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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-11-28 · Department of Veterans Affairs · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

13,929 words·~63 min read·/register/2006/11/28/06-9439·

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

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 17 RIN 2900-AM19 Medical: Informed Consent—Extension of Time Period and Modification of Witness Requirement for Signature Consent AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document adopts as a final rule the proposed rule amending the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)medical regulations on informed consent. This final rule extends the period of time during which a signed consent form remains valid from 30 to 60 days and eliminates the requirement that a third-party witness the patient or surrogate and practitioner signing the consent form, except in those circumstances where the patient or surrogate signs with an “X” due to a debilitating illness or disability, *i.e.* , significant physical impairment and/or difficulty in executing a signature due to an underlying health condition(s), or is unable to read and write. DATES: *Effective Date:* December 28, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Cecire, PhD., Policy Analyst, Ethics Policy Service, National Center for Ethics in Health Care (10E), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420; 202-501-2012 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a document published in the **Federal Register** on March 9, 2006 (71 FR 5204), VA proposed to amend its medical regulations at 38 CFR 17.32 on informed consent. Specifically, it proposed to extend the time during which a signed consent form is valid from 30 to 60 days. Also, it proposed to eliminate the requirement that a consent form be witnessed, except in those situations where the patient or surrogate signs with an “X” due to a debilitating illness or disability. VA provided a 60-day comment period that ended on May 6, 2006. No comments were received. Based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule and those contained in this document, we are adopting the provisions of the proposed rule as a final rule without change. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This rule has no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This rule contains no new collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The existing information collections associated with the informed consent procedures under § 17.32 have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under 2900-0583. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Order classifies a rule as a significant regulatory action requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including: having an annual affect on the economy of $100 million or more, creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel legal or policy issues. VA has examined the economic, legal, and policy implications of this final rule and concluded that it is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel policy issues. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The rule will affect only individuals and will not directly affect any small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; and 64.011, Veterans Dental Care. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations, Government contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans. Approved: October 23, 2006. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 17 to read as follows: PART 17—MEDICAL 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, and as stated in specific sections. 2. Section 17.32 is amended by: a. Revising the section heading. b. In paragraph (a), in the definition of *signature consent,* removing “, *e.g.* , a published numbered VA form (OF 522) or comparable form approved by the local VA facility”. c. Revising paragraph (d)(2). d. Revising the authority citation at the end of the section. The revisions read as follows: § 17.32 Informed consent and advance care planning.
(d)* * *
(2)A patient or surrogate will sign with an “X” when the patient or surrogate has a debilitating illness or disability, *i.e.* , significant physical impairment and/or difficulty in executing a signature due to an underlying health condition(s), or is unable to read and write. When the patient's or surrogate's signature is indicated by an “X,” two adults must witness the act of signing. By signing, the witnesses are attesting only to the fact that they saw the patient or surrogate and the practitioner sign the form. The signed form must be filed in the patient's medical record. A properly executed VA-authorized consent form is valid for a period of 60 calendar days. If, however, the treatment plan involves multiple treatments or procedures, it will not be necessary to repeat the informed consent discussion and documentation so long as the course of treatment proceeds as planned, even if treatment extends beyond the 60-day period. If there is a change in the patient's condition that might alter the diagnostic or therapeutic decision, the consent is automatically rescinded. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7331-7334) [FR Doc. E6-20111 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0577-200624(a); FRL-8248-9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: Removal of Douglas County Transportation Control Measure AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: On September 19, 2006, the State of Georgia's Department of Natural Resources (DNR), through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), submitted a final State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision to remove the transportation control measure
(TCM)related to a compressed natural gas
(CNG)refueling station/park and ride transportation center project in Douglas County, Georgia. This TCM was originally submitted by GA EPD for inclusion into the Atlanta portion of the Georgia SIP on August 29, 1997. EPA approved this TCM into the Georgia SIP through direct final rulemaking published in the **Federal Register** on June 24, 1998 (effective on August 10, 1998). Subsequently, the project sponsor determined that the equipment necessary to implement this project is no longer available, and thus this TCM cannot be implemented as originally anticipated. No SIP credit was claimed for this program, nor were emissions benefits ever realized for this TCM because it was never implemented. Through this rulemaking, EPA is approving the removal of this TCM from the Atlanta portion of the Georgia SIP because this SIP revision meets Clean Air Act
(CAA)requirements. DATES: This direct final rule is effective January 29, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 28, 2006. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-2006-0577, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov.:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: *Benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.* 3. Fax:
(404)562-9019. 4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0577,” Air Quality Modeling and Transportation 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: Lynorae Benjamin, Air Quality Modeling and Transportation 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. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. “EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0577.” EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 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 electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Quality Modeling and Transportation 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. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynorae Benjamin, Air Quality Modeling and Transportation 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. The telephone number is
(404)562-9040. Ms. Benjamin can also be reached via electronic mail at *Benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Background for EPA's Action? III. What Is a TCM? IV. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Action? VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request? VII. Final Action VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is approving the removal of the TCM (related to a CNG refueling station in Douglas County, Georgia) from the Atlanta portion of the Georgia SIP. This station would have provided a centralized fueling site for CNG-powered county fleet vehicles, transit vans, and buses for Douglas County. II. What Is the Background for EPA's Action? On August 29, 1997, the State of Georgia's DNR, through the GA EPD, submitted a SIP revision to include the TCM related to a CNG refueling station/park and ride transportation center project in Douglas County, Georgia. EPA evaluated this SIP revision and determined that it met the criteria for a TCM and all other SIP requirements. Consequently, EPA approved this TCM into the Atlanta portion of the Georgia SIP through direct final rulemaking on June 24, 1998, effective August 10, 1998 (see 63 FR 34300). This project has been referenced as DO-AR 211 in the Atlanta Regional Commission's
(ARC)Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP)and Regional Transportation Plan. Project DO-AR 211 was a planned CNG refueling station that would have been located at the site of the Douglas County multimodal transportation center. This station would have provided a centralized fueling site for CNG-powered county fleet vehicles, transit vans, and buses. The project experienced delays in implementation that were addressed through the interagency consultation process. By the time these issues were fully resolved, production of 12- and 15-passenger CNG vans was being discontinued by Ford and General Motors; thus, Douglas County no longer considered the project viable. Project sponsors were informed through interagency consultation that until (or unless) the project was removed from the SIP, they needed to continue to show progress towards implementing the project. In a letter dated March 28, 2006, from Mr. Tom Worthan of Douglas County to Mr. Charles “Chick” Krautler of ARC, Douglas County formally notified ARC of their complications for implementing this TCM. Additionally, this letter requested that ARC initiate the process to remove this TCM from the SIP. Based on the March 28, 2006, letter, ARC contacted the GA EPD and requested that a SIP revision be developed, for submittal to EPA, to remove this TCM from the Atlanta portion of the Georgia SIP. III. What Is a TCM? Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.101 (the Transportation Conformity Rule), a TCM is “any measure that is specifically identified and committed to in the applicable implementation plan
(SIP)that is either one of the types listed in section 108 of the CAA, or any other measure for the purposes of reducing emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion conditions.” Section 108(3) of the CAA provides air quality planning guidance for the development and implementation of transportation and other measures necessary to demonstrate and maintain attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Section 108(f)(1)(A) of the CAA lists sixteen TCMs for consideration by states and planning agencies to reduce emissions and maintain the NAAQS. Programs to reduce motor vehicle emissions consistent with title II of the CAA are listed in section 108(f)(1)(A)(xii). TCMs are included in the SIP to help reduce emissions from on-road mobile sources. If EPA approves a TCM into an area's SIP, the transportation partners must show as part of the conformity determination, that these measures are being implemented on schedule and given priority for Federal funding. SIPs must be revised to remove any TCMs that the sponsor cannot implement so that failure to implement them does not prohibit conformity determinations. IV. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? EPA is taking this action because the GA EPD's September 19, 2006, SIP submittal requests that we take this action, and because we believe that this SIP revision is consistent with the CAA. More explanation is provided later in this rulemaking in Section VI, entitled “What is EPA's Analysis of the Request?” V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Action? Upon the effective date of this action, the transportation partners in the Atlanta area will no longer be required to evaluate the progress of this TCM for the purposes of implementing the transportation conformity requirements. The Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR part 93) requires that the status of TCMs be documented as one of the criteria for an area to successfully demonstrate conformity. VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request? EPA has reviewed the SIP submission, provided by the GA EPD on September 19, 2006, to remove the TCM related to a CNG refueling station/park and ride transportation center project in Douglas County, Georgia, and has determined that this SIP revision request is consistent with the CAA. This SIP revision was prompted by a March 28, 2006, letter, from Mr. Tom Worthan of Douglas County to Mr. Charles “Chick” Krautler of ARC, by which Douglas County formally informed ARC of their complications for implementing this TCM. As a result of the letter from Douglas County, ARC contacted the GA EPD and requested that a SIP revision be developed, for submittal to EPA, to remove this TCM from the Atlanta portion of the Georgia SIP. This TCM, which is described in detail in Section I of this rulemaking, could not be implemented as originally envisioned because of the project sponsor's inability to acquire the necessary equipment. Although the GA EPD requested on August 1997 that the TCM be approved in the Georgia SIP, no emissions credit was claimed in the SIP for the measure. In fact, the emissions analysis was reviewed only to determine that no further air quality degradation would result from the implementation of this TCM. EPA documented this fact in the rulemaking approving the TCM in the Georgia SIP (see 63 FR 34300). Since the project was not implemented, it did not result in emission reductions, and removing it from the SIP will cause no degradation of air quality. Thus this revision is consistent with the CAA, specifically section 110(l) which states the following: Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. After full analysis of the State's submittal, EPA is approving this SIP revision because it is consistent with the CAA. VII. Final Action Through this rulemaking, EPA is approving the removal of the TCM (related to a CNG refueling station in Douglas County, Georgia) from the Atlanta portion of the Georgia SIP. This SIP revision is consistent with CAA requirements. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective January 29, 2007 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by December 28, 2006. If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on January 29, 2007 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule removes a TCM under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely removes a TCM under state law, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and because the Agency does not have reason to believe that the rule concerns an environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 29, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: November 13, 2006. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart L—Georgia 2. Section 52.570(e) is amended by adding a entry at the end of the table for “Douglas County, GA” to read as follows: § 52.570 Identification of plan.
(e)* * * EPA Approved Georgia Nonregulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date * * * * * * * Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO-AR-211 is removed Douglas County, GA 09/19/06 11/28/06 [Insert citation of publication]. [FR Doc. E6-20141 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2005-FL-0002-200530(a); FRL-8246-2] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Florida: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7410, to approve a revision to the Florida State Implementation Plan
(SIP)submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP)on June 8, 2005. The revision is source-specific to the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LM), located in Pinellas County, Florida, and regards that facility's compliance with Florida's Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Reasonably Available Control Technology rule, found at Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rule 62-296.513 (FL MMPP Rule). The source-specific SIP revision seeks to allow LM to employ as reasonably available control technology
(RACT)the control techniques outlined in EPA's December 1997, “Aerospace Control Technique Guidelines” (EPA's Aerospace CTG), instead of the RACT described in the FL MMPP Rule. The source-specific SIP revision is approvable because it meets the standards for approval described in section 110(l) of the CAA. DATES: This direct final action is effective January 29, 2007 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 28, 2006. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final action in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that the direct final action will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-FL-0002, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: *hou.james@epa.gov.* 3. Fax:
(404)562-9019. 4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2005-FL-0002,” 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: James Hou, 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. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. “EPA-R04-OAR-2005-FL-0002.” 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 through www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 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 electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available (i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the 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. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, 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. The telephone number is
(404)562-8965. Mr. Hou can also be reached via electronic mail at *hou.james@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The FL MMPP Rule describes specific RACT that is necessary to achieve the specified emission rates for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Specifically, the Rule requires sources that apply surface coatings to any number of metal parts and products to limit their VOC emission rates. Consistent with the FL MMPP Rule, however, sources are exempt from regulation if they emit not more than 15 pounds in any one day and not more than three pounds in any one hour. F.A.C. Rule 62.296.500(3)(a). The FL MMPP Rule was incorporated into the Florida SIP on June 16, 1999 (64 FR 32346), and applies to a wide range of source categories, including aerospace manufacturing. Section 183 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7511b, “Federal ozone measures,” requires EPA to issue control techniques guidelines for categories of stationary sources of VOC emissions. Pursuant to section 183 of the CAA, in December 1997, EPA issued a control techniques guideline entitled, “Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations,” (EPA Publication No. EPA-453/R-97-004) (EPA's Aerospace CTG). The purpose of EPA's Aerospace CTG is to present feasible RACT control measures for VOC emissions from coatings and solvents used specifically in the aerospace industry. EPA has encouraged states to adopt EPA's Aerospace CTG as part of their regulations of VOC emissions from the aerospace industry. Although Florida has not yet revised its SIP to include EPA's Aerospace CTG for all aerospace manufacturers, it did submit a source-specific SIP revision on June 8, 2005, for LM's Pinellas County facility to utilize the RACT described in EPA's Aerospace CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule, which is not specific to the aerospace industry. LM produces aerospace parts and components, primarily in support of the manufacture and sustainability of military aircrafts. At the present time, the surface coating operations of LM are exempt from the FL MMPP Rule because its operations emit VOCs at lower rates than the minimum rates necessary to be regulated under that Rule. However, LM anticipates that it will increase production levels such that VOC emissions from surface coating operations in the near future would exceed the exemption criteria of the FL MMPP Rule, thus subjecting LM to the RACT requirements of the FL MMPP Rule. As will be discussed in greater detail below, the RACT described in EPA's Aerospace CTG is more detailed than the RACT required by the FL MMPP Rule because it focuses on specific aspects of the aerospace industry that result in VOC emissions. As a result, in the case of LM, the RACT described in EPA's Aerospace CTG is expected to be more effective than the RACT described in FL MMPP Rule for controlling emissions from LM's Pinellas County facility. On June 8, 2005, FDEP submitted a source-specific SIP revision to EPA requiring the Pinellas County LM facility to comply with EPA's Aerospace CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule. In essence, FL is requesting that EPA approve a SIP revision subjecting LM to the RACT described in EPA's Aerospace CTG. EPA is now taking direct final action to approve that revision into the Florida SIP. II. Analysis of State's Submittal As noted above, EPA has encouraged the adoption of its Aerospace CTG for the regulation of VOC emissions from the aerospace industry. This source-specific SIP revision, which would require that LM comply with EPA's Aerospace CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule, is consistent with that policy. As part of its review of this proposed SIP revision, EPA evaluated the proposed revision consistent with the standards described in section 110(l) of the CAA, “Plan revisions.” Section 110(l) specifies that EPA may not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of any of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), or any other applicable requirements of the CAA. Because EPA's Aerospace CTG is specific to the aerospace industry, the applicable RACT is better suited than the FL MMPP Rule to control VOC emissions from that industry. Both the FL MMPP Rule and EPA's Aerospace CTG describe “RACT;” however, the CTG describes specific RACT for the aerospace industry, and therefore, can provide more effective emissions control options for that industry. For example, the FL MMPP Rule describes RACT generally for primers and topcoats that are typically applied within a confined environment such as a paint booth. EPA's Aerospace CTG has greater detail and addresses RACT specifically for solvent cleaning operations, adhesive and sealant application, specialty coating materials that are not applied in a booth, and waste handling operations, among other situations. As a result, the RACT described in EPA's Aerospace CTG may be more stringent than the FL MMPP Rule because the FL MMPP Rule does not address all the specific situations applicable to the aerospace industry. According to data provided to EPA by LM, LM can reduce VOC emissions to a greater extent using EPA's Aerospace CTG RACT in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule RACT. In summary, LM's use of EPA's Aerospace CTG RACT is expected to result in at least equivalent controls, if not more stringent controls, than those imposed by the FL MMPP Rule. Additionally, on May 19, 2005, FDEP issued a federally enforceable minor-source air construction permit to the facility, limiting LM's total VOC emissions to 25 tpy, representing another limit on VOC emissions from this facility. EPA has further determined that approving this source-specific SIP revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement, as described in section 110(l) of the CAA due to the fact that this source-specific SIP revision will impose more stringent RACT on LM's facility than would otherwise be required under Florida Law. Based on the foregoing analysis, EPA has determined that the proposed source-specific revision to the Florida SIP is consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA, and is approvable. III. Final Action EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Florida SIP submitted by FDEP on June 8, 2005. The revision is source-specific to the LM facility located in Pinellas County, Florida, and regards that facility's use of RACT to control VOC emissions. Instead of following the RACT described in the FL MMPP Rule, the source-specific revision requires LM to comply with the RACT described in EPA's Aerospace CTG. EPA is publishing this direct final action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This direct final action will be effective January 29, 2007 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by December 28, 2006. If the EPA receives adverse comments, then EPA will withdraw the direct final action and inform the public that the direct final action will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on January 29, 2007 and no further action will be taken on the proposed action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. As a result, the action does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 *note* ) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 29, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: November 6, 2006. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 52, is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart K—Florida 2. Section 52.520(d) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the table for “Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company” to read as follows: § 52.520 Identification of plan.
(d)* * * EPA Approved (State or County) Source-Specific Requirements Name of source Permit No. State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company 04/16/05 11/28/06 [Insert citation of publication] Requirement that Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company comply with EPA's Aerospace CTG at its Pinellas County facility. [FR Doc. E6-20073 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63 [EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0345; FRL-8238-1] Approval of the Clean Air Act, Section 112(l), Authority for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asbestos Management and Control; State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services' (NH DES) request to implement and enforce its regulation entitled “Asbestos Management and Control” in lieu of the Asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Asbestos NESHAP) as it applies to certain asbestos-related activities. Upon approval, NH DES's rule will be federally enforceable and will apply to all sources that otherwise would be regulated by the Asbestos NESHAP with the exception of inactive waste disposal sites that ceased operation on or before July 9, 1981. These inactive disposal sites are already regulated by State rules that were approved by EPA on May 23, 2003. NH DES's request seeks to adjust the federal rules by demonstrating the equivalency of its rules to the federal requirements. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective January 29, 2007, unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 28, 2006. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. The incorporation by reference of certain publications in this rule is approved by the Director of the **Federal Register** as of January 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0345 by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: lancey.susan@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*
(617)918-0656. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0345”, Daniel Brown, Manager, Air Permits, Toxics & Indoor Programs Unit, Office Of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP), Boston, MA 02114-2023. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: Daniel Brown, Manager, Air Permits, Toxics & Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP), Boston, MA 02114-2023. 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 legal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0345. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *www.regulations.gov* , or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding legal holidays. In addition to the publicly available docket materials available for inspection electronically in the Federal Docket Management System at *www.regulations.gov* , and the hard copy available at the Regional Office, which are identified in the ADDRESSES section of this **Federal Register** , copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical support document are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency: Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lancey, Air Permits, Toxics & Indoor Programs Unit, Office Of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number
(617)918-1656, e-mail *lancey.susan@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Supplementary Information is organized as follows: I. Background and Purpose. II. What requirements must a state rule meet to adjust a Section 112 rule? III. When did the authority to implement and enforce Section 112 standards become effective in New Hampshire? IV. What are the differences between NH DES's regulations and the Asbestos NESHAP? V. What action is EPA taking? VI. Opportunities for Public Comments VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)first promulgated standards to regulate asbestos emissions on April 6, 1973 (see 40 FR 8826). These standards have since been amended several times and re-codified as a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, “National Emission Standard for Asbestos” (Asbestos NESHAP). The Asbestos NESHAP applies to several asbestos-emitting categories, and includes emission and/or work practice standards for: asbestos mills, including their waste disposal practices, and roadways; numerous manufacturing operations that use commercial asbestos, including their waste disposal practices; demolitions/renovations; spraying and fabricating operations; installation of insulating materials; and both active and inactive waste disposal sites. On November 15, 2005 and January 10, 2006, respectively, EPA received an application, and a supplement to that application, from the NH DES. The application, which was determined to be complete on April 13, 2006, concerned a rule adjustment pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, section 63.92. Specifically, NH DES requested the rule adjustment in order to implement and enforce New Hampshire Rule Env-A 1800 entitled “Asbestos Management and Control” in place of the Federal asbestos regulations found at 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, except for inactive waste disposal sites not operating after July 9, 1981. EPA is approving this request and incorporating it into 40 CFR parts 61 and 63. This action will have a beneficial effect on air quality by reducing asbestos emissions. This action is being taken under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. II. What requirements must a state rule meet to adjust a Section 112 rule? Under CAA section 112(l), EPA may approve state or local rules or programs to be implemented and enforced in place of certain otherwise applicable Federal rules, emissions standards, or requirements, when the state or local rules are determined to be no less stringent than the corresponding Federal rules or requirements. The Federal regulations governing EPA's approval of state and local rules or programs under section 112(l) are located at 40 CFR part 63, subpart E (see 58 FR 62262, November 26, 1993 as amended at 65 FR 55810, September 14, 2000). Under these regulations, a state air pollution control agency has the option to request EPA's approval to adjust a state rule for the applicable section 112 Federal rule (NESHAP). To receive EPA approval using this option, the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, sections 63.91 and 63.92 must be met. Upon approval, the state agency is given the authority to implement and enforce its rule in place of the NESHAP. Section 112(l)(5) of the Act requires that a state's NESHAP program contain adequate authorities to assure compliance with each applicable federal requirement, adequate resources for implementation, and an expeditious compliance schedule. These are also requirements for an adequate operating permits program under 40 CFR part 70. On September 24, 2001, EPA promulgated full approval of the state's operating permits program as administered by NH DES (See 66 FR 48806). In addition, on May 16, 2001, EPA provided “up-front” approval of NH DES's request to implement and enforce alternative requirements in the form of title V permit terms and conditions for subpart S, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry” (Pulp and Paper MACT I), and subpart MM, “National Emission Standards for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills” (Pulp and Paper MACT II) (see 66 FR 27032). Under 40 CFR 63.91(d)(2), once a state has satisfied up-front approval criteria, it needs only to reference the previous demonstration and reaffirm that it still meets the criteria for any subsequent submittals. NH DES has affirmed that it still meets the up-front approval criteria. Additionally, the “rule adjustment” option requires EPA to “make a detailed and thorough evaluation of the state's submittal to ensure that it meets the stringency and other requirements” of 40 CFR 63.92 (see 65 FR 55840). A rule will be approved if EPA finds:
(1)The state or local rules are “no less stringent” than the corresponding Federal regulations,
(2)the state or local government has adequate authorities to implement and enforce the rules, and
(3)the schedule for implementation and compliance is “no less stringent” than the deadlines established in the otherwise applicable Federal rule. See 40 CFR 63.92(b). III. When did the authority to Implement and Enforce Section 112 Standards become effective in New Hampshire? On October 2, 1996, EPA approved New Hampshire's program under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 for receiving delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from Federal standards as promulgated. This delegation mechanism only applied to Part 70 sources (see 61 FR 51370). On May 9, 2002, the NH DES submitted a request to EPA to receive straight delegation of authority to implement and enforce NESHAPs and New Source Performance Standards (NSPSs) for both major and area sources under a new delegation mechanism. NH DES sought to take delegation of these standards by incorporating the standards into NH DES's regulations. On September 19, 2002, EPA approved this delegation mechanism (see 67 FR 59001). Among other standards, NH DES incorporated by reference the Asbestos NESHAP, with the exception of 40 CFR 61.151, the standard for inactive waste disposal sites for asbestos mills and manufacturing and fabricating operations. NH DES did not request straight delegation of § 61.151 because it had submitted a partial rule substitution pursuant to 40 CFR 63.93 for a portion of that rule. On May 23, 2003, EPA approved NH DES's request for a rule substitution for inactive waste disposal sites not operating after July 9, 1981 (68 FR 31611). NH DES's request sought no change in delegation relative to inactive asbestos waste disposal sites not operating after July 9, 1981. Therefore, NH's request for a rule adjustment applies to Subpart M, except for those inactive waste disposal sites not operating after July 9, 1981. IV. What are the differences between NH DES's regulation and the Asbestos NESHAP? NH DES's asbestos rule Env-A 1800 *Asbestos Management and Control* has incorporated by reference most, but not all, of the federal national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (40 CFR part 61, subpart M) for asbestos. What follows is a comparison of those sections of 40 CFR part 61, subpart M that NH DES has not adopted with the applicable sections of New Hampshire's rule, demonstrating that New Hampshire's rule is in each case equivalent to, or more stringent than, the federal rule. The rule in which NH DES incorporates by reference, with certain exceptions, 40 CFR part 61, subpart M reads as follows: “Env-A 1807.01 Federal Regulation. Under the authority of RSA 141-E:4,II(a)(3), the owner or operator of a facility subject to this chapter shall comply with the provisions of 40 CFR 61, subpart M, as in effect on July 1, 2004, except for:
(a)The definition of “facility” in 40 CFR 61.141; and
(b)The provisions of 40 CFR 61.145(c)(1)(i), 61.145(c)(1)(ii), 61.145(c)(1)(iv), 61.149(c)(2), 61.150(a)(4), 61.150(a)(5), 61.150(b)(3), 61.151 with respect to disposal sites not operated after July 9, 1981, 61.151(c), 61.152(b)(3), 61.154(c), 61.154(d), 61.155(a) and 61.157.” New Hampshire's definition of “facility” at Env-A 1802.01(n) includes single family dwellings, and is thus more stringent than the federal definition, which excludes residential buildings with four or fewer units. Env-A 1807.01(b): The first three exceptions under Env-A 1807.01(b), namely 40 CFR 61.145(c)(1)(i), 61.145(c)(1)(ii), and 61.145(c)(1)(iv), are demolition work practices that may be considered together. Section 61.145 contains the standard for asbestos demolition and renovation, subsection
(c)contains the procedures for asbestos emission control, and paragraph
(1)provides for the removal of all regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM), except RACM need not be removed before demolition if:
(i)It is Category I nonfriable ACM that is not in poor condition and is not friable;
(ii)It is on a facility component that is encased in concrete or other similarly hard material and is adequately wet whenever exposed during demolition; or
(iii)They are Category II nonfriable ACM and the probability is low that the materials will become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder (i.e., made friable) during demolition. In Env-A 1802.01 NH DES adopts the federal definitions for RACM and Category I and II nonfriable ACM. However, unlike in the federal rule, in Env-A 1805.09, NH DES requires that even
(i)Category I nonfriable ACM that is not in poor condition and is not friable,
(ii)RACM on facility components that are encased in concrete or other similarly hard material and
(iv)Category II nonfriable ACM must be removed prior to demolition. Therefore, New Hampshire's rule is more stringent than the federal rule at 40 CFR 61.145(c)(1)(i), 61.145(c)(1)(ii), and 61.145(c)(1)(iv). The next exception to the federal rule in New Hampshire's rule is 40 CFR 61.149(c)(2). This section, together with §§ 61.150(a)(4), 61.151(c), 61.152(b)(3), 61.154(d) and 61.155(a), is non-delegable to the states under the provisions of 40 CFR 61.157. NH DES did not to adopt 40 CFR 61.150(a)(5), which provides an exception to the standard for waste disposal for manufacturing, fabricating, demolition, renovation, and spraying operations. Section 61.150(a) states that each owner or operator of an applicable source shall “discharge no visible emissions to the outside air during the collection, processing, packaging, or transporting of any asbestos-containing waste material * * *” Subparagraph
(5)states: “As applied to demolition and renovation, the requirements of paragraph
(a)of this section do not apply to Category I nonfriable ACM waste and Category II nonfriable ACM waste that did not become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder.” NH DES will regulate both Category I and Category II nonfriable ACM in demolitions, and therefore did not to adopt the provisions of 40 CFR 61.150(a). For the same reason, NH DES did not adopt 40 CFR 61.150(b)(3). Paragraph 61.150(b) states that “All asbestos-containing waste material shall be deposited as soon as is practical by the waste generator” at an approved site. Subparagraph 61.150(b)(3) excludes “Category I nonfriable ACM that is not RACM.” Again, NH DES has chosen to regulate this material. NH DES did not adopt 40 CFR 61.151 with respect to disposal sites not operated after July 9, 1981. This is a special case covered by New Hampshire's waste management regulation Env-Wm 3900, for which equivalency has already been determined by EPA. Finally, NH DES did not adopt 40 CFR 61.154(c). This section contains the standard for active waste disposal sites. Paragraph
(c)provides an alternative to the “no visible emissions” standard of 40 CFR 61.154(a), but New Hampshire's rule is more stringent than the federal rule, in that it does not allow this alternative approach. In conclusion, in each case where New Hampshire's asbestos rule Env-A 1800 differs from the federal asbestos NESHAP 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, New Hampshire's rule is more stringent or at least equivalent to the federal rule. Also, NH DES incorporated the 40 CFR part 61, subpart A General Provisions into New Hampshire's rule Env-500. Consequently, with this approval, the general provisions of subpart A will apply to any source subject to New Hampshire's asbestos rule Env-A 1800. V. What action is EPA taking? After reviewing NH DES's rule adjustment request and equivalency demonstration for the Asbestos NESHAP as it applies to certain asbestos-emitting operations, EPA has determined this request meets all the requirements necessary for approval under CAA Section 112(l) and 40 CFR 63.91 and 63.92. Accordingly, the NH DES is granted the authority to implement and enforce Env-A 1800 entitled “Asbestos Management and Control” in place of the Federally-approved Asbestos NESHAP except for inactive waste disposal sites that ceased operation on or before July 9, 1981. Although this approval grants NH DES primary implementation and enforcement responsibility, EPA retains the right, pursuant to CAA section 112(l)(7), to enforce any applicable emission standard or requirement under CAA section 112. As of the effective date of this action, NH DES's Env-A 1800 is the Federally-enforceable standard for asbestos sources under the NH DES's jurisdiction. This rule will be enforceable by the EPA Administrator and the citizens under the CAA. VI. Opportunities for Public Comment The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve this delegation request should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective January 29, 2007 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by December 28, 2006. If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on January 29, 2007 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045 The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” because it is not an “economically significant” action under Executive Order 12866. B. Executive Order 13211 This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. C. Executive Order 13175 Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 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” is 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 the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” This final rule does not have tribal implications. This action allows the State of New Hampshire to implement equivalent state requirements *in lieu of* pre-existing Federal requirements as applied only to certain asbestos-emitting activities. This action 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. D. Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule does not have federalism implications. It 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. This action simply allows New Hampshire to implement equivalent alternative requirements to replace a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. E. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* 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 entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because approvals under 40 CFR 63.92 do not create any new requirements. Such approvals simply allow the state to implement and enforce equivalent requirements in place of the Federal requirements that EPA is already imposing. Therefore, because this approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. F. Unfunded Mandates Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action allows New Hampshire to implement equivalent alternative requirements *in lieu* of pre-existing requirements under Federal law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major” rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the NTTAA does not apply to this rule. I. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 29, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 61 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: October 17, 2006. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 61—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart A—General Provisions 2. Section 61.04 is amended by redesignating paragraph (c)(1) as paragraph (c)(1)(i), and adding paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to read as follows: § 61.04 Address.
(c)* * * (1)(i) * * *
(ii)The remainder of the sources subject to the part 61 subpart M Asbestos provisions, except for those listed under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, must comply with the New Hampshire Regulations Applicable to Hazardous Air Pollutants, September 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. You may examine this material at the above EPA office or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* PART 63—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart A—General Provisions 4. Section 63.14 is amended by redesignating paragraph (d)(5) as paragraph (d)(5)(i), and adding paragraph (d)(5)(ii) to read as follows: § 63.14 Incorporation by reference.
(d)* * * (5)(i) * * *
(ii)New Hampshire Regulations Applicable to Hazardous Air Pollutants, September 2006. Incorporation by Reference approved for § 63.99(a)(29)(iv) of subpart E of this part. Subpart E—Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities 5. Section 63.99 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(29)(iv) to read as follows: § 63.99 Delegated Federal authorities.
(a)* * *
(29)* * *
(iv)Affected asbestos facilities (i.e., facilities found under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, except those listed under paragraph (a)(29)(iii) of this section), must comply with the New Hampshire Regulations Applicable to Hazardous Air Pollutants, September 2006, (incorporated by reference as specified in § 63.14) as follows:
(A)The material incorporated in the New Hampshire Regulations Applicable to Hazardous Air Pollutants, September 2006, (incorporated by reference as specified in § 63.14) pertains to those affected asbestos facilities in the State of New Hampshire's jurisdiction, and has been approved under the procedures in 40 CFR 63.92 to be implemented and enforced in place of the federal NESHAPs found at 40 CFR part 61, subpart M (except for those listed under paragraph (a)(29)(iii) of this section).
(B)[Reserved] [FR Doc. E6-20157 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 707 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0058; FRL-8104-9] RIN 2070-AJ01 Export Notification; Change to Reporting Requirements; Technical Correction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; technical correction. SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the **Federal Register** of November 14, 2006, concerning amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)section 12(b) export notification regulations at subpart D of 40 CFR part 707. This document is being issued to correct a typographical error. DATES: This technical correction is effective January 16, 2007. In accordance with 40 CFR 23.5, this rule shall be promulgated for purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. eastern daylight/standard time on December 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0058. All documents in the docket are listed on the regulations.gov website at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. The EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) suffered structural damage due to flooding in June 2006. Although the EPA/DC is continuing operations, there will be temporary changes to the EPA/DC during the clean-up. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room, which was temporarily closed due to flooding, has been relocated in the EPA Headquarters Library, Infoterra Room (Room Number 3334) in EPA West, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 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 EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202)566-0280. EPA visitors are required to show photographic identification and sign the EPA visitor log. Visitors to the EPA/DC Public Reading Room will be provided with an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times while in the EPA Building and returned to the guard upon departure. In addition, security personnel will escort visitors to and from the new EPA/DC Public Reading Room location. Up-to-date information about the EPA/DC is on the EPA Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For general information contact* : Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* . *For technical information contact* : Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)564-9232; e-mail address: *moss.kenneth@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? The Agency included in the final rule a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. What Does this Correction Do? This correction restores to the first sentence of the introductory text at 40 CFR 707.60(c)(2) the phrase “where such chemical substance or mixture is present in a concentration of less than 0.1% (by weight or volume).” The corrected first sentence of §707.60(c)(2) will now read: “No notice of export is required for the export of a chemical substance or mixture that is a known or potential human carcinogen where such chemical substance or mixture is present in a concentration of less than 0.1% (by weight or volume).” Without the correction to 40 CFR 707.60(c)(2), the rule does not have the effect, as clearly stated in the proposed rule and elsewhere in the preamble to the final rule, of establishing a *de minimis* level for reporting of carcinogens under TSCA section 12(b). III. Why is this Correction Issued as a Final Rule? Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this technical correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, for the reasons mentioned in Unit II. The missing phrase in the regulatory text of the final rule at 40 CFR 707.60(c)(2) appears in the regulatory text of the proposed rule as well as throughout the preamble of the final rule, such that the intent to include it in the regulatory text of the final rule is clear. The phrase was inadvertently left out of the regulatory text of the final rule during Agency editing and preparation of the final rule. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). IV. Do Any of the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this Action? No. This document is a technical correction to a recently issued final rule and does not impose any new requirements. EPA's compliance with the statutes and Executive orders for the underlying final rule is discussed in Unit VII. of the final rule that was issued on November 14, 2006 (71 FR 66234, at 66243). V. Will EPA Submit this Final Rule to Congress and the Comptroller General? Yes. The Congressional Review Act
(CRA)(5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* .) generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. As with the final rule, since this technical correction is considered a rule under the CRA, EPA will submit a rule report to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 707 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Exports, Hazardous substances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 20, 2006. Susan B. Hazen, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Under EPA's authority, 15 U.S.C. 2611(b) and 2612, FR Doc. E6-19182 published in the **Federal Register** of November 14, 2006 (71 FR 66234) (FRL-8101-3) is corrected as follows: § 8707.60 [Corrected] On page 66244, in the second column, in § 707.60 Applicability and compliance, the first sentence of the introductory text of paragraph (c)(2) is corrected to read as follows: “No notice of export is required for the export of a chemical substance or mixture that is a known or potential human carcinogen where such chemical substance or mixture is present in a concentration of less than 0.1% (by weight or volume).” [FR Doc. E6-20148 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 001005281-0369-02; I.D. 112006D] Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Trip Limit Reduction AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; trip limit reduction. SUMMARY: NMFS reduces the trip limit in the commercial hook-and-line fishery for king mackerel in the northern Florida west coast subzone to 500 lb (227 kg) of king mackerel per day in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This trip limit reduction is necessary to protect the Gulf king mackerel resource. DATES: This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, November 27, 2006, through June 30, 2007, unless changed by further notification in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Branstetter, telephone 727-824-5305, fax 727-824-5308, e-mail *steve.branstetter@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cero, cobia, little tunny, and, in the Gulf of Mexico only, dolphin and bluefish) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. On April 27, 2000, NMFS implemented the final rule (65 FR 16336, March 28, 2000) that divided the Florida west coast subzone of the eastern zone into northern and southern subzones, and established their separate quotas. The quota for the northern Florida west coast subzone is 168,750 lb (76,544 kg)(50 CFR 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)( *2* )( *ii* )). In accordance with 50 CFR 622.44(a)(2)(ii)(B), from the date that 75 percent of the northern Florida west coast subzone's quota has been harvested until a closure of the subzone's fishery has been effected or the fishing year ends, king mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on board or landed from a permitted vessel in amounts not exceeding 500 lb (227 kg) per day. NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the quota for Gulf group king mackerel from the northern Florida west coast subzone has been reached. Accordingly, a 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit applies to vessels in the commercial fishery for king mackerel in or from the EEZ in the northern Florida west coast subzone effective 12:01 a.m., local time, November 27, 2006. The 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit will remain in effect until the fishery closes or until the end of the current fishing year (June 30, 2007), whichever occurs first. The Florida west coast subzone is that part of the eastern zone south and west of 25° 20.4′ N. lat. (a line directly east from the Miami-Dade County, FL, boundary). The Florida west coast subzone is further divided into northern and southern subzones. The northern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast subzone that is between 26° 19.8′ N. lat. (a line directly west from the Lee/Collier County, FL, boundary) and 87° 31′06″ W. long.(a line directly south from the Alabama/Florida boundary). Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) as such prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself already has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure, if warranted. Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action in order to protect the fishery since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment will require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established quota. For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.43(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: November 21, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-9439 Filed 11-22-06; 2:52 pm]
Connectionstraces to 32
Traces to 32 documents
19 references not yet in our index
  • 38 CFR 17
  • 44 USC 3501-3521
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 38 USC 7331-7334
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 40 CFR 93.101
  • 40 CFR 93
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 40 CFR 61
  • 40 CFR 63
  • 40 CFR 70
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 40 CFR 707
  • 40 CFR 707.60(c)(2)
  • 50 CFR 622
  • 50 CFR 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)
  • 50 CFR 622.44(a)(2)(ii)(B)
  • 50 CFR 622.43(a)
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
C.F.R.§ 17.32
U.S.C.§ 1532
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 605
U.S.C.§ 501
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 601
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Cite38 CFR 17
Cite44 USC 3501-3521
Cite5 USC 601-612
Cites 51 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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