Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
33,071 words·~150 min read·
/register/2006/12/18/06-9755·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P 71 242 Monday, December 18, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24846; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-21-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Microturbo Saphir 20 Models 095 Auxiliary Power Units
(APU)AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been reported that with the existing configuration, a certain failure could cause overspeed of the gas generator rotor resulting in uncontained burst of the turbine liberating high-energy fragments. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy Murphy, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate; 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone 781-238-7172; fax 781-238-7170. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-24846; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-21-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on 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 we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Direction Generale De l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, has issued Airworthiness Directive F-2005-146, dated August 17, 2005 (Euoropean Aviation Safety Agency Reference No. 2005-6137, dated August 9, 2005) (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been reported that with the existing configuration, a certain failure could cause overspeed of the gas generator rotor resulting in uncontained burst of the turbine liberating high-energy fragments. The occurrence that the high-energy fragments would be uncontained is considered a potentially dangerous situation which requires imperative corrective action. The purpose of the modification, which has been made mandatory, is to limit gas generator speed during an acceleration towards overspeed by installation of a modified Electronic Control Unit
(ECU)and Drain Valve. In addition, the modification also renders the exhaust gas temperature
(EGT)control function compliant with the certificated specifications. In operation, if EGT exceeds the certificated limit value, turbine blade shedding could occur. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Microturbo has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 095-49A11, Edition 2, dated October 7, 2005. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 3 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,000 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,400 or $1,800 per product. 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 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 this 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. 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2006-XX-XX Microturbo:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24846; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-21-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by January 17, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Microturbo Saphir 20 Models 095 Auxiliary Power Units
(APU)installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter AS 332C, AS 332L, AS 332L1, and AS 332L2 helicopters. Reason
(d)Direction Generale De l'Aviation Civile Airworthiness Directive F-2005-146, dated August 17, 2005, states: It has been reported that with the existing configuration, a certain failure could cause overspeed of the gas generator rotor resulting in uncontained burst of the turbine liberating high-energy fragments. The occurrence that the high-energy fragments would be uncontained is considered a potentially dangerous situation which requires imperative corrective action. The purpose of the modification, which has been made mandatory, is to limit gas generator speed during an acceleration towards overspeed by installation of a modified Electronic Control Unit
(ECU)and Drain Valve. In addition, the modification also renders the exhaust gas temperature
(EGT)control function compliant with the certificated specifications. In operation, if EGT exceeds the certificated limit value, turbine blade shedding could occur. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions except as stated in paragraph
(f)below.
(1)Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, replace the existing ECU and drain valve.
(2)Follow paragraph 2. of Accomplishment Instructions of Microturbo Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB)No. 095-49A11, Edition 2, dated October 7, 2005, to do these actions. FAA AD Differences
(f)This AD differs from the mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)and/ or service information as follows:
(1)The MCAI issued by an airworthiness authority of another country refers to Microturbo ASB No. 095-49A11, dated July 27, 2005.
(2)This AD refers to Edition 2 of that ASB, dated October 7, 2005, which contains revised torque values. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: None. Related Information
(h)For service information identified in this AD, contact Microturbo SA; Technical Publications Department; 8 Chemin du pont de Rupe, BP 62089; 31019 Toulouse Cedex 2, France; telephone 33 0 5 61 37 55 00; fax 33 0 5 61 70 74 45.
(i)France AD No. F-2005-146, dated August 17, 2005, also pertains to the subject of this AD.
(j)Contact Tracy Murphy, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
(781)238-7172; fax
(781)238-7170, for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 12, 2006. Peter A. White, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-21487 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26396; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-40] Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Red Dog, AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class E airspace at Red Dog, AK. Two new Area Navigation
(RNAV)Required Navigation Performance
(RNP)Special Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and an RNAV RNP Special Departure Procedure
(DP)are being developed for the Red Dog Airport. Adoption of this proposal would result in revision of existing Class E airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface at Red Dog Airport, AK. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2006-26396/Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-40, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number
(907)271-5898; fax:
(907)271-2850; e-mail: *gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov.* Internet address: *http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2006-26396/Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-40.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking's (NPRM's) An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.* Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 or by calling
(202)267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 71), which would revise the Class E airspace at Red Dog Airport, AK. The intended effect of this proposal is to revise Class E airspace upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface to contain Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR)operations at Red Dog Airport, AK. The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance Branch has developed two new Special RNAV RNP instrument approaches and one Special RNAV RNP departure procedure for the Red Dog Airport. These procedures will be only flown by Alaska Airlines. The new approaches are
(1)The Area Navigation
(RNAV)Required Navigation Performance
(RNP)Runway
(RWY)05 and
(2)the RNAV RNP RWY 20. The departure procedure is the IHOPO ONE RNAV RNP Departure. Class E controlled airspace extending upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface within the Red Dog Airport area would be revised by this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing the Special instrument procedures at the Red Dog Airport. The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it proposes to create Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing instrument procedures at the Red Dog Airport and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable airspace. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71— DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, is to be amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. AAL AK E5 Red Dog, AK [Revised] Red Dog Airport, AK (Lat. 68°01′53″ N., long. 162°54′11″ W.) Noatak NDB/DME, AK (Lat. 67°34′19″ N., long. 162°58′26″ W.) Selawik VOR/DME, AK (Lat. 66°36′00″ N., long. 159°59′30″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the Red Dog Airport, AK; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 ft. above the surface within a 14-mile radius of the Red Dog Airport, AK, and within 5 miles either side of a line from the Selawik VOR/DME, AK, to lat. 67°38′06″ N., long. 162°21′42″ W., to lat. 67°54′30″ N., long. 163°00′00″ W., and within 5 miles either side of a line from the Noatak NDB/DME, AK, to lat. 67°50′20″ N., long. 163°19′16″ W., and within a 5-mile radius of lat. 67°50′20″ N., long. 163°19′16″ W. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on December 8, 2006. Anthony M. Wylie, Manager, Alaska Flight Service Information Office. [FR Doc. E6-21517 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0502; FRL-8257-8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation; North Dakota; Revisions to New Source Review Rules AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions adopted by North Dakota on February 1, 2005 to Chapter 33-15-15 of the North Dakota Administrative Code (Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality) that incorporate EPA's December 31, 2002 NSR Reforms. North Dakota submitted the request for approval of these rule revisions into the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)on February 10, 2005. North Dakota has a federally-approved Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)program for new and modified sources impacting attainment areas in the State. North Dakota is in attainment for all pollutants, and does not have a SIP-approved non-attainment permit program. On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)and non-attainment NSR regulations (67 FR 80186). These revisions are commonly referred to as “NSR Reform” regulations and became effective nationally in areas not covered by a SIP on March 3, 2003. These regulatory revisions include provisions for baseline emissions determinations, actual-to-future-actual methodology, plantwide applicability limits (PALs), clean units, and pollution control projects (PCPs). On November 7, 2003, EPA published a reconsideration of the NSR Reform regulations that clarified two provisions in the regulations (68 FR 63021). On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling on challenges to the December 2002 NSR Reform revisions ( *State of New York* v. *EPA* , 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Although the Court upheld most of EPA's rules, it vacated both the Clean Unit and the Pollution Control Project provisions and remanded back to EPA the “reasonable possibility” standard for when a source must keep certain project-related records. North Dakota is seeking approval at this time for its PSD regulations to implement the NSR Reform provisions that have not been vacated by the June 24, 2005, court decision. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0502, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *long.richard@epa.gov and daly.carl@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*
(303)312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). • *Mail:* Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. • *Hand Delivery:* Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0502. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Daly, Air and Radiation Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202,
(303)312-6416, *daly.carl@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Definitions For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i)The words or initials *Act* or *CAA* mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii)The words *EPA* , *we* , *us* or *our* mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii)The initials *SIP* mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(iv)The words *State* or *North Dakota* mean the State of North Dakota, unless the context indicates otherwise. Table of Contents I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. What Is Being Addressed In This Document? III. What Are The Changes That EPA Is Approving? IV. What Action is EPA Taking Today? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit 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 in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). b. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Is Being Addressed In This Document? EPA is proposing to approve North Dakota's revisions to their Air Pollution Control Rules Chapter 33-15-15 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality), submitted by North Dakota on February 10, 2005, that relate to the PSD construction permit programs of the State of North Dakota. These revisions to Chapter 33-15-15 were adopted by the North Dakota Department of Health on February 1, 2005. North Dakota's Regulations for a PSD program for attainment areas were federally-approved and made a part of the SIP on November 2, 1979 (44 FR 63103). On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the Federal PSD and non-attainment NSR regulations in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 (67 FR 80186). These revisions are commonly referred to as the “NSR Reform” regulations and became effective nationally in areas not covered by a SIP on March 3, 2003. These regulatory revisions include provisions for baseline emissions determinations, actual-to-future-actual methodology, plantwide applicability limits (PALs), clean units, and pollution control projects (PCPs). As stated in the December 31, 2002 rulemaking, State and local permitting agencies must adopt and submit revisions to their part 51 permitting programs implementing the minimum program elements of that rulemaking no later than January 2, 2006 (67 FR 80240). With the February 10, 2005 submittal, North Dakota requested approval of program revisions into the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)that satisfy this requirement. On November 7, 2003, EPA published a reconsideration of the NSR Reform regulations that clarified two provisions in the regulations by including a definition of “replacement unit” and by clarifying that the plantwide applicability limitation
(PAL)baseline calculation procedures for newly constructed units do not apply to modified units (68 FR 63021). On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling on challenges to the December 2002 NSR Reform revisions ( *State of New York et al.* v. *EPA* , 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). Although the Court upheld most of EPA's rules, it vacated both the Clean Unit and the Pollution Control Project provisions and remanded back to EPA the recordkeeping provision at 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) that required a stationary source to keep records of projects when there was a “reasonable possibility” that the project could result in a significant emissions increase. In an August 30, 2005 letter to EPA, North Dakota requested that EPA not take action on the clean unit and PCP provisions of the State rule and on the term “reasonable possibility” as they were incorporated by reference into the North Dakota Air Pollution Control Rules Chapter 33-15-15. North Dakota requested no action on these provisions because of the June 24, 2005 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's decision. North Dakota has since withdrawn their request for no action on the term “reasonable possibility.” North Dakota has also supplemented its February 10, 2005 request in a November 2, 2005 submission that provided corrections to several typographical errors in Chapter 33-15-15. All of these documents are available for review as part of the Docket for this action. III. What Are The Changes That EPA Is Approving? EPA is proposing to approve a revision to North Dakota's SIP that would incorporate by reference the Federal requirements found at 40 CFR 52.21 into the State's PSD program. The current revision to the North Dakota Air Pollution Control Rules Chapter 33-15-15, which EPA is now proposing to approve into the SIP, incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 paragraphs (a)(2) through (f),
(h)through (r), and
(v)through
(bb)as they existed on October 1, 2003 with the exceptions noted below. North Dakota did not incorporate by reference those sections of the Federal rules that do not apply to state activities or are reserved for the Administrator of the EPA, such as the “delegation of authority” section found at 40 CFR 52.21(u) and the “plan disapproval” section found in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(1). North Dakota retained existing SIP language for “reclassification” at 33-15-15-02. The reclassification provision at 40 CFR 52.21(g) was not revised by the December 2002 NSR Reform rule, so it is acceptable that North Dakota's existing SIP-approved reclassification provision remains in the SIP. In an August 30, 2005 letter to EPA, North Dakota requested that EPA not take action on the Clean Unit and Pollution Control Project provisions and on the term “reasonable possibility” as they were incorporated by reference into Chapter 33-15-15. However, North Dakota has since withdrawn its request for no action on the term “reasonable possibility” used in § 52.21(r)(6). Therefore, EPA is not taking action at this time on the following provisions in Chapter 33-15-15: 40 CFR 52.21(x), 52.21(y), 52.21(z), 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(e), the second sentence of 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f), 52.21(a)(2)(vi), 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(h), 52.21(b)(3)(iii)(b), 52.21(b)(3)(vi)(d), 52.21(b)(32), and 52.21(b)(42). The phrase “reasonable possibility” used in the Federal rule at 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) limits the recordkeeping provisions to modifications at facilities that use the actual-to-future-actual methodology to calculate emissions changes and that may have a “reasonable possibility” of a significant emissions increase. EPA has not yet responded to the D.C. Circuit Court's remand of the recordkeeping provisions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. The North Dakota rule contains recordkeeping requirements that are identical to the remanded Federal rule. As a result, EPA's final decision with regard to the remand may require EPA to take further action on this portion of North Dakota's rules. At this time, however, North Dakota's recordkeeping provisions are as stringent as the Federal requirements, and are therefore, approvable. The following provisions in 40 CFR 52.21 have been revised in North Dakota Air Quality Rules Chapter 33-15-15 to either add language that is currently contained in the North Dakota SIP or to add new language to North Dakota's PSD program: 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(iii)(a), 52.21(b)(14), 52.21(b)(15), 52.21(b)(22), 52.21(b)(29), 52.21(b)(30), 52.21(b)(43), 52.21(b)(48)(ii), 52.21(b)(51), 52.21(b)(53), 52.21(b)(54), 52.21(d), 52.21(e), 52.21(h), 52.21(i), 52.21(k)(1), 52.21(l)(1), 52.21(m)(3), 52.21(o)(1), 52.21(p), 52.21(p)(6), 52.21(p)(7), 52.21(p)(8), 52.21(q), 52.21(r)(2), 52.21(v)(1), 52.21(v)(2)(iv)(a), 52.21(w)(1), and 52.21(aa)(15). EPA's review of these revisions is contained in a Technical Support Document
(TSD)for this action. The TSD is available for review as part of the Docket for this action. The North Dakota “incorporation by reference” properly clarified the circumstances in which the term “Administrator,” found throughout the Federal rules, was to remain the EPA Administrator, and when it was intended to refer to the “North Dakota Department of Health,” instead. As noted above, on November 7, 2003, EPA published a reconsideration of the NSR Reform regulations that added a definition of ”replacement unit” and clarified that the plantwide applicability limitation
(PAL)baseline calculation procedures for newly-constructed units do not apply to modified units. Since North Dakota has incorporated by reference the regulations in 40 CFR 52.21 “as they exist on October 1, 2003” (North Dakota provision 33-15-15-01.2), these clarifications are not proposed for approval at this time. EPA has communicated to North Dakota that, at its earliest convenience, the State should revise provision 33-15-15-01.2 (Scope) to specify that 40 CFR 52.21 as amended and promulgated on July 1, 2004, or later, is incorporated by reference in order for these clarifications to become part of the SIP. The requirements included in North Dakota's PSD program, as specified in Chapter 33-15-15, are substantively the same as the Federal provisions, due to North Dakota's incorporation of the Federal rules by reference. The revisions North Dakota made to 40 CFR 52.21 noted above were reviewed by EPA and found to be as stringent, or more stringent, than the Federal rules. EPA has, therefore, determined that the proposed revisions are consistent with the program requirements for the preparation, adoption and submittal of implementation plans for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, as set forth at 40 CFR 51.166, and are approvable as part of the North Dakota SIP. IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? EPA is proposing to approve revisions to North Dakota Air Pollution Control Rules, Chapter 33-15-15, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. Per North Dakota's request, EPA is taking no action on Clean Unit Exemptions (40 CFR 52.21(x) and (y)) and Pollution Control Projects (40 CFR 52.21(z)). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” as that term is defined in Executive Order 13211, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13132 Federalism This action 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 proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed 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” under Executive Order 12866. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed 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.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: December 1, 2006. Kerrigan G. Clough, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. E6-21502 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0926; FRL-8257-6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Excess Emissions Provisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing two actions related to excess emissions provisions that were previously approved by EPA into the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan. These proposed actions include approval of a State request for rescission of certain provisions related to excess emissions and correction of an error made by the Agency in approving another provision also related to excess emissions. We are proposing to correct the error by disapproving the previously approved provision and thereby deleting the provision from the plan. The proposed approval of the rescission request is contingent upon receipt of certain public notice and hearing documentation from the State of Nevada. EPA is proposing these actions under the Clean Air Act authority to correct errors in approving, and obligation to take action on, State submittals of revisions to state implementation plans. The intended effect is to correct a past error in approving a particular provision into the plan and to allow for the rescission of closely-related provisions. EPA is taking comments on this proposal and plans to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by *January 17, 2007.* ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0926, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* 3. * Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location ( *e.g.* , copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location ( *e.g.* , CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX,
(415)947-4126. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. Which Provisions Are Covered by This Proposal? II. What Is the Background for This Proposal? III. How Are We Evaluating These Provisions? IV. What Are Our Proposed Actions on These Provisions? A. NAC 445.667 B. NAQR Article 2.5.4 V. Proposed Actions, Public Comment and Final Actions VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Which Provisions Are Covered by This Proposal? This document provides notice of EPA's proposed actions on the following State rules approved by EPA under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) and thereby made a part of the applicable state implementation plan
(SIP)for the State of Nevada. Rule No. Title or text Submittal date Most recent approval date and FR cite NAC 445.677 Excess emissions: Scheduled maintenance; testing; malfunctions 10/26/82 03/27/84 at 49 FR 11626. NAQR Article 2.5.4 “Breakdown or upset, determined by the Director to be unavoidable and not the result of careless or marginal operations, shall not be considered a violation of these regulations” 10/31/75 01/09/78 at 43 FR 1341. II. What Is the Background for This Proposal? In January 1972, in response to the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, the Governor of Nevada submitted the original SIP to EPA for approval. EPA approved certain portions of the original SIP and disapproved other portions under section 110(a) of the CAA. See 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972) and 40 CFR 52.1470(b). For some of the disapproved portions of the original SIP, EPA promulgated substitute provisions, referred to as Federal implementation plan
(FIP)provisions, under section 110(c) of the Act. See, *e.g.* , EPA's final rule at 38 FR 7270 (February 25, 1974) in which EPA established provisions for review of new or modified indirect sources. This original SIP included various rules, codified as articles within the Nevada Air Quality Regulations (NAQR), and various statutory provisions codified in title 40, chapter 445 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). In the early 1980's, Nevada reorganized and re-codified its air quality rules as sections within chapter 445 of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). Today, Nevada codifies its air quality regulations in chapter 445B of the NAC and codifies air quality statutes in chapter 445B of title 40 of the NRS. The original SIP, approved by EPA in May 1972, included NAQR article 2.5 (“Scheduled Maintenance, Testing, and Breakdown or Upset”), which contained what are referred to as “excess emissions” or “malfunction” provisions. Herein, we use the term “excess emissions,” and in this context, “excess emissions” means emissions of an air pollutant in excess of an emission standard. NAQR article 2.5, as approved by EPA in May 1972, reads: 2.5 *Scheduled Maintenance, Testing, and Breakdown or Upset:* 2.5.1 Scheduled maintenance, testing approved by the control officer, or repairs which may result in emission of air contaminants prohibited by these regulations shall be performed during a time designated by the control officer as being favorable for atmospheric ventilation. 2.5.2 The control officer shall be notified in writing on the time and expected duration at least 24 hours in advance of any scheduled maintenance which may result in emission of air contaminants prohibited by these regulations. 2.5.3 The control officer shall be notified within 24 hours after any breakdown or upset. 2.5.4 Breakdown or upset, determined by the control officer to be unavoidable and not the result of careless or marginal operations, shall not be considered a violation of these regulations. The State of Nevada amended NAQR article 2.5, and submitted the amended versions to EPA, at various times during the 1970's and early 1980's. In January 1978, EPA approved amended versions of subsections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.4 that had been submitted on October 31, 1975 (see 43 FR 1341, January 9, 1978 and 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(11)) and, later that year, approved an amended version of subsection 2.5.3 that had been submitted on December 10, 1976 (see 43 FR 36932, August 21, 1978 and 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(12)). The amendments to article 2.5 approved in 1978 involved minor changes, such as the replacement of the term “control officer” with the term “Director” and the specification of a phone number for notifying the Director of the occurrence of breakdown or upset conditions. In 1982, the State of Nevada amended, re-codified, and submitted NAQR article 2.5 as NAC 445.667 (“Excess emissions: scheduled maintenance; testing; malfunctions”) and NAC 445.668 (“Excess emissions: Determination of fault”). NAC 445.667 reflected minor revisions to the reporting requirements of former NAQR article 2.5 ( *i.e.* , subsections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3) but also included a new paragraph requiring owners and operators to provide within 15 days after any malfunction, breakdown, upset, startup or human error “sufficient information” to enable the director to determine the seriousness of the excess emissions and specifying what constituted “sufficient information”. In 1984, we approved NAC 445.667 and thereby effectively replaced all of NAQR article 2.5 in the applicable Nevada SIP except for subsection 2.5.4. See 49 FR 11626 (March 27, 1984). In contrast to NAC 445.667, EPA took no action to approve or disapprove NAC 445.668, the re-codified version of NAQR article 2.5.4. Thus, the excess emissions provisions in the applicable SIP currently include NAC 445.667, as approved in March 1984, and NAQR 2.5.4, as approved in January 1978. In a SIP revision submittal dated January 12, 2006, the Governor's designee for SIP matters, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), requested rescission of many rules from the applicable SIP, including NAC 445.667. 1 As discussed below, we are proposing to approve this request because of its connection to NAQR article 2.5.4, which we approved in error into the SIP, and for which we are now proposing disapproval. 1 The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal superseded in part an earlier SIP submittal dated February 16, 2005. The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal was not a complete re-submittal of the earlier submittal in that it did not include the documentation of public notice and hearing for new or amended rules adopted prior to 2005. CAA section 110(l) requires reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions by States for subsequent submittal to EPA for approval or disapproval under CAA section 110(k)(3). NDEP has not requested rescission of NAQR article 2.5.4 from the applicable SIP. We propose, however, as discussed below, to initiate action herein to disapprove this previously-approved provision under CAA section 110(k)(6), which expressly provides EPA with authority to correct errors in prior SIP approvals, and thereby delete NAQR article 2.5.4 from the applicable SIP. In doing so, we find that approval of NAQR article 2.5.4 into the SIP in 1972, and then again in amended form, in 1978, was an error because NAQR article 2.5.4, which exempts certain occurrences of excess emissions from the potential for enforcement at the discretion of NDEP, is not consistent with attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) nor with the regulatory framework of the Act, which gives EPA and citizens independent authority to enforce emissions limitations and other requirements approved into the SIP. III. How Are We Eealuating These Provisions? Under CAA sections 110(k)(2) and (3), EPA is obligated to approve or disapprove (in whole or in separable part) submittals by States of SIPs and SIP revisions found or deemed to be complete, and under CAA section 110(k)(6), EPA has the authority to correct errors made by the Agency in approving such SIPs and SIP revisions. EPA has reviewed the State's request for rescission of certain excess emissions provisions and considered the removal of another excess emissions provision for compliance with the CAA requirements for SIPs in general set forth in CAA section 110(a) and 40 CFR part 51 (particularly, subpart K “Source Surveillance”) and also for compliance with CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l) and 193. 2 We have also applied the principles set forth in the following EPA policy memoranda (collectively, “excess emissions policy memoranda”): 2 CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. CAA section 193 prohibits modifications in control requirements that were in effect before the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in any nonattainment area unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the nonattainment pollutant. • “Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions” from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation, dated September 28, 1982; • “Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions” from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation, dated February 15, 1983; • “State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown” from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated September 20, 1999; and • “Re-Issuance of Clarification—State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown” from Eric Schaeffer, Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement and John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated December 5, 2001. IV. What Are Our Proposed Actions on These Provisions? A. NAC 445.667 NAC 445.667 establishes reporting requirements under two circumstances involving the potential or the occurrence of excess emissions. First, NAC 445.667 requires advance notice to the Director of any scheduled maintenance or repairs that may result in excess emissions. Second, NAC 445.667 requires the Director to be notified within certain prescribed periods of any excess emissions that occur after any malfunction of process or pollution control equipment or during startup of such equipment. Upon review of CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart K (“Source Surveillance”), we find that the episodic reporting of excess emissions required under NAC 445.667 generally supports enforceability of the SIP and protection of the NAAQS. However, a review of the text of the excess emissions provisions themselves and the regulatory history of the State's submittals and EPA actions (or inaction as the case may be) on NAQR article 2.5, NAC 445.667, and NAC 445.668 convinces us that NAC 445.667 should not be separated from NAQR article 2.5.4 for the purposes of SIP actions under CAA section 110(k)(3) and related error corrections under CAA section 110(k)(6). Note, for example, that NAC 445.667 and NAC 445.668 were originally codified as subsections within a single rule, NAQR article 2.5, “Scheduled Maintenance, Testing, and Breakdown or Upset.” CAA section 110(k)(3) provides for full or partial approvals and disapprovals of SIP submittals. We consider “separable” portions of SIP submittals to be eligible for separate action under CAA section 110(k)(3). By “separable,” EPA means that the action it anticipates taking will not result in the approved rule(s) being more stringent than the State anticipated. See EPA memorandum from John Calcagni, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, entitled “Processing of State Implementation Plan
(SIP)Submittals,” dated July 9, 1992. In the context of an error correction under CAA section 110(k)(6), we apply the principle of being separable to avoid a result in which the approved rule(s) in the SIP becomes more stringent than the State anticipated upon our removal of another rule or portion of that rule. In this case, we believe that the State intended the two excess emissions rules, i.e., reporting provisions of NAC 445.667 and the determination of fault provisions of NAQR article 2.5.4, to be considered together as a single regulatory scheme whereby owners and operators can avoid enforcement proceedings triggered by excess emissions due to malfunctions if they follow the related reporting requirements and take the necessary remedial steps. In other words, we believe the State did not intend the excess emissions reporting requirements for malfunctions to exist independently in the SIP from the related determination of fault provisions. Given the connection between NAQR article 2.5.4 and NAC 445.667, therefore, and because we erred in approving (and are proposing disapproval of) the former, as discussed below, we propose to approve the State's request for rescission of the latter. Neither the January 12, 2006 SIP revision submittal nor the February 16, 2005 SIP revision submittal (that the latter submittal replaced in part) included public participation documentation for this requested rescission, thus, our proposed approval of the rescission of NAC 445.667 from the SIP is contingent upon receipt of public notice and hearing documentation from the State of Nevada. Such documentation is required under CAA section 110(l) for all SIP revisions. We note that approval of the rescission request for NAC 445.667 would have no effect on excess emissions reporting requirements that apply to stationary sources under other SIP rules, under 40 CFR part 60 (“Standards of performance for new stationary sources”), or 40 CFR parts 61 (“National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants”) and 63 (“National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for source categories”). B. NAQR Article 2.5.4 NAQR article 2.5.4 allows the Director (which, in this context, refers to NDEP) to exempt from enforcement certain excess emissions due to malfunction. NDEP's discretion in this regard is limited to conditions that NDEP determines to be unavoidable and not the result of careless or marginal operations but can be used to exempt such excess emissions from any source under NDEP jurisdiction regardless of the source's potential to cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS. NAQR article 2.5.4 does not limit the duration of the exemption nor include any provisions that serve to protect ambient air quality during the exemption period for the purpose of avoiding violations of the NAAQS. EPA's long-standing position is that provisions such as NAQR article 2.5.4 are not consistent with the fundamental purpose of a SIP, which as set forth in CAA section 110(a)(1) is to provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. See 42 FR 21472 (April 27, 1997), 42 FR 58171 (November 8, 1977), and EPA's excess emissions policy memoranda. 3 We view all excursions above SIP emission limits as violations because the purpose of SIP limits are to protect the NAAQS, and thus, any emissions above such limits may cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS. 3 EPA's interpretation of section 110 in the context of State excess emissions provisions has been upheld by the United State Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in *Michigan Mfrs. Ass'n* v. *Browner* , 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000). Moreover, SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations (see CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)), and Congress intended such limitations to be continuous in nature. See the definition of “emission limitation” in CAA section 302(k). 4 Allowing the Director to exempt from enforcement incidents during which emissions exceed the underlying emissions limitation means that none of the emission limitations in the SIP otherwise subject to enforcement under State law and the Clean Air Act are truly continuous in nature but rather may be discontinued for indefinite periods by the Director. 4 Under CAA section 302(k), the terms “emission limitation” and “emission standard” mean a requirement established by the State or the Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard promulgated under this chapter. Lastly, by leaving enforcement of the underlying emission limitation in the sole hands of the Director of the State air pollution agency without explicit limits to his/her discretion, NAQR article 2.5.4 conflicts with the regulatory structure of the Clean Air Act, which is intended to provide for independent enforcement by EPA and citizens of emissions limitations and other requirements approved by EPA into SIPs. See, generally, CAA sections 113 (“Federal enforcement”) and 304 (“Citizen suits”). The purpose of SIPs to protect the NAAQS, the continuous nature of emissions limitations, and the independent authorities for EPA and citizen represent core elements of the Clean Air Act from as far back as the Clean Air Amendments of 1970. Thus, our approvals of NAQR article 2.5.4 as part of the Nevada SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), and then again, in amended form, on January 9, 1978 (43 FR 1341) were clearly in error. Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, provides, “Whenever the Administrator determines that the Administrator's action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area designation, redesignation, classification or reclassification was in error, the Administrator may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as appropriate without requiring any further submission from the State. Such determination and the basis thereof shall be provided to the State and the public.” We interpret this provision to authorize the Agency to make corrections to a promulgated regulation when it is shown to our satisfaction (or we discover) that
(1)We clearly erred in failing to consider or in inappropriately considering information made available to EPA at the time of the promulgation, or the information made available at the time of promulgation is subsequently demonstrated to have been clearly inadequate, and
(2)other information persuasively supports a change in the regulation. See 57 FR 56762, at 56763 (November 30, 1992). In this instance, we have found clear error in our 1972 and 1978 approvals of NAQR article 2.5.4 as a part of the Nevada SIP because at the time of our 1972 and 1978 actions approving this rule, the Clean Air Act required SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS through continuous emissions limitations and provided for a regulatory scheme whereby EPA and citizens have enforcement authority separate from that of the State; whereas, NAQR article 2.5.4 provides for discontinuance of emission limitations under certain conditions without regard to protection of the NAAQS. Further, by determining that excess emissions are not a violation of the SIP, the Director can at his discretion cut off EPA or citizen enforcement of the underlying emissions limitation thereby confounding the regulatory scheme promulgated by Congress in the Clean Air Act. We also find that continued presence of NAQR article 2.5.4 in the applicable Nevada SIP undermines enforceability of the SIP and is potentially harmful to the environment. Therefore, under CAA section 110(k)(6), we are proposing to correct our errors in approving NAQR article 2.5.4 as part of the Nevada SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842) and on January 9, 1978 (43 FR 1341) by disapproving the previously approved versions of the rule and thereby deleting the rule from the applicable SIP. If finalized as proposed, we will codify the error correction by amending 40 CFR 52.1470(b), 52.1470(c)(11), and 52.1483 accordingly. 5 5 We note that our proposed action herein of disapproving a previously approved excess emissions rule is consistent with actions we have taken on similar excess emissions provisions in other portions of the Nevada SIP and in other SIPs. For example, in 1981, we disapproved section 12, an excess emissions rule adopted by Clark County (that we had previously approved as part of the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP) on similar grounds as described herein. See 46 FR 43141 (August 27, 1981) and 69 FR 54006 (September 7, 2004). In 1978, we disapproved similar excess emissions rules adopted by 22 different air pollution control districts in the State of California and, in some instances, reversed previous approvals of prior versions of those rules. See 43 FR 33915 (August 2, 1978). V. Proposed Actions, Public Comment and Final Actions Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is proposing approval of a request by the State of Nevada for rescission of NAC 445.667 (“Excess emissions: Scheduled maintenance; testing; malfunctions”) from the applicable SIP because of the connection between NAC 445.667 and NAQR article 2.5.4, which we approved in error and for which we are proposing disapproval. EPA is also proposing, under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, to correct errors made by the Agency in approving NAQR article 2.5.4 in 1972 and again in 1978 as part of the applicable SIP by disapproving the previously approved versions of the rule and thereby deleting NAQR article 2.5.4 from the applicable SIP. We are proposing this correction because the subject rule provides an exemption from enforcement at the State's discretion for certain excess emissions and is thereby inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the SIP, which is to provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, inconsistent with Congressional intent for continuous emission limits, and inconsistent with the regulatory structure of the Clean Air Act which provides for independent enforcement authority by EPA and citizens. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final rule that will rescind NAC 445.667, and that will delete NAQR article 2.5.4, from the applicable Nevada SIP, and to codify the latter action by amending 40 CFR 52.1470(b), 52.1470(c)(11), and 52.1483 accordingly. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 proposes to delete previously approved state rules that, viewed collectively, fail to meet Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed 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 proposes to rescind or delete 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 (Public Law 104-4). This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposes to delete previously approved state rules that, viewed collectively, fail to implement a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed 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.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: December 8, 2006. Jane Diamond, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E6-21500 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2004-WI-0002; FRL-8258-1] Federal Implementation Plan Under the Clean Air Act for Certain Trust Lands of the Forest County Potawatomi Community Reservation if Designated as a PSD Class I Area; State of Wisconsin AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: On June 29, 1995, and July 10, 1997, EPA proposed to approve a request by the Forest County Potawatomi Community (FCP Community) to redesignate certain trust lands within its reservation as Class I with respect to the Clean Air Act
(CAA)Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)construction permit program. In these proposals, EPA did not explicitly state the mechanism it would use if it granted the redesignation request nor did the Agency include a draft of its codification. In this action, EPA is proposing that it will promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP)if it approves FCP Community's request and this action proposes potential codification language. This FIP will be implemented by EPA unless or until it is replaced by a Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP). DATES: *Comments.* Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2007. *Public Hearing.* The EPA intends to hold two public hearings on this proposed action, one on the Forest County Potawatomi Reservation and one in the nearby community. The dates, times, and location of these public hearings will be announced shortly in a separate **Federal Register** notice. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2004-WI-0002 by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov.* • *Fax:* 202-566-1741. • *Mail:* Attention Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2004-WI-0002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail Code 6102T, Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of 2 copies. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2004-WI-0002. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2004-WI-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 *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 regulations.gov or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to section I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact Constantine Blathras, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. EPA, Region 5 (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507, telephone number:
(312)886-6071, facsimile number:
(312)886-5824, electronic mail address: *blathras.constantine@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action if finally promulgated will apply to applicants to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)construction permit program on Class I trust lands of the Forest County Potawatomi Community (FCP Community). B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically 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 in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Also, send an additional copy clearly marked as above not only to the Air docket but to: Roberto Morales, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer, (C339-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2004-WI-0002. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document and Other Related Information? In addition to being available electronically in *www.regulations.gov,* electronic copies of the docket are also available at the following repositories: Crandon Public Library, Attention: Tina Inger, Director, 110 West Polk Street, Crandon, Wisconsin 54520; Rhinelander District Library, Attention: Kris Adams Wendt, Director, 106 North Stevens Street Rhinelander, Wisconsin 54501; and the Forest County Potawatomi Natural Resource Department, Attention: Daniele Dusold, Wensaut Lane, Crandon, Wisconsin 54520. D. How Can I Find Information About a Possible Public Hearing? The EPA intends to hold two public hearings on this action, one on the Forest County Potawatomi Reservation and one off-reservation. The dates, times, and location of these public hearings will be announced shortly in a separate **Federal Register** notice. Persons interested in attending the public hearing should contact Mr. J. Elmer Bortzer, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. EPA, Region 5 (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507, telephone number:
(312)886-1430, facsimile number:
(312)886-5824, e-mail address: *bortzer.jay@epa.gov* to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed changes. E. Overview of the Rule The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document and Other Related Information? D. How Can I Find Information About a Possible Hearing? E. Overview of Rule II. Purpose III. Background A. The FCP Community Request for Redesignation to Class I. Brief Summary of Past Comments B. The CAA's PSD Program in Indian Country IV. Tribal Implementation Plans and Federal Implementation Plans V. The Federal Implementation Plan for the FCP Community's Class I Area A. Current Codification of the PSD Program in Wisconsin and the FCP Community Lands B. Proposed Codification for an FCP Community Class I Redesignation VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 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 & Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act VII. Statutory Authority II. Purpose In this action, EPA is proposing to codify the Class I resignations in a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP)if the Agency approves the FCP Communty's redesignation request; this notice also proposes potential codification language. The EPA solicits comments on today's proposal as to whether a FIP is the appropriate mechanism with which to codify the FCP Community's redesignation of their lands to Class I, if approved, the proposed codification, and any related procedural issues. Although EPA strongly encourages commenters to focus on these issues, comments on other aspects of the redesignation request will also be accepted. Interested parties should submit comments as detailed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. III. Background A. The FCP Community Request for Redesignation to Class I On February 14, 1995, the FCP Community submitted a formal request to EPA to redesignate certain trust lands within their reservation to Class I under the CAA PSD construction permit program. On June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33779), and July 10, 1997 (62 FR 37007), EPA proposed to approve the request. In addition, in 1997 EPA also held public hearings on the redesignation request. Both Wisconsin and Michigan objected to the proposed redesignation and requested dispute resolution under Section 164(e) of the CAA. To resolve the dispute with the State of Wisconsin, the FCP Community and Wisconsin entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (FCP Community-Wisconsin MOA) for implementation of the proposed Class I area in Wisconsin. For those provisions of the agreement, and any other aspects of the dispute resolution that will need to be made federally enforceable, EPA will codify them as appropriate should it determine to grant the redesignation request. For example, the agreement's limitation of certain increment analyses to a ten mile radius may need to be codified in federally enforceable regulations. Specifically, the agreement between the FCP Community and Wisconsin subjects all major sources in Wisconsin located within a ten
(10)mile radius of any redesignated Tribal land to performing an increment analysis and to meeting consumption requirements applicable to a class I area. Major sources located outside of ten
(10)miles are subject to increment analysis and consumption requirements applicable to any redesignated Tribal land as if it were a class II area. Also under the agreement, all major sources within sixty-two
(62)miles are subject to an analysis of their impact on air quality related values (AQRVs) of the redesignated Tribal lands to determine if they will have an adverse impact on these AQRVs. The Agency believes that the Tribe and Wisconsin may enter into such an agreement. When the dispute resolution process in section 164(e) is invoked by an affected state or tribe, EPA is called upon to participate in that process and to recommend a resolution, if requested by the parties, or to finally resolve the dispute, if the parties are unable to reach agreement. However, where the parties successfully reach agreement through the dispute resolution process, EPA is inclined to read section 164(e) of the CAA to provide that EPA has no further role to play in the dispute resolution process. The EPA is not required to review or approve the terms of the agreement, and the Agency is inclined to respect agreements that obviate the need for the Administrator to make a decision resolving the matter. If the parties to the dispute reach an agreement through the 164(e) process without EPA resolution, EPA proposes not to interfere with the agreement and to rest its final decision to approve or deny the redesignation on the criteria in 164(b)(2) of the CAA. In commenting on the proposed codification, commenters may wish to comment on the potential need to codify certain provisions of the agreement or aspects of the dispute resolution as well. The FCP Community-Wisconsin MOA, together with related materials, is available in the docket for this proposal. The FCP Community and the State of Michigan have not been able to resolve their differences. The EPA anticipates acting on the FCP Community request and remaining aspects of the dispute resolution process with the States after the close of the public comment period on today's proposal. Brief Summary of Past Comments During the initial comment period and public hearings, EPA received several comments on the proposed redesignation. The Agency will respond to all significant comments in the final rule resolving the redesignation request, but includes a brief discussion and response to two of those comments. First, several commenters argued that the request for redesignation should be denied either because the FCP Community identified certain air quality related values (“AQRVs”) after submitting their initial request or that the lands proposed for redesignation were not of sufficient size or quality to possess AQRVs. However, neither Section 164(b) of the CAA nor EPA's implementing regulations governing redesignation require a State or Tribe requesting a redesignation to demonstrate or establish that the affected lands have AQRVs, and Congress did not make AQRVs a prerequisite for redesignation of non-federal Class I areas. It is therefore unnecessary for EPA to determine what AQRVs the lands at issue might possess in order for the Agency to act on, including granting, the redesignation request. *See* 61 FR 56450, 56458-56459 (Nov. 1, 1996) (redesignation of Yavapai-Apache lands). A second area of significant comment alleged that the areas proposed for redesignation were either too small or too dispersed to allow for effective air quality management as discussed in sections 162 and 164 of the CAA. Section 162 of the Act designates certain areas as mandatory Class I areas. The Act also provides for non-federal Class I areas, and Section 164(c) specifically states that “Lands within the exterior boundaries of reservations of federally recognized Indian tribes may be redesignated,” but does not speak to what size lands might be appropriate for a redesignation to Class I. In disputes resolving area redesignation, section 164(e) requires EPA to consider (the extent to which the lands involved are of sufficient size to allow effective air quality management.” In its decision to grant the Class I redesignation request for the Yavapai-Apache reservation, (which is similar to the FCP reservation in that it consists of a number of relatively small, discrete parcels of land), EPA examined whether it would be difficult to perform a PSD air quality modeling analysis that assessed the impacts of a proposed source in such a situation. The EPA concluded that based on existing modeling tools it would be relatively simple and practicable for a proposed source to project its impact on the Class I area parcels and evaluate the analysis. *See* 61 Fed. Reg. at 56457-56458. Consideration of the size of the redesignated lands, therefore, can be evaluated based upon the Agency's experience in the Yavapai-Apache redesignation. We solicit comment on the two issues presented above and EPA's response to them. B. The CAA's PSD Program in Indian Country The CAA gives EPA broad authority to protect air resources throughout the nation, including the resources on Indian reservations and other areas of Indian country. Part C of the CAA lays out the PSD construction permit program. It is based on the concept that new sources and modifications of existing sources in relatively pollution free lands, *i.e.* , lands attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), should not be allowed to increase emissions such that ambient pollutant levels rise to the level of the NAAQS. Instead, these sources' emissions are limited such that ambient levels cannot exceed the pollutant specific increments in the CAA or EPA regulations. The CAA provides three levels of increments for each pollutant, Class I which is the most stringent, Class II, which is what most of the United States was initially designated by the CAA, and Class III, which is the least stringent. Section 164 affords states and tribes the right to request that EPA redesignate lands under their control. Historically only tribes have made such requests, and in all these cases, the tribes requested redesignation from Class II to Class I. The FCP Community, likewise, requested that EPA redesignate certain of their lands from Class II to Class I. Under the CAA, generally EPA must approve this request if all procedural requirements are met. One of the tribes that requested redesignation from Class II to Class I before FCP Community was the Yavapai Apache Tribe, and on October 2, 1996 EPA approved the request. The State of Arizona, within which the Yavapai Apache lands were located, had raised objections to the redesignation and requested to enter into Section 164(e) dispute negotiations with the Yavapai Apache. The EPA held a meeting with the parties, but ultimately no agreement was reached. The EPA was forced to resolve the dispute, and did so by granting the redesignation request and codifying the redesignation in a FIP. 61 FR 56461 (November 1, 1996) and 61 FR 56450 (November 1, 1996). The State of Arizona continued to dispute the approval of the reservation to Class I and filed a suit before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. *See, Administrator, State of Arizona* v. *EPA,* 151 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. 1998). The Ninth Circuit's decision stated, among other things, that EPA should have codified the Class I area in a TIP rather than a FIP, and remanded the redesignation back to the EPA regional office so that EPA could follow the appropriate procedures for promulgating the Class I area as a TIP. On February 12, 1998, however, EPA promulgated a final rule under section 301 of the CAA entitled “Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management.” 63 FR 7254 (Feb. 12, 1998). This rule, generally referred to as the “Tribal Authority Rule” or “TAR,” discusses those provisions of the CAA for which it is appropriate to treat Indian tribes in the same manner as states and establishes the requirements that Indian tribes must meet if they choose to seek such treatment. The EPA also concluded that certain provisions of the CAA should not be applied to tribes in exactly the same manner in which they were applied to states. One of those provisions was CAA 110(c)(1), which provides the Administrator with the authority to promulgate a FIP within 2 years of finding that a State plan is insufficient. 63 FR at 7265. EPA reasoned that tribes, unlike states, “in general are in the early stages of developing air planning and implementation expertise” because the specific authority for tribes to establish air programs was first expressly addressed in 1990. *Id.* at 7264-7265. Because tribes were only recent participants in the process, EPA determined it would be inappropriate to hold them to the same deadlines and Federal oversight as the states. *Id.* at 7265. The EPA noted, though, that it was “not relieved of its general obligation under the CAA to ensure the protection of air quality throughout the nation, including throughout Indian country.” *Id.* The EPA concluded that the Agency could “act to protect the air quality pursuant to its ‘gap-filling' authority under the CAA as a whole” and that “section 301(d)(4) provides EPA with discretionary authority, in cases where it has determined that treatment of tribes as identical to states is ‘inappropriate or administratively infeasible,’ to provide for direct administration through other regulatory means.” *Id.* Under that authority, EPA adopted 40 CFR 49.11, which set the standard for adoption of FIP provisions for Indian Country: “[The Administrator] [s]hall promulgate without unreasonable delay such Federal implementation plan provisions as are necessary or appropriate to protect air quality, consistent with the provisions of section 304(a) ( *sic 301(a)* ) and 301(d)(4), if a tribe does not submit a tribal implementation plan meeting the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, or does not receive EPA approval of a submitted tribal implementation plan.” 40 CFR 49.11(a). The intent of this provision was to recognize that tribes may not initially have the capability to implement their own delegated CAA programs and that the TAR does not relieve EPA of its general obligation under the CAA to protect air quality throughout the nation, including in Indian country. *See* 63 FR 7265. Therefore, the TAR established two possible routes for the codification of a Class I redesignation on Tribal lands:
(1)A TIP, if one has been developed by the Tribe and approved by EPA; and
(2)A FIP, if a TIP did not exist and a FIP was necessary to protect air quality. IV. Tribal Implementation Plans and Federal Implementation Plans Consistent with the approach detailed in the TAR, U.S. EPA Region 5 sent a letter to the FCP Community requesting that the Tribe specify what mechanism they wished to use to codify the proposed redesignation to Class I. On August 4, 1999, Harold Frank, Chairman, Forest County Potawatomi Community, sent a letter to Francis X. Lyons, Regional Administrator of EPA Region 5, requesting that EPA promulgate the redesignation of the proposed Class I area parcels in a FIP. The FCP asked EPA to promulgate the Class I area redesignation into a FIP, as opposed to utilizing a TIP, because the FCP Community was continuing to build its capacity and infrastructure to run a Tribal Air Program and was not yet ready to submit its own TIP. On August 23, 1999, EPA sent a letter to the FCP Community agreeing to their request for the Class I redesignation being promulgated in a FIP, should EPA's rulemaking result in the approval of the FCP Community's request. Until such time as the FCP Community develops a TIP and has it approved, EPA retains the authority to promulgate the redesignation approval in a FIP. Because the FCP Community's request and EPA's original proposal pre-dated the TAR, neither clearly specified the manner in which the redesignation would be codified. The EPA has, therefore, published this supplemental proposal to seek comment on the codification of the FCP Community redesignation, if approved, in a FIP. V. The Federal Implementation Plan for the FCP Community's Class I Area A. Current Codification of the PSD Program in Wisconsin and the FCP Community Lands On August 7, 1980, EPA promulgated the Federal PSD Program regulations which are codified at 40 CFR 52.21, and which applied to those states that had not submitted a PSD program meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166. 45 FR 52741 (August 7, 1980), as amended at 46 FR 9585 (January 29, 1981). Wisconsin was one such state, and as a result, Wisconsin initially implemented the Federal PSD program under a delegation of authority from EPA. Wisconsin subsequently submitted a PSD rule and program which EPA approved for all sources in Wisconsin except for sources located on tribal lands and other sources that require permits issued by the EPA. *See* 64 FR 28748 (May 27, 1999). The current EPA regulation addressing the PSD program in Wisconsin reads as follows: 40 CFR 52.2581. Significant deterioration of air quality. (a)-(c) [Reserved]
(d)The requirements of sections 160 through 165 of the Act are met, except for sources seeking permits to locate in Indian country within the State of Wisconsin; and sources with permits issued by EPA prior to the effective date of the state's rules.
(e)Regulations for the prevention of the significant deterioration of air quality. The provisions of § 52.21(b) through
(w)are hereby incorporated and made a part of the applicable State plan for the State of Wisconsin for sources wishing to locate in Indian country; and sources constructed under permits issued by EPA. B. Proposed Codification for an FCP Community Class I Redesignation Under the authority of section 307(d) of the Act, EPA is proposing to revise its regulation as reflected below if EPA approves the FCP Community request to designate some of its reservation as Class I. In today's action, EPA is proposing that it will promulgate the resignation in a FIP if EPA approves the FCP Community's request for redesignation of certain lands within the exterior boundaries of the Tribe's reservation. This FIP will be implemented by EPA unless or until it is replaced by a Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP). The proposed codification language follows Section VII below. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order
(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. The FCP Community prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in “EPA memorandum dated October 25, 2004”. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action and is briefly summarized here. As part of its application package for Class I redesignation, the FCP Community has analyzed the potential economic impact of redesignation on the affected region (Forest County and those counties bordering Forest County). This analysis directly supports a finding that the impact of the proposed redesignation would not result in an adverse annual impact to the economy of $100 million or more. As discussed in greater detail in the memorandum, the FCP Community analysis identifies those economic sectors with the largest employment in the area. These are industry, manufacturing and trade, which together account for 46% of the jobs in the affected area. To evaluate the effect of Class I redesignation on economic expansion and future industrial plant development in the affected area, the FCP Community prepared an independent air dispersion modeling analysis to determine the air quality impacts on the Class I area from various new projects. These included a 250-ton-per-day paper mill, three different types of power plants, and a mining project. The modeling and screening results analyzed indicate that the proposed Class I redesignation should not have major effects on economic expansion and industrial development in the region. The redesignation could restrict the sitting of large paper mills and large coal-fired powered plants to at least 10 km from the reservation, and would limit the development of multiple projects that would have an unacceptable cumulative effect on the Class I increments, but none of these known proposed developments in the region would be adversely affected. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* We are not promulgating any new paperwork requirements ( *e.g.* , monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping) as part of this proposed action. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR parts 51 and 52) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003, EPA ICR number 1230.17. 1 A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request
(ICR)may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202)566-1672. 1 The regulations covered under this ICR govern the State and Federal programs for preconstruction review and permitting of major new and modified sources pursuant to Part C “Prevention of Significant Deterioration”
(PSD)and Part D “Program Requirements for Nonattainment Areas” of the CAA. The types of information collection activities addressed in this ICR are those necessary for the preparation and submittal of construction permit applications and the issuance of final permits. This analysis included an examination of the additional regulatory burden, per regulated unit, on those sources constructing or modifying near a Class I area, and which may be required to perform a Federal Class I area analysis to determine the effect of the proposed source on AQRV inside the Class I area, and on the consumption of increment, where the baseline has been triggered. It is important to note that not all sources located near Class I areas would have to perform such monitoring; these requirements apply only when emissions from the source have the potential to impact the Class I area. The EPA's analysis for OMB included the additional burden placed upon the regulated community as well as on State and Federal agencies. The redesignation of FCP Community lands from Class II to Class I is wholly consistent with the analysis put forth in EPA's ICR and OMB's approval and no new paperwork requirements are being promulgated with this action. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed action on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's
(SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(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; or
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. This action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis because it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The EPA believes that the reclassification of the proposed area to Class I will impose virtually no additional requirements on small entities, regardless of whether they are minor sources or major sources. For small entities that are also minor sources, since at the present time the baseline concentrations for this area have not been triggered and none of the Class I increments have yet been consumed, minor emission sources are unaffected by PSD requirements. Should the Class I increments be completely consumed in the future, it is possible that some pollution control requirements would fall to minor sources. However, any such future pollution control requirements imposed on off-reservation sources would be under the jurisdiction of the states, not EPA. Therefore, EPA is not in a present or future position to directly regulate small entities and therefore is not required to conduct an RFA analysis. For small entities that are major sources, the impact is not expected to be substantial. As demonstrated in section VI.A. above, the requirements for demonstrating compliance with the NAAQS and PSD increments for major facilities in and surrounding Class I areas are similar to the requirements for major facilities in and surrounding Class II areas. Therefore, this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. While EPA is not required to conduct an RFA analysis, as a matter of good public policy, the Agency has reviewed information on the impact of the redesignation provided by the FCP Community in its Technical Support Document
(TSD)submitted pursuant to the tribe's request for Class I redesignation. In this document, the Tribe reviewed the potential impact of the Class I redesignation on various types of sources, concluding that impacts of the redesignation to Class I would impact only certain major stationary sources, and would impose no additional requirements on minor sources. 2 2 The EPA has prepared an ICR analysis for the NSR program generally, finding that “Approximately 2,200 'small business” major sources were estimated to exist; however, only 50 small business facilities employing 500 persons or fewer were projected to be subject to NSR annually. Based on the methodology incorporated in that rulemaking Regulatory Impact Analysis, the Agency concluded that the current part 51 and 52 NSR regulations do not constitute a disproportionate burden on small entities.” U.S. EPA, “Information Collection Request for 40 CFR Part 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review, October 12, 2004, at 13.” For example, air dispersion modeling and EPA-approved screening performed for the Tribe's TSD demonstrates that a 140 MW natural gas fired combustion turbine power plant could be constructed and operated directly adjacent to the reservation without violating any of the Class I increments. Power plants of this type produce relatively high levels of nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ), which are their major emissions, yet despite its direct proximity to a Class I area, such a facility would impact only a small fraction (~4%) of the allowable Class I increment for NO <sup>X</sup> . Considering that the FCP Community analysis shows that a major gas-fired power generating facility could be operated immediately next to the reservation without significant impacts, and that only very large industrial projects located within approximately 10 km of the reservation would be affected by the redesignation, it appears very unlikely that any small businesses located within 100 kilometers would produce emissions in large enough quantities to trigger the Class I restrictions. Nevertheless, it is possible that a small business located close enough to the reservation may be a major source of criteria air pollutants. Even in that event, the PSD requirements for Class I areas would be very unlikely to impose a significant financial burden on such a small business. If it is an existing business at the time the redesignation goes into effect, it would not be subject to the PSD permitting requirements, which apply only to new stationary sources or major modifications to existing sources. Even if the small business in question was new to the Class I area, hence subject to PSD permitting, the redesignation would still not impose additional significant financial or regulatory burdens on the small entity. As a major source of criteria air pollutants, the small business would be subject to PSD permitting regulations whether the reservation had been redesignated to Class I or had remained a Class II area, as it is now. Major stationary sources proposing to locate in any PSD area, regardless of whether it is Class II or Class I, must still conduct the same type of analyses to measure the impact of their emissions on the allowable increments and use the best available control technology to reduce their emissions and minimize adverse effects. Should the area remain Class II, the major source would still be required to perform a modeling analysis to ensure that the Class II increments are protected in order to obtain a permit. Since a modeling analysis is required in any case, the cost of adding additional receptor points, if needed, to the modeling analysis to gather the necessary data to ensure that the Class I increments will also be protected should be relatively small. Likewise, since every major stationary source proposing to locate in a PSD area, whether it has been designated as Class I or Class II, must employ “best available control technology” to reduce emissions, proximity to a Class I area generally would not affect the level of control required to meet BACT. In short, regardless of whether they are in a Class II or a Class I area, major sources are required to obtain an air quality permit, conduct modeling analyses, and use the best available technology to control emissions under the PSD program. Thus, as a general rule, redesignation should not inflict additional control costs on a source. Under certain circumstances a major source may be required to achieve further decreases in emissions to reduce its impact on the air quality related values of a Class I area. Such a requirement would necessitate further regulatory action by either the FCP Community or EPA, however, and the impacts of the specific requirements can be appropriately assessed at that time. Additionally, it would be very unusual for a small business to also be a major source and a substantial number of small entities should certainly not be so affected. Several other Indian tribes have redesignated tribal lands to Class I in other parts of the country, and their experience can provide us with some insight into the impact redesignation typically has on small entities in the vicinity. These include the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Montana; Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana; Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana and the Spokane Indian Reservation, Washington, which were redesignated as Class I areas between 1977 and 1990. Thus far, there has been very little economic impact on small businesses, nearby towns, local governments or other small entities following Class I redesignation in those areas. The EPA has no reason to believe that same pattern of minimal economic impact to small businesses will not be repeated in Forest County and the surrounding counties. Small entities that are minor sources of air pollution will not be affected at all by this action at this time. The PSD permit program does not cover minor sources and, as previously discussed, EPA does not directly regulate minor entities. The reclassification of the proposed area to Class I therefore imposes virtually no additional requirements on small entities since the baseline concentration level for Forest County has not yet been triggered and none of the PSD increments in the area have yet been consumed. The baseline concentration is the conceptual reference point or ”starting” point for determining air quality deterioration in an area subject to the PSD program. Thus, the baseline concentration is essentially the ambient air quality existing at the time the first complete PSD application is made for a major new source affecting a PSD baseline area. Since no PSD permit application triggering a baseline date has been submitted in the Forest County area, there has not been any consumption of the PSD increments in the area. Should major and minor sources of pollution consume all of the available increment in an area at some point in the future, it is possible that some pollution control requirements would then fall to minor sources, but since roughly 75% of the land in Forest County is National Forest, and there is presently very little industrial development in the area, there is likely to be little consumption of the Class I increments for some time to come. 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. This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities that are not major sources because this action affects only major stationary sources, as defined by 40 CFR 52.21. 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), P.L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 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. The EPA has determined that this 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 one year. The redesignation would not impose significant additional financial or regulatory burdens on a new or modified source subject to the PSD permitting requirements. As a major source of criteria air pollutants, a new or modified source would be subject to PSD regulations whether the reservation had been redesignated to Class I or had remained a Class II area, as it is now. New major stationary sources proposing to locate in any PSD area, regardless of whether it is Class II or Class I, must still conduct the same type of analyses to measure the impact of their emissions on the allowable increments and use the best available control technology to reduce their emissions and minimize adverse effects. No additional permits would be required as a result of a redesignation of FCP Community reservation lands. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. The EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because, as already stated in other sections of this regulatory package, the redesignation from a Class II to a Class I area would not impose additional significant financial or regulatory burdens on sources. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 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.” Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This 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. The rule merely implements an authority currently available to Indian tribes to redesignate their reservation lands under the PSD program of the CAA, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult with State and local officials in developing this rule. A summary of the concerns raised during that consultation and EPA's response to those concerns will be provided when EPA issues its final rulemaking. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 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.” The EPA has concluded that this proposed rule establishing federal standards will have tribal implications. Thus, consistent with section 3 of the Executive Order, in the process of developing this proposal, EPA consulted with FCP tribal officials to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA consulted with representatives of the FCP Community prior to their submission of the redesignation request. During this consultation, EPA explained the function of the CAA's redesignation provision, differences between Class I and Class II designations, and alternatives to the proposed Class I redesignation. The FCP Community chose to submit a request for redesignation to Class I on February 14, 1995. Since the FCP Community submitted its request for redesignation, EPA has kept the FCP Community informed of its process for completing the rulemaking through written correspondence, conference calls, and face to face meetings when appropriate. Records of these communications are found in the docket for this proposed action. Most recently, EPA officials held consultations with the FCP Community between May and July 2006 to discuss this proposed action and to answer the Community's questions. Finally, because the proposed action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments nor preempt Tribal law, section 5 of Executive Order 13175 is not applicable. Class I redesignation will enable the FCP Community to further their goal of exercising control over reservation resources to better protect the members of their community. Overall, EPA expects that the impact of the redesignation to Class I will be positive. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health & Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” 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 Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking before April 21, 1998. Nonetheless, as a matter of EPA Policy, the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. Redesignation of the identified parcels of the FCP reservation to Class I status will reduce the allowable increase of various types of pollutants. The reduction of these pollutants can only be expected to better protect the health of tribal members, members of the surrounding communities, and especially children and asthmatics. The adverse health effects of exposure to high levels of criteria air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and fine particulate matter are well known and well documented. 3 Sulfur dioxide, for example, is known to irritate the respiratory system. As explained in the FCP Community's TSD, exposure to high concentrations for even short periods can cause bronchial constriction and exposure to lower concentrations of sulfur dioxide for longer periods and suppresses the respiratory system's natural defenses to particles and bacteria. 4 Children and asthmatics are especially vulnerable to the adverse health effects of sulfur dioxide. 5 If the Class I redesignation is codified in a FIP, the allowable increase of sulfur dioxide after redesignation of the reservation to Class I status (on an annual arithmetic mean basis) will be one-tenth of the current Class II allowable increase, thus providing greater health protection to children from such air pollutants. 3 What are the Six Common Air Pollutants? (March 23, 2004) (available at *http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/6poll.html* ) 4 SO <sup>2</sup> —How Sulfur Dioxide Affects the Way We Live & Breathe. U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards (November 2000) (available at *http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/so2/index.html* ) 5 Health and Environmental Impacts of SO2 (September 30, 2003) (available at *http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/so2/hlth1.html* ) Likewise, the allowable increase in particulate matter after Class I redesignation (on an annual basis) will be approximately one-fourth of the current Class II increase. Particulate matter consists of airborne particles and aerosols ranging in size from less than 1 micrometer to more than 100 micrometers. Aside from natural sources, industrial activity can release great quantities of particulates (dust, soot, ash and other solid and liquid particles). Combustion products emitted during power generation, heating, motor vehicle use and various industrial processes are also classified as particulate matter. The vast majority (~99%) of such inhalable particulate matter is trapped in the upper respiratory tract, but the remainder enters the windpipe and the lungs, clinging to the protective mucosa. The smallest particles are deposited in the alveoli and capillaries of the lung, where they impair the exchange of oxygen and causes shortness of breath. Children, the elderly, and people with pulmonary problems and respiratory conditions ( *e.g.* , emphysema, bronchitis, asthma, or heart problems) are the most susceptible to these debilitating effects. 6 Adverse health effects from particulate matter are often cumulative and progressive, worsening as particulates gradually collect in the lungs following repeated, long-term exposure. 7 6 Health and Environmental Impacts of PM (30 September 2003) (available at *http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/pm/hlth1.html* ) 7 PM—Chief Causes for Concern (30 September 2003) (available at *http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/pm/chf.html* ) Fine particulate matter is the worst offender in that regard. Scientific studies have shown that particulate matter, especially fine particles (those particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers and commonly known as PM <sup>2.5</sup> ), are retained deep within the lungs. 8 Short term exposure to such fine particulate matter can cause lung irritation and may impair immune responses. Some of the material from the particles can dissolve in the lungs, causing cell damage, and the particles themselves may consist of compounds that are toxic or which form acids when combined with moisture in the lungs. Long-term lower level exposures can cause cancer and other respiratory illnesses. Reducing the allowable increase in particulate matter by roughly 75% should thus provide greater health protection from such afflictions to children on the reservation and in the surrounding communities. 8 Information on Particulate Matter
(FINE)PM. Condensed from Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter; U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (July 1997). (available on *http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/information/pm25.html* ) In short, the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action do not present a disproportionate risk to children. In fact, they are expected to have a positive rather than a negative impact on children's health and the environment. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Effect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations. The EPA believes that the redesignation of FCP Community lands in a FIP from Class II to Class I area should not raise any environmental justice issues since it will reduce the allowable increase of various types of pollutants. Consequently, this redesignation should result in health benefits to tribal members and members of the surrounding communities. Therefore, we believe that these regulations would not have a disproportionate adverse effect on the health or safety of minority or low income populations. J. 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, 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 proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. VII. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for this proposed action is provided by sections 110, 301 and 164 of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410, 7601, and 7474) and 40 CFR Part 52. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides. Dated: December 11, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons cited in this action, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 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.* 2. Section 52.2581 is amended by revising paragraph
(e)and by adding paragraph
(f)to read as follows: § 52.2581 Significant deterioration of air quality.
(e)Regulations for the prevention of the significant deterioration of air quality. The provisions of § 52.21(b) through
(w)are hereby incorporated and made a part of the applicable State plan for the State of Wisconsin for sources wishing to locate in Indian country; and sources constructed under permits issued by EPA, except as specified in paragraph
(f)of this section.
(f)Forest County Potawatomi Community reservation lands 80 acres and over in size and located in Forest County are designated as a Class I area for the purposes of prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. The individual parcels listed below all consist of a description from the Fourth Principal Meridian, with a baseline that is the Illinois-Wisconsin border:
(1)Section 14 of Township 36 north (T36N), range 13 east (R13E).
(2)Section 26 of T36N R13E.
(3)The west half (W 1/2 ) of the east half (E 1/2 ) of Section 27 of T36N R13E.
(4)E 1/2 of SW 1/4 of Section 27 of T36N R13E.
(5)N 1/2 of N 1/2 of Section 34 of T36N R13E.
(6)S 1/2 of NW 1/4 of Section 35 of T36N R13E.
(7)Section 36 of T36N R13E.
(8)Section 2 of T36N R13E.
(9)W 1/2 of Section 2 of T34N R15E.
(10)Section 10 of T34N R15E.
(11)S 1/2 of NW 1/4 of Section 16 of T34N R15E.
(12)N 1/2 of SE 1/4 of Section 20 of T34N R15E.
(13)NW 1/4 of Section 28 of T34N R15E.
(14)W 1/2 of NE 1/4 of Section 28 of T34N R15E.
(15)W 1/2 of SW 1/4 of Section 28 of T34N R15E.
(16)W 1/2 of NE 1/4 of Section 30 of T34N R15E.
(17)SW 1/4 of Section 2 of T34N R16E.
(18)W 1/2 of NE 1/4 of Section 12 of T34N R16E.
(19)SE 1/4 of Section 12 of T34N R16E.
(20)E 1/2 of SW 1/4 of Section 12 of T34N R16E.
(21)N 1/2 of Section 14 of T34N R16E.
(22)SE 1/4 of Section 14 of T34N R16E.
(23)E 1/2 of Section 16 of T34N R16E.
(24)NE 1/4 of Section 20 of T34N R16E.
(25)NE 1/4 of Section 24 of T34N R16E.
(26)N 1/2 of Section 22 of T35N R16E.
(27)SE 1/4 of Section 22 of T35N R16E.
(28)N 1/2 of SW 1/4 of Section 24 of T35N R15E.
(29)NW 1/4 of Section 26 of T35N R15E.
(30)E 1/2 of Section 28 of T35N R15E.
(31)E 1/2 of NW 1/4 of Section 28 of T35N R15E.
(32)SW 1/4 of Section 32 of T35N R15E.
(33)E 1/2 of NW 1/4 of Section 32 of T35N R15E.
(34)W 1/2 of NE 1/4 of Section 32 of T35N R15E.
(35)NW 1/4 of Section 34 of T35N R15E.
(36)N 1/2 of SW 1/4 of Section 34 of T35N R15E.
(37)W 1/2 of NE 1/4 of Section 34 of T35N R15E.
(38)E 1/2 of Section 36 of T35N R15E.
(39)SW 1/4 of Section 36 of T35N R15E.
(40)S 1/2 of NW 1/4 of Section 36 of T35N R15E.
(41)S 1/2 of Section 24 of T35N R16E.
(42)N 1/2 of Section 26 of T35N R16E.
(43)SW 1/4 of Section 26 of T35N R16E.
(44)W 1/2 of SE 1/4 of Section 26 of T35N R16E.
(45)E 1/2 of SW 1/4 of Section 30 of T35N R16E.
(46)W 1/2 of SE 1/4 of Section 30 of T35N R16E.
(47)N 1/2 of Section 34 of T35N R16E. [FR Doc. E6-21523 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 721 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0795; FRL-8102-3] RIN 2070-AJ31 2,3,5,6-Tetrachloro-2,5-Cyclohexadiene-1,4-Dione; Proposed Significant New Use of a Chemical Substance; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is reopening the public comment period for a proposed significant new use rule
(SNUR)published in the **Federal Register** of May 12, 1993 (58 FR 27980) for the chemical chloranil (2,3,5,6-tetrachloro-2,5-cyclohexadiene-1,4-dione). EPA is planning to complete this rulemaking by issuing a final rule. Given the long period of time which has passed since EPA issued the proposed rule, EPA is reopening the comment period. This will provide an opportunity for commenters to update their comments and for additional commenters to contribute to the docket before EPA develops a final rule. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0795, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Hand Delivery* : OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0795. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is
(202)564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0795. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line 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 regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the 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 electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC). The 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 the EPA West Bldg., 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 of 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 website 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:* Dwain Winters, National Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)566-1977; e-mail address: *winters.dwain@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. What Action is the Agency Taking? With this document, EPA is reopening the comment period for a proposed SNUR that would require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing, for any use, of chloranil containing certain chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
(CDDs)and chlorinated dibenzofurans
(CDFs)in total combined amounts greater than 20 parts per billion (ppb). The chloranil CDD/CDF concentration would be calculated based on their toxicity equivalence
(TEQ)to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). EPA originally published the proposed chloranil SNUR in the **Federal Register** of May 12, 1993 (58 FR 27980). The 90-day notice required by the SNUR would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended new use and associated activities, and an opportunity to protect against unreasonable risks, if any, from CDD/ CDF exposure that could result from use of chloranil with higher CDD/CDF levels. Certain recordkeeping and certification requirements would also apply to manufacturers, importers, and processors of all chloranil, no matter what the level of CDD/CDF contamination. EPA indicated that it would not promulgate a final rule until after receiving data required under the dioxin furan test rule (40 CFR part 766). Reporting under the dioxin furan test rule has been completed and no chloranil dioxin levels reported were below 20 ppb TEQ. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 5(a)(2) of Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)(15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a Significant New Use Notice
(SNUN)to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)). The mechanism for reporting under this requirement is established under 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 12, 2006. Wendy Cleland Hamnett, Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. [FR Doc. E6-21495 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 799 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0073; FRL-8109-2] RIN 2070-AB79 Proposed Test Rule for Certain Chemicals on the ATSDR/EPA CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is hereby extending the comment period for a proposed rule issued on October 20, 2006 (71 FR 61926) (FRL-8081-3), to require testing for certain chemicals on the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)/EPA Priority List of Hazardous Substances to March 19, 2007. This extension is being made as a result of a request by a member of the public for additional time to submit comments. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 19, 2007. Your request to present oral comments must be in writing and must be received by EPA on or before March 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the **Federal Register** document of October 20, 2006. 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* : Robert W. Jones, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7405M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)564- 8161; e-mail address: *jones.robert@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document extends the public comment period established in the **Federal Register** issued on October 20, 2006 (71 FR 61926) (FRL-8081-3). In that document, EPA proposed to require testing for certain chemicals on the ATSDR/EPA Priority List of Hazardous Substances which is compiled under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and solicited proposals for enforceable consent agreements (ECAs). EPA proposed the test rule under section 4(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)that would require manufacturers (including importers) and processors of four chemical substances (chloroethane, hydrogen cyanide, methylene chloride, and sodium cyanide) to conduct testing for certain health effects relating to the manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of these substances. The data that would be obtained under the testing program are intended to be used to address health effects data needs identified by ATSDR and EPA for these substances, which are among the hazardous substances most frequently found at sites listed on the CERCLA National Priorities List
(NPL)and which are also hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs)under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA solicited proposals for ECAs involving the conduct of physiologically based pharmacokinetics
(PBPK)studies as an alternative to the testing proposed in the rule, as appropriate. Alternatively, if ECA proposals involving the conduct of PBPK studies are not received, or if received, are not considered by the Agency to be adequate, EPA may consider ECA proposals which cover some or all of the testing identified for a given chemical in this proposed rule. EPA is hereby extending the comment period on the proposed rule, which was set to end on December 19, 2006, to March 19, 2007. This extension is being made as a result of a request by a member of the public for additional time to submit comments. Please go to the proposed rule to review the details of the Agency's proposed action and follow the instructions provided in the proposed rule for how to comment. To view the electronic docket for this proposed rule and submit comments on-line, please go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . The docket identification number of this action is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0073. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 12, 2006. Susan B. Hazen, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics Substances. [FR Doc. E6-21494 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 697 [Docket No. 051129315-6314-02; I.D. 112505A] RIN 0648-AU07 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster Fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that it is considering and seeking public comment on the implementation of further minimum carapace length (gauge) increases, escape vent size increases, and trap reductions in the offshore American lobster fishery, consistent with recommendations for Federal action in the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster (ISFMP) and pending management actions of the Commission's American Lobster Management Board (Board). A similar announcement, published in the **Federal Register** on December 13, 2005, notified the public that NMFS was considering and requesting comment on gauge and escape vent size increases in multiple lobster conservation management areas (LCMAs). However, since the publication of that document, many LCMA-specific Commission recommendations were modified in response to information in an updated peer-reviewed stock assessment published January 2006. Subsequent Commission deliberations resulted in the Board making changes to the fishery management plan, adding and repealing measures, such that many of the newer plan elements focused primarily on LCMA 3. Some measures relevant to this action, still under Board consideration, are included within the scope of this rulemaking. Accordingly, NMFS announces that this present ANPR revises the December 13, 2005, ANPR and invites public comment on changes to the ISFMP, either formally approved by the Board or pending approval. Any repealed measures, having previously been raised in the December 13, 2005, ANPR, will remain within the scope of this present ANPR, although the Board's repeal is notable and NMFS invites comment on the Board's withdrawal of the measures. DATES: Comments must be received by January 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Harold Mears, Director, State, Federal and Constituent Programs Office, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to *Lob1106@noaa.gov* , via fax
(978)281-9117 or via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal at *www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Burns, Fishery Management Specialist,
(978)281-9144, fax
(978)281-9117, e-mail peter.burns@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of This ANPR With respect to the scope of this action, additional management measures are identified for LCMA 3 that have yet to be proposed or implemented by NMFS. These include: four additional 1/32 inch (0.08 centimeters (cm)) gauge increases that would result in a 3 1/2 inch (8.89-cm) minimum gauge size requirement for LCMA 3 by July 1, 2008; and escape vent size increases in LCMA 3 to 2 1/16 inches X 5 3/4 inches rectangular (5.24 cm X 14.61 cm) or two circular vents at 2 11/16 inches diameter (6.83 cm) by July 1, 2010. Additionally, NMFS also is considering a suite of trap reductions in LCMA 3. First, Addendum IV to Amendment 3 of the ISFMP calls for a 10-percent active trap reduction implemented over two consecutive years with a scheduled 5-percent reduction for 2007 and a 5-percent reduction in 2008. To address the need for further fishing mortality and fishing effort reductions in the offshore fishery as identified in the updated stock assessment released in 2005, the Board is developing an addendum to consider an additional 5-percent reduction in traps in LCMA 3 to be implemented as a 2.5-percent reduction each year for two consecutive years following the initial 10-percent active trap reduction. The two 2.5-percent reductions have not been included as part of the ISFMP, but are in an addendum being drafted for review by the Board, and consequently, NMFS includes this measure for public consideration. Table 1 illustrates the LCMA 3 gauge increases, escape vent size increases and the 10-percent trap reductions currently recommended in the ISFMP for Federal implementation. Also included in the table are the two additional 2.5-percent trap reductions for LCMA 3 pending Board adoption. Although not officially part of the ISFMP, these pending trap reductions are included within the scope of this ANPR because they are relevant to the 10-percent reductions already adopted into the ISFMP and recommended for Federal implementation. Several management measures previously included in the ISFMP and addressed in a previous NMFS ANPR, published in the **Federal Register** on December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73717) , have since been repealed by the Board based on an updated American lobster stock assessment approved in January 2006. The updated stock assessment indicated stable stock abundance for the Georges Bank and majority of the Gulf of Maine stocks. However, decreased stock abundance and recruitment due to high fishing mortality were evident in the assessment of the Southern New England stock and the statistical area 514 portion of the Gulf of Maine stock that includes Massachusetts Bay and Stellwagen Bank. Upon review of these findings, the Board determined that many of the additional gauge increases and escape vent size increases were not necessary for conservation and, with the exception for those in LCMA 3, were repealed. The repealed measures include the additional escape vent size increase for LCMA 1 (2 inches X 5 3/4 inches (5.08 cm X 14.61 cm) rectangular or 2 5/8 inches (6.67 cm) circular by 2008); in the Outer Cape Cod LCMA, four additional 1/32 inch-(0.08-cm) gauge increases up to 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm) by July 2008 and an escape vent increase to 2 1/16 inches X 5 3/4 inches (5.24 cm X 14.61 cm) rectangular or 2 11/16 inches (6.83 cm) circular by 2008. Recommendations for delay in the LCMA 3 escape vent size increase until 2010, is included in draft Addendum XI to Amendment 3 of the ISFMP, scheduled for Board review in January 2007. NMFS invites the public to comment on the revised management scenario and extends the scope of this ANPR to include the measures subsequently withdrawn by the Board as well, given their potential impacts on the resource and industry. Table 1. American Lobster ISFMP Gauge, Escape Vent and Trap Reduction Schedule for LCMA 3 and Corresponding Federal Action (Includes only the measures currently recommended in the ISFMP for Federal implementation and relevant trap reductions pending Board adoption). [Measurements are in inches] LCMA Addenda II-VIII gauge vent* trap reductions Current Federal Lobster Regulations gauge vent* This ANPR Considers gauge vent* trap reductions** LCMA3 3 3/8 July 2004 2 X 5 3/4 5% 3 3/8 2 X 5 3/4 3 13/32 2 1/16 X 5 3/4 5% 3 13/32 July 2005 rectangular in 2007 rectangular rectangular in 2007 3 7/16 July 2006 or or 3 7/16 or 3 15/32 July 2007 2 5/8 circular 5% 2 5/8 2 11/16 5% 3 1/2 July 2008 by 2004 in 2008 circular 3 15/32 circular in 2008 by 2010 2 1/16 X 5 3/4 3 1/2 2.5% rectangular by 2008 in 2009 or 2 11/16 circular 2.5% by 2008 in 2010 * All vent sizes include a rectangular and corresponding circular vent size. In all cases, each trap is required to have one rectangular vent or two circular vents at the sizes indicated. The ANPR considers a proposed action by the Board to postpone the escape vent increase for LCMA 3 until 2010. ** The two 5% trap reductions scheduled for 2007 and 2008 were established in Addendum IV; the two 2.5% reductions are being considered in this ANPR, concurrent with Board review. Background and Description of Relevant ISFMP Actions Addenda I through IX are part of an overall lobster fishery management regime set forth in Amendment 3 to the ISFMP. The intent of Amendment 3, approved by the Board in December 1997, is to achieve a healthy American lobster resource and to develop a management regime that provides for sustained harvest, maintains opportunities for participation, and provides for the cooperative development of conservation measures by all stakeholders. In short, Amendment 3 was envisioned to provide much of the framework upon which future lobster management - to be set forth in later addenda - would be based. In particular, Amendment 3 employed a participatory management approach by creating the seven lobster management areas, each with its own lobster conservation management team
(LCMT)comprised of industry members. Amendment 3 tasked the LCMTs with providing recommendations for area-specific management measures to the Board to meet the lobster egg production and effort reduction goals of the ISFMP. NMFS has the authority under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA) to implement regulations in Federal waters that are compatible with the effective implementation of the ISFMP and consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. These Federal regulations are promulgated pursuant to the ACFCMA and are codified at 50 CFR part 697. Addendum I to Amendment 3 focused largely on effort control measures. The Board approved Addendum I in August 1999, with NMFS promulgating compatible regulations on March 27, 2003 (68 FR 14902). This action, in part, established a limited access program in the lobster trap fishery in LCMAs 3, 4 and 5, based on historical participation and additional sliding scale trap reductions in LCMA 3 through 2006. The Board approved Amendment 3's egg production measures as Addenda II and III in February 2001 and February 2002, respectively, and recommended that NMFS implement complementary Federal regulations. In response, NMFS published a final rule on March 14, 2006 (71 FR 13027), implementing multiple management measures, including a gauge increase and escape vent size increase in all LCMAs, except LCMA 1, to 3 3/8 inches (8.57 cm) and 2 X 5 3/4 inches (5.08 X 14.61 cm), respectively. In December 2003, the Board approved Addendum IV which, in part, included additional egg production measures. One such measure, the sliding scale trap reduction plan, was adopted to facilitate additional active trap reductions in LCMA 3 by 10 percent by imposing a 5-percent trap reduction in both 2007 and 2008. The 10-percent trap reduction is part of the suite of measures considered in this ANPR. Addenda V and VI did not include any further measures pertinent to egg production and therefore, are not included within the scope of this ANPR but are being addressed in a separate rulemaking action. Addendum VII, approved by the Board in November 2005, facilitates effort control measures and constitutes a limited access program for the lobster trap fishery in the state waters of LCMA 2, based on historical participation, with recommendations for complementary actions in the Federal waters of LCMA 2. In approving Addendum VII, the Board opted not to continue with the previously adopted schedule of minimum carapace length increases up to 3 1/2 inches (8.89 cm) in LCMA 2 (Addendum III) and voted to maintain the minimum legal carapace length (gauge) at 3 3/8 inches (8.57 cm). Following the updated stock assessment results, at a meeting in May 2006, the Board rescinded gauge increases beyond 3 3/8 inches (8.57 cm), and a complementary escape vent increase in the Outer Cape LCMA, and an escape vent increase in LCMA 1. Addendum VIII, adopted by the Board in May 2006, established new data collection requirements and adopted new biological reference points to facilitate the assessment of the lobster resource. NMFS will address the data collection issue in a separate rulemaking outside the scope of this ANPR. Addendum IX, adopted by the Board in October 2006, will impose a 10-percent conservation tax on the sale of lobster traps in LCMA 2. Classification This ANPR has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 5101 *et seq.* Dated: December 11, 2006. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-21448 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 242 Monday, December 18, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 12, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Farm Service Agency *Title:* Certified Mediation Program. *OMB Control Number:* 0560-0165. *Summary of Collection:* The Farm Service Agency
(FSA)is amending its agricultural loan mediation regulations to implement the requirements of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (the 1994 Act) and the United States Grain Standards Act of 2000 (the Grain Standards Act). The regulation provides a mechanism to States to apply for and obtain matching funds grants from USDA. The grant funds help states supplement administrative operating funds needed to administer their agricultural mediation programs. FSA will collect information by mail, phone, fax, and in person. *Need and Use of the Information:* FSA will collect information to determine whether the State meets the eligibility criteria to be recipients of grant funds, and secondly, to determine if the grant is being administered as provided by the Act. *Description of Respondents:* State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 32. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 1024. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-21451 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0041] Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meeting and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are sponsoring a public meeting on January 23, 2007. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States positions that will be discussed at the Twentieth Session of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils
(CCFO)of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which will be held in London, United Kingdom, from February 19-23, 2007. The Under Secretary for Food Safety and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 20th Session of CCFO and to address items on the agenda. DATES: The public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 23, 2007 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in the rear of the Cafeteria, South Agriculture Building, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. Documents related to the 20th Session of the CCFO will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp* . The U.S. Delegate to the 20th Session of the CCFO, Dr. Dennis Keefe of FDA, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following e-mail address ( *Dennis.Keefe@fda.hhs.gov* ). Registration There is no need to pre-register for this meeting. To gain admittance to this meeting, individuals must present a photo ID for identification. When arriving for the meeting, please enter the South Building through the Second Wing entrance on “C” Street SW. *For Further Information About the 20th Session of the CCFO Contact:* Dr. Dennis Keefe, the U.S. Delegate to the 20th Session of the CCFO, FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:
(301)436-1284, Fax:
(301)436-2972. E-mail: *Dennis.Keefe@fda.hhs.gov* . *For Further Information About the Public Meeting Contact:* Amjad Ali, International Issues Analyst, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:
(202)205-7760, Fax:
(202)720-3157. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Codex Alimentarius (Codex) was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade. The Codex Committee on Fats and Oils was established to elaborate codes, standards and related texts for fats and oils. The Committee is hosted by the United Kingdom. Issues To Be Discussed at the Public Meeting The following items on the Agenda for the 20th Session of the Committee will be discussed during the public meeting: • Matters Referred to the Committee from the Other Codex Bodies. • Draft Standard for Fat Spreads and Blended Spreads: Section on Food Additives. • Draft Amendment to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: Inclusion of Rice Bran Oil. • Draft Amendment to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: Amendment to Total Carotenoids in Unbleached Palm Oil. • Code of Practice for Storage and Transport of Edible Fats and Oils in Bulk: Draft List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes. • Consideration of the Linolenic Acid Level in Section 3.9 of the Standard for Olive Oils and Olive Pomace Oils. • Consideration of Proposals for Amendments to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: Palm Kernel Stearin and Palm Kernel Olein. • Criteria for the Revision of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils. Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see ADDRESSES ). Public Meeting At the January 23, 2007 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described, discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 20th Session of CCFO, Dr. Dennis Keefe (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 20th Session of the CCFO. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2006_Notices_Index/* . FSIS also will make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/* . Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account. Done at Washington, DC on December 12, 2006. F. Edward Scarbrough, U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. [FR Doc. E6-21371 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review; Correction AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: This is a correction to the notice of *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 69543 (December 1, 2006). DATES: *Effective Date:* December 18, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-4697. Background On December 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** , the *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , for cases with December anniversary dates. In that notice the period of review listed for the following cases were incorrect. The correct periods of review are listed below. Period Countervailing Duty Proceedings INDIA: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products C-533-821 1/1/06-12/31/06 INDONESIA: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products C-560-813 1/1/06-12/31/06 This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community. Dated: December 12, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21510 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-849 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 10, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“CTL plate”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005. *See Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission, In Part, and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 45768 (August 10, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). Based upon our analysis of the comments received, as well as the hearing conducted, in this review, the Department continues to find that application of adverse facts available (“AFA”) is warranted with respect to China Metallurgical Import & Export Liaoning Company (“Liaoning Company”). The Department is also rescinding the administrative review with respect to Angang New Steel Co., Ltd. and Angang Group Hong Kong Co., Limited (collectively “Angang”), as its request for review was timely withdrawn in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). EFFECTIVE DATE: December 18, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanita H. Chen or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1904 or 202-482-4207, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 22, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review of the antidumping order on CTL plate from the PRC for the period November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005, covering Liaoning Company and Angang. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 76024 (December 22, 2005). On August 10, 2006, the Department published its *Preliminary Results* in this administrative review, preliminarily applying AFA to Liaoning Company and preliminarily rescinding the review of Angang. In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department also provided interested parties an opportunity to comment and request a hearing on the *Preliminary Results* . On September 11, 2006, importer Marubeni-Itochu Steel America Inc. (“MISA”) filed a notice of appearance in the proceeding, submitted a case brief and requested a hearing. On September 18, 2006, the Department received rebuttal briefs from petitioner Nucor Corporation and interested party domestic producer IPSCO Steel Inc. The Department held a public hearing on October 26, 2006. See transcript “In the Matter of: Cut to Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Peoples Republic of China” (October 26, 2006). Period of Review The period of review (“POR”) is November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot-rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in this order are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”) - for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order is grade X-70 plate. Also excluded from this order is certain carbon cut-to-length steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EM, and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and 2. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. Partial Rescission of Review In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to Angang, which timely withdrew its request for administrative review within the extended time limit granted by the Department. On May 15, 2006, notwithstanding its withdrawal of its request for review, Angang filed a letter to the Department requesting that the Department issue specific liquidation instructions on one of its shipments made during the POR. Since the issuance of the *Preliminary Results* , no party has demonstrated that the review should not be rescinded with respect to Angang. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.213(d)(1), the Department “will rescind an administrative review” if the review request is withdrawn in a timely manner and no other party requested a review. Accordingly, as Angang's withdrawal was timely and no other party requested a review for Angang, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Angang. Analysis of Comments Received On September 11, 2006, importer MISA requested a hearing on the Department's decision not to issue liquidation instructions as requested by Angang. The issue raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded is addressed in the Issue and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated December 8, 2006, which is adopted herein, by reference (“Issue and Decision Memorandum”). The Issue and Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building and may be accessed on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issue and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since The Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, the Department has made no changes to the *Preliminary Results* . Facts Available In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department found that Liaoning Company did not demonstrate that it was entitled to a separate rate because the information it provided was incomplete and unreliable. For these final results, the Department continues to find that, because Liaoning Company did not demonstrate its eligibility for separate-rate status, it is part of the PRC-wide entity. In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department based the margin for the PRC-wide entity, including Liaoning Company, on total AFA based on the PRC-wide entity's failure to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability in providing the requested information. *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR 45768, 45770-45771 (August 10, 2006). The Department continues to find, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), that it is appropriate to continue to apply total AFA to the PRC-wide entity, including Liaoning Company, as it failed to provide the requested information. For these final results, we continue to find that as AFA, the prior PRC-wide entity rate of 128.59 percent continues to be appropriate. A complete explanation of the selection, corroboration, and application of the AFA rate can be found in the *Preliminary Results* . *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR 45768. The Department did not receive comments with regard to its preliminary findings for Liaoning Company as part of the PRC-wide entity. Further, no information was submitted since the *Preliminary Results* that calls into question the reliability of the Department's selection, corroboration, and application of AFA in this review. Accordingly, for the final results, we continue to apply AFA as noted above and in our *Preliminary Results* . Final Results of Review As a result of this review, the Department determines that the weighted-average dumping margin of 128.59 percent exists for the PRC-wide entity, which includes Liaoning Company, for the period November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of administrative review for all shipments of CTL plate from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not subject to this review that have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent proceeding;
(2)for all other PRC exporters, including Liaoning Company, the cash-deposit rate will be 128.59 percent ( *i.e.* the PRC-wide rate); and
(3)for all other non-PRC exporters, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Assessment Rates The Department intends to issue assessment instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of administrative review. Because Liaoning Company is part of the PRC-wide entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate its entries of subject merchandise at 128.59 percent, the PRC-wide rate. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with ections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, as well as 19 C.F.R. 351.221(b)(4) and 19 C.F.R. 51.213(d)(4). Dated: December 8, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21521 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-489-807) Notice of Amended Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 18, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0656 or
(202)482-0498, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on November 7, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative review on steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey. * See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part * , 71 FR 65082 (Nov. 7, 2006) ( *Final Results* ). On November 13, 2006, we received allegations, timely filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), from Colakoglu Metalurji, A.S. (Colakoglu) and Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S./Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. (Ekinciler), that the Department made ministerial errors in its final results. On November 20, 2006, we received comments from the petitioners ( *i.e.* , Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial Metals Company, and Nucor Corporation) rebutting these allegations. After analyzing the submissions on this topic, filed by Ekinciler, Colakoglu, and the petitioners, we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made a ministerial error in our calculations performed for the final results for only one of the two respondents ( *i.e.* , Ekinciler). Specifically, we intended to calculate general and administrative (G&A) expenses and financial expenses by: 1) determining the appropriate ratios; and 2) applying them to the total cost of manufacturing originally reported by Ekinciler. However, we inadvertently included certain unrecognized depreciation expenses in the total costs to which the ratios were applied, thereby overstating the G&A and financial expenses. Correcting this error resulted in a revised margin for Ekinciler. For a detailed discussion of the ministerial error noted above, the remaining ministerial error allegations, and the Department's analysis, see the December 12, 2006, memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, from the Team entitled “Ministerial Error Allegations in the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey.” Amended Final Results of Review After analyzing all interested parties' comments and rebuttal comments, we have determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that the Department has made a ministerial error in the final results calculation for Ekinciler in this administrative review. Therefore, we are amending the final results of administrative review of rebar from Turkey for the period April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005. As a result of correcting the ministerial error discussed above, Ekinciler's weighted-average dumping margin decreased from 8.59 to 3.16 percent. For the remaining respondents, the weighted-average dumping margins remain the same. *See Final Results* . Duty Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these amended final results of review. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these amended final results of the administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these amended final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act:
(1)for subject merchandise exported by Ekinciler the cash deposit rate will be 3.16 percent;
(2)for Colakolgu the cash deposit rate will remain as established in the *Final Results* . These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 12, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21520 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket Number: 061208325-6325-01] Announcement of Funding Opportunity for Social Science Fellowships in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System AGENCY: Estuarine Reserves Division (ERD), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Announcement of Funding Opportunity for Social Science Fellowships in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. SUMMARY: NOAA's Estuarine Reserves Division, in collaboration with NOAA's Coastal Services Center and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, Climate Program Office, are offering five fellowships for masters and doctoral students to conduct social science research within the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Funds will be provided to support research projects that will provide information needed by reserve management and coastal management decision-makers, and improve public awareness and understanding of estuarine ecosystems and estuarine management issues (15 CFR 921.50). The amount of each fellowship is $30,000; at least 30% of total project cost match is required by the applicant (i.e. $12,858 match for $30,000 in federal funds for a total project cost of $42,858). Minority students are encouraged to apply. For detailed descriptions of the reserves and to view the full funding opportunity, refer to the NERRS Web site at *http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov* or contact the program staff listed in this announcement. DATES: Applicants should submit application materials through *http://www.Grants.gov* no later than 11 p.m.
(EST)on February 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: The full funding announcement is available via the grants.gov Web site at *http://www.grants.gov;* via the NERRS Web site at *http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/fellowship;* or by contacting the program officials identified below. Applicants must comply with all requirements contained in the full funding opportunity announcement. Applications preferably should be submitted electronically at *http://www.grants.gov.* If a paper application is submitted, one original and 4 copies may be submitted to Attn: Erica Seiden, NOAA's Estuarine Reserves Division, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM5, SSMC4, Station 10542, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and received by 11 p.m.
(EST)on February 1, 2007. Any proposals received outside of the above requirements will be sent back to the applicant without review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erica Seiden, ERD, at 301-563-1172 or via the Internet at *erica.seiden@noaa.gov;* or Patricia Delgado, ERD, at 301-563-1147 or via the Internet at *patricia.delgado@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary Description The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) consists of estuarine areas of the United States and its territories which are designated and managed for research and educational purposes. Each reserve within the system is chosen to reflect regional differences and to include a variety of ecosystem types in accordance with the classification scheme of the national program as presented in 15 CFR 921. Each reserve supports a wide range of beneficial uses of ecological, economic, recreational, and aesthetic values which are dependent upon the maintenance of a healthy ecosystem. The sites provide habitats for a wide range of ecologically and commercially important species of fish, shellfish, birds, and other aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Each reserve has been designed to ensure its effectiveness as a conservation unit and as a site for long-term research and monitoring. As part of a national system, the reserves collectively provide an excellent opportunity to address research questions and estuarine management issues of national significance. NOAA's Estuarine Reserves Division, in collaboration with NOAA's Coastal Services Center and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, Climate Program Office, are offering fellowships for masters and doctoral students to conduct social science research within the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. For detailed descriptions of the reserves and to view the full funding opportunity, refer to the NERRS Web site at *http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov* or contact the program staff listed in this announcement. Funds will be provided to support social science research projects that will provide information needed by reserve management and coastal management decision-makers, and improve public awareness and understanding of estuarine ecosystems and estuarine management issues 15 CFR 921.50. All projects must be focused on a National Estuarine Research Reserve. Proposals submitted in response to this announcement should address social, cultural, economic, or policy aspects related to one of the following topics: Community resilience (e.g., individual and community vulnerability; resistance, response, and adaptability to continuous or episodic natural and anthropogenic stressors; risk perception); Ecological restoration (e.g., human behaviors; advocacy and volunteerism; responses to social and ecological change; personal and societal value orientations); Ecosystem-based management (e.g., collaborative decision-making; motivations or preferences for resource uses or management practices; ways in which people affect or are affected by natural resource management decisions; cultural history); Landscape or seascape change (e.g., current or potential effects on or threats to the traits, patterns, or structure of a specific geographic area of the terrestrial or aquatic environment, including its biological, physical, and anthropogenic attributes; population and demographic change; coastal urbanization and habitat fragmentation); or Climate variability and change (e.g., sea level rise; extreme weather events; seasonal or interannual climate fluctuations; effects on water resources, living marine resources, agricultural productivity, delivery of ecosystem services, or public health and safety). Funding Availability Funding is dependent upon FY2007 appropriations. NOAA's Estuarine Reserves Division anticipates that 5 fellowships will be competitively awarded to provide funding to qualified graduate students whose research applies to the research focus areas above at the reserves specified in the full funding opportunity. Minority students are encouraged to apply. The amount of the fellowship is $30,000 for 18 months; at least 30% of total project cost match is required by the applicant (i.e. $12,858 match for $30,000 in federal funds for a total project cost of $42,858). At least one fellowship will be awarded for a proposal addressing climate variability and change. Statutory Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1461 *CFDA:* 11.420, National Estuarine Research Reserve Program. Eligibility Applicants must be admitted to or enrolled in a full-time masters or doctoral program at a U.S. accredited university in order to be eligible to apply. Applicants should have completed a majority of their graduate course work at the beginning of their fellowship and have an approved thesis research program. Grants are normally distributed to the graduate student's institution. Institutions eligible to receive awards include institutions of higher education, other non-profits, commercial organizations, international organizations, as well as state, local and Indian tribal governments. All reserve staff are ineligible to submit an application for a fellowship under this announcement. Funds are expected to be available on a competitive basis to qualified graduate students for research focused on a reserve(s) leading to a graduate degree. Cost Sharing Requirements Requested federal funds *must* be matched by at least 30 percent of the *TOTAL cost, not the Federal share, of the project* (i.e. $12,858 match for $30,000 in federal funds for a total project cost of $42,858). Requested overhead costs under fellowship awards are limited to 10% of the federal amount. Waived institutional overhead costs may be used as match. Intergovernmental Review Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” Proposal Review and Selection Process Once a full proposal has been received by NOAA an initial administrative review is conducted to determine compliance with requirements and completeness of the application. All proposals will be evaluated for scientific merit by no less than three reviewers from the scientific community. If any of these three reviewers are non-Federal employees, consensus advice regarding the proposals will not be given. The Estuarine Reserve Division, in collaboration with NOAA's Coastal Services Center and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, will oversee the review process. Efforts are taken to ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided. It is permissible for applicants to suggest those people whom they feel would have a conflict of interest and therefore not appropriate to review their proposal. The merit reviewer's ratings are used to produce a rank order of the proposals. The Selecting Official shall award in the rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one of the selection factors identified below. The Selecting Official makes final recommendations for award to the Grants Officer who is authorized to obligate the funds and execute awards. Evaluation Criteria Applicants do not need to address Evaluation Criteria Nos. 4 and 5 in order to have a full proposal. 1. Academic record and statement of career goals and objectives of student (10 percent) 2. Quality of project and applicability to program priorities (80 percent) 3. Recommendations and/or endorsements of student (10 percent) 4. Additional relevant experience (0 percent) 5. Financial need of student (0 percent) Selection Factors for Fellowship/Scholarships/Internships 1. Balance/Distribution of funds: a. Academic disciplines b. Types of institutions c. Geography 2. Availability of funds 3. Program-specific objectives—These are found in the Full Funding Opportunity Announcement in sections I.A and B. 4. Degree in scientific area and type of degree sought Further details on evaluation and selection criteria and procedures applicable to this notice can be found in the full funding opportunity announcement available through *http://www.grants.gov* and on the NERRS Web site *http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/fellowship* . National Environmental Policy Act NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA Web site: *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/* , including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf* , and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, *http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm* . Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems). In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying and implementing feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for the denial of an application. Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) are applicable to this solicitation. Limitation of Liability In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this initiative fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Recipients and sub-recipients are subject to all Federal laws, agency policies, regulations and procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards. Paperwork Reduction Act This notification involves collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under OMB control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046 and 0605-0001 respectively. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Executive Order 12866 It has been determined that this notice is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Dated: December 12, 2006. David M. Kennedy, Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21450 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 112206A] Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: NMFS announces Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops to be held in January, February, and March of 2007. Additional workshops will be held throughout 2007 and will be scheduled at a later date. The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. As of December 31, 2007, an Atlantic shark dealer may not receive, purchase, trade, or barter for Atlantic shark unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit. Additionally, after December 31, 2007, Atlantic shark dealers may not renew a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held throughout 2007, at no charge to the participant. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use bottom longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet gear, and have also been issued shark or swordfish limited access permits. Vessel owners and operators whose permits expire in January, February, or March 2007 must attend one of these free workshops in order to renew their permit. DATES: The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on January 26, February 22, and March 16, 2007. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on January 8, 12, and 24, February 1, 22, and 27, and on March 7, 15, and 21, 2007. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details. ADDRESSES: The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Madeira Beach, FL; Dania Beach, FL; and Manahawkin, NJ. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Coconut Grove, FL; Charleston, SC; Providence, RI; Ft. Pierce, FL; Houston, TX; Panama City, FL; Dedham, MA; St. Petersburg, FL; and Ronkonkoma, NY. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details on workshop locations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding workshop requirements, contact Greg Fairclough by phone:(727) 824-5399, or by fax:
(727)824-5398. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 2, 2006, NMFS published a final rule (71 FR 58057) that, among other things, requires certain dealers and fishermen to attend mandatory workshops prior to renewing their permits. Shark Identification Workshops for Dealers Effective December 31, 2007, an Atlantic shark dealer may not receive, purchase, trade, or barter for Atlantic shark unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit. Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop will be issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. Dealers may send a proxy to a Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, however, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who: is currently employed by a place of business listed on the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and fills out dealer reports. Additionally, after December 31, 2007, an Atlantic shark dealer may not renew a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops Effective January 1, 2007, shark limited access and swordfish limited access permit holders must submit a copy of their Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit. As such, vessel owners whose permits expire in early 2007 must attend one of the free workshops offered in January, February, or March 2007. New shark and swordfish limited access permit applicants must attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and must submit a copy of their workshop certificate before such permits will be issued. In addition to owners, all longline and gillnet vessel operators fishing with a limited access swordfish or limited access shark permit are required to attend the Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops. Vessels that have been issued a limited access swordfish or limited access shark permit may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates. Vessel operators must possess on board the vessel valid workshop certificates for both the vessel owner and the operator at all times. Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations Additional workshops will be scheduled throughout the year. Fishermen should try to go to workshops that are close to the expiration date of their permit. Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops 1. January 26, 2007 from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. Madeira Beach Town Hall, 300 Municipal Drive, Madeira Beach, FL 33708. 2. February 22, 2007 from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center, 8000 North Ocean Drive, Dania Beach, FL 33004. The Park entrance fee will be waived for participants attending the workshop at the university. 3. March 16, 2007 from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. Ocean County Library (Stafford Branch), 129 North Main Street, Manahawkin, NJ 08050. Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops 1. January 8, 2007 from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Hampton Inn Coconut Grove, 2800 SW 28th Terrace, Coconut Grove, FL 33133. 2. January 12, 2007 from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Town & Country Inn & Conference Center, 2008 Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC 29407. 3. January 24, 2007 from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Hotel Providence, 311 Westminster Street, Providence, RI 02903. 4. February 1, 2007 from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Hampton Inn & Suites, 1985 Reynolds Drive, Ft. Pierce, FL 34945. 5. February 22, 2007 from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Hampton Inn, 8620 Airport Blvd., Houston, TX 77061. 6. February 27, 2007 from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Hilton Garden Inn, 1101 U.S. Highway 231, Panama City, FL 32405. 7. March 7, 2007 from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Holiday Inn, Dedham, 55 Ariadne Road, Dedham, MA 02026. 8. March 15, 2007 from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Hilton, St. Petersburg Bayfront, 333 First Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 9. March 21, 2007 from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Hilton Garden Inn, Islip MacArthur Airport, 3485 Veterans Memorial Highway, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779. Registration The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the internet at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/workshops/* . To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander by email at *esander@peoplepc.com* or by phone at
(386)852-8588. To register for a scheduled Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Aquatic Release Conservation ((877) 411-4272), 1870 Mason Ave., Daytona Beach, FL 32117. Grandfathered Permit Holders Participants in the industry-sponsored workshops on safe handling and release of sea turtles that were held in Orlando, FL (April 8, 2005) and in New Orleans, LA (June 27, 2005) will be issued a workshop certificate in December 2006 that will be valid for three years. Grandfathered permit holders must include a copy of this certificate when renewing limited access shark and limited access swordfish permits each year. Failure to provide a valid workshop certificate may result in a permit denial. Registration Materials To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following items with them to the workshop: Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification. Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the shark dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the Atlantic shark dealer, a copy of the appropriate permit, and proof of identification. Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification. Representatives of a business owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit(s), and proof of identification. Vessel operators must bring proof of identification. Workshop Objectives The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish. Identification of protected species will also be taught at these workshops in an effort to improve reporting. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal for these workshops is to provide participants the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 *et seq.* and 1801 *et seq.* Dated: December 12, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-9755 Filed 12-13-06; 3:25 pm]
Connectionstraces to 33
Traces to 33 documents
register
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Definitions§ 601
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Purposes§ 3501
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- State implementation plans for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards§ 7410
- Manufacturing and processing notices§ 2604
- Findings and purpose§ 5101
- National Estuarine Research Reserve System§ 1461
- Rule making§ 553
- Definitions§ 971
CFR
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Applicability.§ 71.1
- Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.§ 52.21
- Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.§ 51.166
- Identification of plan.§ 52.1470
- Actions under section 301(d)(4) authority.§ 49.11
- Significant deterioration of air quality.§ 52.2581
- What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes?§ 121.201
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- Review procedures.§ 351.221
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- General.§ 921.50
19 references not yet in our index
- 14 CFR 39
- 14 CFR 71
- 40 CFR 52
- 413 F.3d 3
- 40 CFR 2
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 CFR 51
- 40 CFR 60
- 230 F.3d 181
- 151 F.3d 1205
- 40 CFR 9
- Pub. L. 104-113
- 40 CFR 721
- 40 CFR 766
- 40 CFR 799
- 50 CFR 697
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 19 CFR 51.213(d)(4)
- 15 CFR 921
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Cites 52 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources