmental impacts and will be negligible energy or economic impacts. Annualized costs to comply with the proposed standards are estimated to be less than $2 million per year. There will be no environmental, energy, cost, or economic impacts associated with Regulatory Alternative 2. V. Solicitation of Public Comments A. * Introduction and General Solicitation* We request comments on all aspects of the proposed action. All significant comments received during the public comment period will be considered in the development and selection of the final rulemaking. B. Specific Comment and Data Solicitations 1. Management practice costs and benefits—We are requesting comment on our estimate of the costs to comply with the management practice and the associated MRR requirements. As stated earlier, we are proposing one time initial compliance notification/certification. We are requesting comment on the costs and benefits of the proposed initial compliance notification/certification status and recordkeeping and on the costs and benefits of hospitals also annually certifying their compliance with the proposed rule. We are requesting comment on the two proposed options for recordkeeping. The first option does not require records to minimize the burden compared to the emission reduction benefit. The second option requires recordkeeping to ensure compliance. We solicit comments on approaches other than recordkeeping which may ensure compliance at a smaller cost. Finally, we are requesting comment on whether this rule should apply nationally or only to hospitals in urban areas. 2. Full loads—The ANSI/AAMI ST41:1999 standards rationale for load configuration states the following: “Overloading impedes proper air removal, humidification of the load, and sterilant penetration and evacuation. Proper loading ensures that the sterilized items will not touch the operator's hands during transfer from the sterilizer to the aerator.” We do not want the proposed requirements to impede the sterilization cycle or in any way compromise the process of sterilization. We are requesting comment on our definition of full load and for specific cases where it would not be practical or appropriate to require full loads. We are also soliciting comment on our alternative proposal of requiring hospitals with uncontrolled sterilizers to follow the management practice of sterilizing full loads of items having a common aeration, to the extent practical. 3. Emission estimate for the management practice—We currently have insufficient information concerning the ability of the proposed management practice to reduce HAP emissions. Our emissions reduction estimates attributed to the management practice are based on assumptions concerning the current practice at hospitals. The basis of our emissions estimate is the assumption that 10 to 50 percent of the sterilization is performed on half loads and that the amount of ethylene oxide used is fixed per cycle. The emission estimate also makes the assumption that all loads could be full. We are requesting comments on the extent to which hospitals presently sterilize less than full loads, to what extent these less than full loads could be eliminated, and any additional information that may assist in estimating emissions. We are requesting comment on whether this management practice is an effective means of reducing emissions from these sources and, if not, whether it would be appropriate to set no standard on the grounds that no technology or management practice are generally available to reduce emissions from these sources. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action” because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information requirements in the proposed NESHAP for Hospital Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Area Sources have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2245.01. The proposed information collection requirements are based on the information collection requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), some of which are incorporated into the proposed NESHAP. The ICR document includes the burden estimates for all applicable General Provisions. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Proposed Regulatory Alternative 2 does not impose any new information collection burden. Proposed Regulatory Alternative 1 does propose information collection requirements. Specifically, the annual burden for the information collection averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 23,694 labor hours per year at a cost of $1.6 million for the 1,900 existing hospital sterilizer area sources. No capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs are associated with the proposed requirements. No costs or burden hours are estimated for new area sources because no new sources are estimated during the 3-year period of the ICR. We have no indication there will be any new sources in the next 3 years. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this action, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0171. Submit any comments related to the ICR for the proposed rules to EPA and OMB. See “Addresses” section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after November 6, 2006, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by December 6, 2006. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed area source NESHAP on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a hospital as defined by NAICS codes 622110 and 622310 whose parent company has less than $31.5 million in gross revenue (based on Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Proposed Regulatory Alternative 1 proposes to require the use of a work practice to minimize the operation of the ethylene oxide sterilization unit and will, therefore, have minimal nationwide costs, i.e. , less than $2 million per year. We have determined that less than 3 percent of the hospitals are small businesses as defined by the SBA. We have also determined that none of these small businesses are significantly impacted by this proposal for none of them will incur annualized compliance costs of 0.1 percent of sales or greater. There are no costs associated with proposed Regulatory Alternative 2. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. As discussed previously in this preamble, if we finalize Regulatory Alternative 1, the estimated expenditures for the private sector in any 1 year are less than $2 million. There are no costs associated with proposed Regulatory Alternative 2. Thus, the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed rule would not result in expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any 1 year or any disproportionate impacts on them. Therefore, the proposed rule is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. To the extent the proposed rule proposes requirements, it does so only with respect to owners and operators of specified area sources and not State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” The proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. To the extent the proposed rule proposes requirements, it does so only with respect to owners and operators of specified area sources and not Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the EPA. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order. It is based on control technology and not on health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that the proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because energy requirements would likely be less than existing levels. No additional pollution controls or other equipment that would consume energy are required by the proposed rules. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards ( e.g. , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. The proposed rule does not include technical standards. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: October 31, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 63—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart A—[Amended] 2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart WWWWW to read as follows: Subpart WWWWW—National Emission Standards for Hospital Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Applicability and Compliance Dates Sec. 63.10382 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.10384 What are my compliance dates? Standards 63.10390 What management practice standards must I meet? Initial Compliance Requirements 63.10400 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? 63.10402 By what date must I demonstrate initial compliance? Monitoring—Continuous Compliance Requirements 63.10420 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the management practice requirements? Notifications, Reports, and Records 63.10430 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.10432 What records must I keep? 63.10434 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? Other Requirements and Information 63.10440 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.10442 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.10446 Do title V permitting requirements apply to area sources subject to this subpart? 63.10448 What definitions apply to this subpart? Tables to Subpart WWWWW of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart WWWWW of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart WWWWW Subpart WWWWW—National Emission Standards for Hospital Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Applicability and Compliance Dates § 63.10382 Am I subject to this subpart? (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an ethylene oxide sterilization facility at a hospital that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. Your hospital facility is an area source of HAP if it is a stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of less than 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) per year and any combination of HAP at a rate of less than 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) per year. (b) The affected source subject to this subpart is each new or existing sterilization facility. (1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source before November 6, 2006. (2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after November 6, 2006. § 63.10384 What are my compliance dates? (a) Existing source. If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with applicable requirements in this subpart no later than [1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register ]. (b) New source. If you have a new or reconstructed affected source for which the initial startup date is on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register ], you must comply with applicable requirements in this subpart by [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register ]. (c) New source. If you have a new or reconstructed affected source for which the initial startup date is after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register ], you must comply with applicable requirements in this subpart upon initial startup. Standards § 63.10390 What management practice standards must I meet? (a) You must sterilize full loads of items having a common aeration time, except under the following conditions: emergency circumstances dictate the use of less than full loads to protect human health. (b) You are exempt from the management practice standards in paragraph (a) of this section if your sterilization unit is equipped with an add-on air pollution control device and you submit a certification in accordance with § 63.10400. Initial Compliance Requirements § 63.10400 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? (a) Uncontrolled sources. You must demonstrate initial compliance with the management practice standards in § 63.10390(a) by submitting an initial Notification of Compliance Status certifying that you are sterilizing with full loads of items having a common aeration time. (b) Controlled sources subject to State and local regulation. You must demonstrate initial compliance with § 63.10390(b) by submitting an initial Notification of Compliance Status certifying that you are operating the sterilization unit in accordance with your State or local regulation and following control device manufacturer's recommended procedures. (c) Controlled sources not subject to State and local regulation. You must demonstrate initial compliance with § 63.10390(b) by submitting an initial Notification of Compliance Status certifying that you are venting the ethylene oxide emissions from each sterilization unit to an add-on air pollution control device. You must certify that you are operating the control device during all sterilization processes and in accordance with manufacturer's recommended procedures. § 63.10402 By what date must I demonstrate initial compliance? You must demonstrate initial compliance with § 63.10390 upon startup or no later than 180 calendar days after your compliance date, whichever is later. Monitoring—Continuous Compliance Requirements § 63.10420 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the management practice requirements? For each sterilization unit not equipped with an add-on air pollution control device, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the management practice standards in § 63.10390(a) by checking and recording the date and time of each sterilization cycle, whether each sterilization cycle contains a full load of items, and if not, which allowable reason. Notifications, Reports, and Records § 63.10430 What notifications must I submit and when? (a) You must submit the initial Notification of Compliance Status to the authority provided for in § 63.9(a)(4). In addition to submitting your initial Notification of Compliance Status to the State or Region Office, you must also submit a copy of the initial Notification of Compliance Status to EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Send your notification via e-mail to CCG-ONG@EPA.GOV or via U.S. mail or other mail delivery service to U.S. EPA, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Attn: Hospital Sterilizers Project Leader, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. (b) You must submit an initial Notification of Compliance Status for the initial compliance demonstration in § 63.10400(a), (b), or (c) before 5 p.m. on the 60th calendar day following the compliance demonstration, consistent with § 63.10402. Your Notification of Compliance Status must include the information required in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section and the applicable certification in § 63.10400. (1) The name and address of the owner or operator. (2) The address ( i.e. , physical location) of the affected source. (3) An identification of the relevant standard, or other requirement, that is the basis of the notification and the source's compliance date. (4) A brief description of the nature, size, design, and method of operation of the source and an identification of the types of emission points within the affected source subject to the relevant standard and types of hazardous air pollutants emitted. (5) A statement that the affected source is an area source. § 63.10432 What records must I keep? You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. (a) All sources. A copy of the initial Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted to comply with this subpart. (b) Uncontolled sources. Records of checks needed to document continuous compliance with the management practice standards required by § 63.10420. § 63.10434 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10(b)(1). (b) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, report, or record. (c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to § 63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. Other Requirements and Information § 63.10440 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 1 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in 40 CFR 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. § 63.10442 Who implements and enforces this subpart? (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that Agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency. (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency. (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies include approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements under 40 CFR 63.10382, the compliance date requirements in 40 CFR 63.10384, and the management practice standards as defined in 40 CFR 63.10390. § 63.10446 Do title V permitting requirements apply to area sources subject to this subpart? You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of this subpart. § 63.10448 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA), in 40 CFR 63.2, and in this section as follows: Aeration process means any time when ethylene oxide is removed from the aeration unit through the aeration unit vent or from the combination sterilization unit through the sterilization unit vent, while aeration or off-gassing is occurring. Aeration unit means any vessel that is used to facilitate off-gassing of ethylene oxide. Air pollution control device means a catalytic oxidizer, acid-water scrubber, or any other air pollution control equipment that reduces the quantity of ethylene oxide from the effluent gas stream from sterilization and aeration processes. Combination sterilization unit means any enclosed vessel in which both the sterilization process and the aeration process occur within the same vessel, i.e. , the vessel is filled with ethylene oxide gas or an ethylene oxide/inert gas mixture for the purpose of sterilizing and is followed by off-gassing of ethylene oxide. Common aeration time means that items require the same length of time to off-gas ethylene oxide. Controlled source means a sterilization facility using ethylene oxide in sterilization units with an add-on air pollution control device used to reduce the quantity of ethylene oxide emissions. Full load means the maximum number of items that does not impede proper air removal, humidification of the load, or sterilant penetration and evacuation in the sterilization unit. Hospital means a facility that provides medical care and treatment, including diagnostic and major surgery facilities, for patients who are acutely ill or chronically ill on an inpatient basis under supervision of licensed physicians and under nursing care offered 24 hours per day. Doctor's offices, clinics, or other facilities whose primary purpose is to provide medical services to humans or animals on an outpatient basis are excluded. State or local regulation means a regulation at the State or local level that requires a hospital to reduce the quantity of ethylene oxide emissions from ethylene oxide sterilization units. Sterilization facility means the group of ethylene oxide sterilization units at a hospital using ethylene oxide gas or an ethylene oxide/inert gas mixture for the purpose of sterilizing. Sterilization process means any time when ethylene oxide is removed from the sterilization unit or combination sterilization unit through the sterilization unit vent. Sterilization unit means any enclosed vessel that is filled with ethylene oxide gas or an ethylene oxide/inert gas mixture for the purpose of sterilizing. Uncontrolled source means a sterilization facility using ethylene oxide in sterilization units with no add-on air pollution control device used to reduce the quantity of ethylene oxide emissions. Tables to Subpart WWWWW of Part 63 As required in § 63.10440, you must comply with the requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in the following table. Table 1.—To Subpart WWWWW of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart WWWWW Citation Subject Applies to subpart WWWWW Explanation § 63.1(a)(1)-(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(12), (b)(1) Applicability Yes § 63.1(a)(5), (7)-(9) [Reserved] § 63.1(b)(2) [Reserved] § 63.1(c)(1)-(2) Applicability of this part after a relevant standard has been set Yes States have the option to exclude area sources affected by this rule—Area Source Permitting. § 63.1(c)(3)-(4) [Reserved] § 63.1(c)(5) Subject to notification requirements No § 63.1(d) [Reserved] § 63.1(e) Emission limitation by permit Yes § 63.2 Definitions Yes § 63.3 Units and abbreviations Yes § 63.4 Prohibited activities Yes § 63.5 Construction/Reconstruction No § 63.6(a), (b)(1)-(5), b(7) Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements Yes § 63.6(b)(6) [Reserved] § 63.6(c)(1) Compliance dates for existing sources No Subpart WWWWW requires compliance 1 year after the effective date. § 63.6(c)(2)-(c)(5) Compliance dates for CAA section 112(f) standards and for area sources that become major No § 63.6(d) [Reserved] § 63.6(e)-(h) Alternative nonopacity emission standard No § 63.6(i)-(j) Compliance extension Yes § 63.7 Performance testing requirements No § 63.8 Monitoring requirements No § 63.9(a) Applicability and initial notifications addressees Yes § 63.9(b) Initial notifications No § 63.9(c) Request for extension of compliance Yes § 63.9(d)-(j) Other notifications No § 63.10(a)(1)-(2) Recordkeeping and reporting requirements, applicability No § 63.10(a)(3)-(4) General information Yes § 63.10(a)(5)-(7) Recordkeeping and reporting requirements, reporting schedules No § 63.10(b)(1) Retention time Yes § 63.10(b)(2)-(f) Recordkeeping and reporting requirements No § 63.11 Control device requirements No § 63.12 State authority and delegations Yes §§ 63.13-63.16 Addresses, Incorporations by Reference, availability of information, performance track provisions Yes [FR Doc. E6-18644 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 27 [WT Docket Nos. 06-169, 96-86; DA 06-2116] Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses; Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010 AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of reply comment period. SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) extends the reply comment deadline in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86. The deadline to file reply comments is extended from November 6, 2006 to November 13, 2006. This action is taken to provide interested parties sufficient time within which to respond meaningfully to the relevant issues raised in the NPRM. DATES: The agency must receive reply comments on or before November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit reply comments, identified by WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Appropriate addresses for submitting reply comments may be found in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting reply comments, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Moon, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at 202-418-1793, or via email at Paul.Moon@fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Order ( Order ), DA 06-2116, in WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86, released October 25, 2006, which extends the reply comments filing deadline in the 700 MHz Guard Bands proceeding. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). Synopsis of the Order 1. On September 8, 2006, the Commission released the NPRM in WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86; FCC 06-133, published at 71 FR 55149, September 21, 2006, seeking public comment regarding, inter alia , proposals on possible changes to the Part 27 service rules applicable to existing and prospective Upper 700 MHz Guard Bands licensees as well as on proposals to modify the existing Upper 700 MHz band plan with respect to the Guard Bands. Deadlines for the filing of comments and reply comments were established as October 23, 2006, and November 6, 2006, respectively. 2. On October 20, 2006, the State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia, Loudoun County, Virginia, and the Region 20 Regional Planning Committee each filed a request for extension of time to submit comments in response to the NPRM. The parties argue that the NPRM raised complex issues, and assert that any change to the existing 700 MHz Public Safety band plan will affect their plans for public safety communications. The parties state that they require additional time to more thoroughly analyze the complex issues raised, and request extensions of time ranging from “no less than 30 days” to 60 days in which to file comments. 3. Motions for extension of time will not be granted routinely. In addition, the Commission's rules require that motions for extensions of time shall be filed 7 days before the filing date. In an emergency situation, the Commission may consider a late-filed motion for a brief extension of time related to the duration of the emergency. Pursuant to the Commission's rules, extension requests were due by October 16, 2006, in this matter. The parties, however, did not submit motions for extension of time until October 20, 2006, nor did they provide sufficient information upon which the Commission may grant emergency relief. The Commission therefore concludes that it is unable to extend the comments deadline of October 23, 2006. 4. However, in order to provide all interested parties with a full and fair opportunity to participate in this proceeding, the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to extend the reply comment deadline by 7 days until November 13, 2006. While the Commission finds that it is appropriate to provide additional time in order to build a more thorough and complete record, it is also cognizant of the concerns raised by the public safety community that the Commission address the issues raised in this proceeding in a prompt and timely manner. Accordingly, by extending the reply comments deadline by 7 days, the Commission strikes a balance between providing commenters with adequate time in which to respond to the NPRM , and ensuring that this proceeding is resolved expeditiously. In this regard, it should be noted that the Commission does not anticipate granting further extensions to the reply comments deadline. 5. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, and 1.419, interested parties may file reply comments on or before November 13, 2006. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov , and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Ordering Clause 6. Pursuant to sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 154(j), and §§ 0.131, 0.331, and 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.131, 0.331, and 1.46, the deadline for filing reply comments in response to the NPRM, published on September 21, 2006, in WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86, is extended to November 13, 2006. Federal Communications Commission. Catherine W. Seidel, Acting Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. [FR Doc. 06-9102 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am]*