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

Code · REGISTER · 2006-12-28 · Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final regulations

59,442 words·~270 min read·/register/2006/12/28/06-9906

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

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 300 [TD 9306] RIN 1545-BF69 User Fees for Processing Installment Agreements AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains amendments to the regulations relating to user fees for installment agreements. The amendments update the fees to reflect the actual costs of the services provided and create an exception to the increased fee for entering into installment agreements for low-income taxpayers.
The amendments affect taxpayers who wish to pay their liabilities through installment agreements. DATES: *Effective Date:* These regulations are effective on December 28, 2006. *Applicability Date:* These regulations apply to installment agreements entered into, restructured, or reinstated on or after January 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning cost methodology, Eva Williams, 202-435-5514; concerning the regulations, William Beard, 202-622-3620 (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 300. On August 30, 2006, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-148576-05) relating to the user fees charged for processing installment agreements was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 51538). The charging of user fees implements the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA), which is codified at 31 U.S.C. 9701. The notice of proposed rulemaking proposed an increase in the amount of the user fees to reflect the full cost of the service provided, as directed by OMB Circular A-25, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993) (the OMB Circular).
The notice of proposed rulemaking proposed to increase the fee under § 300.1 for entering into an installment agreement from $43 to $105 and to increase the fee under § 300.2 for restructuring an installment agreement from $24 to $45. The notice of proposed rulemaking also proposed an exception to the full-cost requirement in cases where the taxpayer chooses to pay by way of a direct debit from the taxpayer's bank account. The OMB Circular allows the Office of Management and Budget to grant a waiver of the full cost requirement and, pursuant to such a waiver, the proposed fee for entering into a direct-debit agreement was $52 to encourage this type of payment.
No public hearing on the notice of proposed rulemaking was held because no one requested to speak. Eight comments were received. After consideration of all the comments, this Treasury decision adopts the proposed regulations with the following change: the fee for entering into an installment agreement will remain $43 for low-income taxpayers, that is, taxpayers whose incomes fall at or below 250% of the dollar criteria established by the poverty guidelines updated annually in the **Federal Register** by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services or such other measure as the Secretary may adopt. The IRS sought and received an additional waiver from OMB to charge less than full cost to low-income taxpayers. Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions Of the eight comments on the proposed regulations, five stated that the increased fees would have an adverse impact on low-income taxpayers. Other commentators stated that many low-income taxpayers do not have bank accounts and cannot take advantage of the reduced fee for direct-debit installment agreements.
To accommodate these concerns, the final regulations except low-income taxpayers from the increase of the fee for entering into an installment agreement. Therefore the fee for entering into an installment agreement remains $43 for low-income taxpayers, that is, taxpayers whose income fall at or below 250% of the dollar poverty criteria established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The exception does not apply to the fee for restructuring or reinstating an installment agreement.
Other commentators recommended that the installment agreement user fee be reduced for any taxpayer who requests an agreement on-line (over the internet). Under the IOAA, user fees should be fair and based on the costs to the government, the value of the service to the recipient, and the public policy or interest served. No exception was created for installment agreements requested on-line because the benefit of the installment agreement program to the taxpayer does not change depending on the how the installment agreement is requested, the convenience of on-line requests provides ample incentive for this type of application for taxpayers who have internet access, and taxpayers who do not have internet access could not take advantage of the lower fee.
The IRS intends to consider a cost methodology for installment agreement user fees that reflects cost differences attributable to various types of installment agreements, as well as whether additional exceptions to full cost are warranted. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. This certification is based on the information that follows. The economic impact of these regulations on any small entity would result from the entity being required to pay a fee prescribed by these regulations in order to obtain a particular service. The dollar amount of the fee is not, however, substantial enough to have a significant economic impact on any entity subject to the fee. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Although the Administrative Procedures Act prescribes a thirty-day waiting period between the date of publication in the **Federal Register** and the applicability date, this regulation is being made applicable after a shorter period under the authority provided by section 7805(b)(1)(B). Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is William Beard, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), Collection, Bankruptcy and Summonses Division.
Lists of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 300 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, User fees. Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: PART 300—USER FEES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701. **Par. 2.** Section 300.0 is amended by revising paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 300.0 User fees; in general.
(c)*Effective date.* This part 300 is applicable March 16, 1995, except that the user fee for processing offers in compromise is applicable November 1, 2003; the user fee for the special enrollment examination, enrollment, and renewal of enrollment for enrolled agents is applicable November 6, 2006; the user fee for entering into installment agreements on or after January 1, 2007, is applicable January 1, 2007; and the user fee for restructuring or reinstatement of an installment agreement on or after January 1, 2007, is applicable January 1, 2007. **Par. 3.** Section 300.1 is amended by revising paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 300.1 Installment agreement fee.
(b)*Fee.* The fee for entering into an installment agreement before January 1, 2007, is $43. The fee for entering into an installment agreement on or after January 1, 2007, is $105, except that:
(1)The fee is $52 when the taxpayer pays by way of a direct debit from the taxpayer's bank account; and
(2)Notwithstanding the method of payment, the fee is $43 if the taxpayer is a low-income taxpayer, that is, an individual who falls at or below 250% of the dollar criteria established by the poverty guidelines updated annually in the **Federal Register** by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under authority of section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (95 Stat. 357, 511), or such other measure that is adopted by the Secretary. **Par. 4.** Section 300.2 is amended by revising paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 300.2 Restructuring or reinstatement of installment agreement fee.
(b)*Fee.* The fee for restructuring or reinstating an installment agreement before January 1, 2007, is $24. The fee for restructuring or reinstating an installment agreement on or after January 1, 2007, is $45. Kevin M. Brown, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: December 21, 2006. Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E6-22257 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Parts 674, 682 and 685 RIN 1840-AC88 Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education. ACTION: Interim final regulations, request for comments. SUMMARY: The Secretary is amending the Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan) Program, Federal Family Education Loan
(FFEL)Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program regulations to implement the changes to the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), resulting from the enactment of the Third Higher Education Extension Act of 2006 (THEEA), Public Law 109-292. These interim final regulations reflect the provisions of the THEEA that authorize the discharge of the outstanding balance of certain Perkins, FFEL, and Direct Loan Program loans for survivors of eligible public servants and other eligible victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. DATES: *Effective Date:* These interim final regulations are effective January 29, 2007. *Comment date:* The Department must receive any comments on or before January 29, 2007. *Information collection compliance date:* Affected parties do not have to comply with the information collection requirements in §§ 674.64, 682.407, and 685.218 until the Department publishes in the **Federal Register** the control numbers assigned by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to these information collection requirements. Publication of the control numbers notifies the public that OMB has approved these information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these interim final regulations to Mr. Brian Smith, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone:
(202)502-7551 or via the Internet at: *Brian.Smith@ed.gov.* If you prefer to deliver your comments by hand or by using a courier service or commercial carrier, address your comments to: Mr. Brian Smith, 1990 K Street, NW., room 8082, Washington, DC 20006-8542. If you prefer to send your comments through the Internet, you may address them to us at: *DischargeComments@ed.gov.* Or you may send them to us at the U.S. Government Web site: *http://www.regulations.gov.* You must include the term “Discharge Interim Final Comments” in the subject line of your electronic message. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For provisions related to the FFEL and Federal Perkins Loan Programs: Mr. Brian Smith, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone:
(202)502-7551 or via the Internet at: *Brian.Smith@ed.gov.* For provisions related to the Federal Direct Loan Program: Mr. Jon Utz, U.S. Department of Education, Union Center Plaza, 830 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20202-5345. Telephone:
(202)377-4008 or via the Internet at: *Jon.Utz@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 30, 2006, Congress enacted the THEEA, Public Law 109-292. The changes made by the THEEA include: • Restrictions on the use of eligible lender trustees by higher education institutions that make FFEL Loans. Under the THEEA, as of January 1, 2007, the FFEL lending activities of institutions of higher education and organizations affiliated with institutions of higher education through eligible lender trustee arrangements will be subject to certain restrictions that apply to institutions of higher education acting as lenders directly in the FFEL Program; • New discharge provisions for Title IV, HEA student loans for the survivors of eligible public servants and certain other eligible victims of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001; • A technical modification to the HEA provision governing account maintenance fees that are paid to guaranty agencies in the FFEL Program; and • Modifications to the requirements for an institution to receive a grant under the Hispanic Serving Institutions Program authorized by Title V of the HEA. These interim final regulations implement only the statutory changes in section 6 of the THEEA that establish new discharges in the Title IV, HEA student loan programs for the survivors of victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Significant Regulations Discharge of Student Loan Indebtedness for Survivors of Victims of the September 11, 2001, Attacks (§§ 674.64, 682.407, and 685.218) *Statute:* Section 6 of the THEEA amended the HEA by authorizing the discharge of the obligation of a borrower to make further payments on an eligible Perkins, FFEL or Direct Loan if the borrower is a survivor of an eligible public servant or other eligible victim of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The discharge is authorized only for a Perkins, FFEL or Direct Loan on which amounts were owed on September 11, 2001, or Consolidation Loans incurred to pay off loan amounts that were owed on September 11, 2001. Amounts must still be owed on the loan on the day the discharge is requested. The THEEA does not authorize a refund of payments made by a borrower prior to the date the loan is discharged. *Current Regulations:* The current Perkins, FFEL, and Direct Loan Program regulations do not reflect the new loan discharge provisions for survivors of eligible public servants and other eligible victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. *New Regulations:* New §§ 674.64, 682.407, and 685.218 have been added to the Perkins, FFEL, and Direct Loan Program regulations, respectively, to reflect the THEEA provisions authorizing a loan discharge for survivors of eligible public servants and other eligible victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. For the purpose of this new loan discharge, an *eligible public servant* is defined in the program regulations as an individual who served as a police officer, firefighter, other safety or rescue personnel, or as a member of the Armed Forces who died or became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The term *eligible victim* is defined as an individual who died or became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The interim final regulations specify, consistent with section 6(b) of the THEEA, that the survivor of an eligible public servant can qualify for loan discharge, including the discharge of any portion of a joint Consolidation Loan that was used to repay the spouse's Title IV, student loan, only if the survivor is the spouse of the eligible public servant. The interim final regulations, consistent with section 6(b)(1)(B), (C), and
(D)of the THEEA, also authorize loan discharge for spouses and eligible parents of eligible victims (other than public servants). An *eligible parent* is defined as the parent of an eligible victim if the parent owes a parent PLUS Loan incurred on behalf of that eligible victim, or owes a Consolidation Loan that repaid a parent PLUS Loan incurred on behalf of that eligible victim. For spouses of eligible victims other than eligible public servants, the interim final regulations provide, consistent with section 6(b)(1)(B) of the THEEA, for the discharge of the portion of a joint Consolidation Loan that was incurred on behalf of the eligible victim. To qualify for a discharge, in the case of a discharge based on the permanent and total disability of the eligible public servant or the eligible victim, the borrower and the public servant or victim must still be married. In the case of a discharge based on the death of the eligible public servant or eligible victim, the borrower must have been married to the public servant or the victim until the death of the public servant or the victim. For purposes of Federal law, the term “spouse” is defined in 1 U.S.C. 7 and does not include an ex-spouse. Thus, the THEEA does not give the Secretary the authority to provide for a loan discharge for an ex-spouse. The interim final regulations also provide for the discharge of a parent borrower's PLUS Loan (or the portion of a Consolidation Loan that repaid a PLUS Loan) in the event of the death of the eligible victim on whose behalf the PLUS Loan was obtained. Finally, the interim final regulations provide for a discharge of a PLUS Loan (or the portion of a Consolidation Loan that repaid a PLUS Loan) obtained on behalf of an eligible victim who became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. As required by the THEEA, the interim final regulations establish procedures for filing applications for discharges by eligible borrowers. The interim final regulations provide that a borrower's eligibility for a loan discharge will be determined by the holder of the loan: The lender or guarantor for an FFEL Loan; the institution that made the loan for a Perkins Loan; and the Secretary for a Direct Loan. The borrower must use an application approved by the Secretary and provide the documentation required by the interim final regulations. The regulations require three types of documentation to support a claim that an individual is an eligible public servant or an eligible victim: • Documentation of the individual's presence at one of the sites of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; • In the case of an eligible public servant, documentation of the individual's status as a public servant at the time of the attacks; and • Documentation that the individual's death or permanent and total disability was a direct result of the attacks. Documentation of an individual's status as a public servant is provided by a certification from an authorized official that the borrower was a member of the Armed Forces, or was employed as a police officer, firefighter, or other safety or rescue personnel at one of the sites of the terrorist attacks on September 11. This certification is also used to document that the individual was present at one of the sites. For an eligible victim, a certification that the individual was present at one of the sites must be provided. Under the interim final regulations, documentation of the permanent and total disability of an eligible victim or an eligible public servant must include copies of contemporaneous medical records demonstrating that the victim was treated within 24 hours of the borrower sustaining the injury, or 24 hours of the borrower being rescued. The injury must have been sustained at the time or in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. In addition, the borrower must provide a certification from a physician that the borrower is permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Documentation of the death of an eligible victim or an eligible public servant is provided by the inclusion of the individual on an official list of individuals who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. If the individual didn't die in the attacks, but died later as result of the attacks, documentation requirements include an original or certified copy of the individual's death certificate, and a certification from a physician or medical examiner that the individual died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. In some cases, substitutions for the documentation discussed above may be used. For example, documentation that an individual's Title IV loans were discharged due to death may be used in lieu of an original or certified copy of a death certificate. The documentation required by the interim final regulations is necessary to limit the discharge to individuals who meet the statutory eligibility criteria for the discharge. Contemporaneous medical records are necessary to ensure that the individual was injured in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. A certification from a physician that the borrower is permanently and totally disabled as a result of that injury is necessary to ensure that the disability is a result of the terrorist attacks. Although the documentation requirements for the September 11 survivor's discharge require eligibility of the public servant or the victim, the September 11 survivor's discharge under the THEEA is available only to the spouse or parent of the eligible public servant or the eligible victim. An eligible public servant or an eligible victim is not eligible for a loan discharge under these interim final regulations. A determination by a loan holder that an eligible public servant or an eligible victim is permanently and totally disabled for the purpose of discharging a spouse's or parent's loans does not qualify the eligible public servant or the eligible victim for a total and permanent disability discharge on his or her loans. To obtain a total and permanent disability discharge, an eligible public servant or an eligible victim must apply for a total and permanent disability discharge under the current procedures in §§ 674.61, 682.402, 685.212, and 685.213. Under those regulations, a borrower who qualifies for a discharge based on a total and permanent disability may be entitled to receive a refund of payments made after the date of disability. Consistent with section 6(e) of the THEEA, a discharge under the interim final regulations provides a discharge only of the outstanding balance of the loan and no refunds are authorized. In developing these interim final regulations, we relied on the definitions of *immediate aftermath* and *present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site* contained in the regulations promulgated to administer the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 (the Fund). See 24 CFR Part 104; 66 FR 66273 (Dec. 21, 2001); 67 FR 11233 (March 13, 2002). The documentation required to show that an eligible victim or public servant died or became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 closely parallels the documentation required under the Fund regulations. The Fund was created under Title IV of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Public Law 107-42, which authorized compensation to any individual (or the personal representative of a deceased individual) who was physically injured or killed as a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist-related aircraft crashes. We determined that the Fund's regulations provided an appropriate basis for several of the new regulatory provisions resulting from the THEEA. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department is generally required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed regulations prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, under section 492 of the HEA, all Department regulations for programs authorized under title IV of the HEA are subject to negotiated rulemaking requirements and under section 482 of the HEA, any title IV regulations that have not been published in final form by November 1 prior to the start of an award year cannot become effective until the beginning of the second award year following the November 1 date. Section 6(f) of the THEEA provides that sections 482(c) and 492 of the HEA shall not apply to any regulations required to implement provisions of the THEEA that authorize the discharge of a title IV, HEA loan for survivors of victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks. The THEEA also requires that procedures for filing an application for loan discharge for survivors of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks be prescribed and published by regulation 90 days after the date of enactment or December 29, 2006, without regard to the rulemaking requirements of the APA. Therefore, the requirements for a proposed rule and negotiated rulemaking do not apply to these regulations. These regulations are final and in effect as published, thirty days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Although the Department is adopting these regulations on an interim final basis, the Department requests public comment on these regulations. After full consideration of public comments, the Secretary will publish final regulations with any necessary changes. Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by the OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may
(1)have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2)create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, it has been determined this regulatory action will not have an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million. We believe that approximately 1,000 borrowers are eligible for a discharge on their loan under these provisions and that the costs incurred by the Department, lenders, and GAs to make the necessary systems changes to implement the discharge will approximate $1,350,000. Therefore, this action is not “economically significant” and is not subject to OMB review under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. However, this action is subject to OMB review under section 3(f)(4) of the Executive Order. Need for Federal Regulatory Action These interim final regulations are needed to implement the provisions of the THEEA, which affects borrowers and other program participants in the Federal Perkins, FFEL and Federal Direct Loan Programs authorized under Title IV of the HEA. The Secretary has limited discretion in implementing these provisions. The changes included in these interim final regulations implement loan discharges for the outstanding balance of certain Perkins, FFEL, and Direct Loan Program loans for survivors of eligible public servants and other eligible victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification The Secretary certifies that these interim final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Sections 674.64, 682.407 and 685.218 contain information collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Education is required to submit a copy of these sections to the OMB for its review. The burden associated with the above provisions is associated with forms and applications currently under development and will be approved for use under new OMB control numbers. The Department will develop new information collection packages for the following sections: §§ 674.64, 682.407, and 685.218. The Department will develop the application necessary to implement these provisions under an emergency clearance authorized by OMB. Information required by §§ 674.64(c), 674.64(d), 682.407(d), 682.407(e), 685.218(d), and 685.218(e) to determine eligibility for the discharge will be collected on this OMB-approved application. The information provided on the OMB-approved application will be collected and maintained by the holder of the borrower's loan. In the case of a FFEL loan, if the loan holder approves the discharge request the loan holder will provide the information collected to the guaranty agency that guaranteed the loan. The Department has submitted a full information collection package for OMB review to account for the burden associated with §§ 674.64, 682.407, and 685.218 concurrently with the publication of these interim final regulations. Accordingly, we invite comments on the burden hours associated with the information collection package for §§ 674.64, 682.402, and 685.218 at this time. *Collection of Information:* Federal Perkins Loan Program; Federal Family Education Loan Program; and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program. Sections 674.64, 682.407 and 685.218—Discharge of a Federal Perkins, FFEL or Federal Direct Loan for Survivors of Eligible Public Servants and Other Eligible Victims of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks Under these interim final regulations, the Title IV, HEA loan program regulations are amended to authorize the discharge of the outstanding balance of certain Federal Perkins, FFEL, or Direct Loan Program loans for survivors of eligible public servants and other eligible victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The burden associated with the new requirements will be accounted for under a new OMB Control Number for a FFEL, Direct Loan, and Perkins Loan Discharge Application for September 11, 2001 Survivors. This form has been submitted for OMB review and approval by emergency clearance. If you want to comment on the information collection requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. You may also send a copy of these comments to the Department representative named in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. We consider your comments on these proposed collections of information in— • Deciding whether the proposed collections are necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use; • Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collections, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions; • Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information we collect; and • Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these interim final regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives the comments within 30 days of publication. Assessment of Educational Impact Based on our own review, we have determined that these interim final regulations do not require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: 84.032 Federal Family Education Loan Program; 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program; 84.268 William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program.) List of Subjects in 34 CFR Parts 674, 682, and 685 Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities, Education, Loans program-education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Vocational education. Dated: December 22, 2006. Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends parts 674, 682 and 685 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 674—FEDERAL PERKINS LOAN PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 674 continues to read as follows: Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087aa-1087hh and 20 U.S.C. 421-429, unless otherwise noted. 2. New § 674.64 is added to read as follows: § 674.64 Discharge of student loan indebtedness for survivors of victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks.
(a)*Definition of terms.* As used in this section—
(1)*Eligible public servant* means an individual who—
(i)Served as a police officer, firefighter, other safety or rescue personnel, or as a member of the Armed Forces; and (ii)(A) Died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; or
(B)Became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(2)*Died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001* means the individual—
(i)Was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of or in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes on September 11, 2001, and the individual died as a direct result of these crashes; or
(ii)Died on board American Airlines flights 11 or 77 or United Airlines flights 93 or 175 on September 11, 2001.
(3)*Became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001* means the individual was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of or in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes on September 11, 2001, and the individual became permanently and totally disabled as a direct result of these crashes.
(i)An individual is considered permanently and totally disabled if—
(A)The disability is the result of a physical injury to the individual that was treated by a medical professional within 24 hours of the injury having been sustained or within 24 hours of the rescue;
(B)The physical injury that caused the disability is verified by contemporaneous medical records created by or at the direction of the medical professional who provided the medical care; and
(C)The individual is unable to work and earn money due to the disability and the disability is expected to continue indefinitely or result in death.
(ii)If the injuries suffered due to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes did not make the individual permanently and totally disabled at the time of or in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the individual may be considered to be permanently and totally disabled for purposes of this section if the individual's medical condition has deteriorated to the extent that the individual is permanently and totally disabled.
(4)*Immediate aftermath* means, for an eligible public servant, the period of time from the aircraft crashes until 96 hours after the crashes.
(5)*Present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site* means physically present at the time of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or in the immediate aftermath—
(i)In the buildings or portions of the buildings that were destroyed as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes; or
(ii)In any area contiguous to the crash site that was sufficiently close to the site that there was a demonstrable risk of physical harm resulting from the impact of the aircraft or any subsequent fire, explosions, or building collapses. Generally, this includes the immediate area in which the impact occurred, fire occurred, portions of buildings fell, or debris fell upon and injured persons.
(b)*September 11 survivors discharge.*
(1)The obligation of a borrower to make any further payments on an eligible Defense, NDSL, or Perkins Loan is discharged if the borrower was, at the time of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and currently is, the spouse of an eligible public servant, unless the eligible public servant has died. If the eligible public servant has died, the borrower must have been the spouse of the eligible public servant at the time of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and until the date the eligible public servant died.
(2)A Defense, NDSL, or Perkins Loan owed by the spouse of an eligible public servant may be discharged under the procedures for a discharge in paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(6) of this section.
(3)After being notified by the borrower that the borrower claims to qualify for a discharge under this section, an institution shall suspend collection activity on the borrower's eligible Defense, NDSL, and Perkins Loans and promptly request that the borrower submit a request for discharge on a form approved by the Secretary.
(4)If the institution determines that the borrower does not qualify for a discharge under this section, or the institution does not receive the completed discharge request form from the borrower within 60 days of the borrower notifying the institution that the borrower claims to qualify for a discharge, the institution shall resume collection and shall be deemed to have exercised forbearance of payment of both principal and interest from the date the institution was notified by the borrower. The institution must notify the borrower that the application for the discharge has been denied, provide the basis for the denial, and inform the borrower that the lender will resume collection on the loan.
(5)If the institution determines that the borrower qualifies for a discharge under this section, the institution shall notify the borrower that the loan has been discharged and that there is no further obligation to repay the loan. The institution shall return to the sender any payments received by the institution after the date the loan was discharged.
(6)A Defense, NDSL, or Perkins Loan owed by an eligible public servant may be discharged under the procedures in § 674.61 for a discharge based on the death or total and permanent disability of the eligible public servant.
(c)*Documentation that an eligible public servant died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.*
(1)Documentation that an eligible public servant died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 must include—
(i)A certification from an authorized official that the individual was a member of the Armed Forces, or was employed as a police officer, firefighter, or other safety or rescue personnel, and was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or in the immediate aftermath of these crashes; and
(ii)The inclusion of the individual on an official list of the individuals who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(2)If the individual is not included on an official list of the individuals who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the borrower must provide—
(i)The certification described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section;
(ii)An original or certified copy of the individual's death certificate; and
(iii)A certification from a physician or a medical examiner that the individual died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(3)If the individual owed a FFEL Program Loan, a Direct Loan, or a Perkins Loan at the time of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, documentation that the individual's loans were discharged by the lender, the Secretary, or the institution due to death may be substituted for the original or certified copy of a death certificate.
(4)If the borrower is the spouse of an eligible public servant, and has been granted a discharge on a FFEL Program Loan, a Direct Loan, or a Perkins Loan held by another institution, because the eligible public servant died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, documentation of the discharge may be used as an alternative to the documentation required in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section.
(5)Under exceptional circumstances and on a case-by-case basis, the determination that an eligible public servant died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 may be based on other reliable documentation approved by the chief financial officer of the institution.
(d)*Documentation that an eligible public servant became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.*
(1)Documentation that an eligible public servant became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 must include—
(i)A certification from an authorized official that the individual was a member of the Armed Forces or was employed as a police officer, firefighter or other safety or rescue personnel, and was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or in the immediate aftermath of these crashes;
(ii)Copies of contemporaneous medical records created by or at the direction of a medical professional who provided medical care to the individual within 24 hours of the injury having been sustained or within 24 hours of the rescue; and
(iii)A certification by a physician, who is a doctor of medicine or osteopathy and legally authorized to practice in a state, that the individual became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(2)If the borrower is the spouse of an eligible public servant, and has been granted a discharge on a FFEL Loan, a Direct Loan, or a Perkins Loan held by another institution, because the eligible public servant became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, documentation of the discharge may be used as an alternative to the documentation required in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(e)*Additional information.*
(1)An institution may require the borrower to submit additional information that the institution deems necessary to determine the borrower's eligibility for a discharge under this section.
(2)To establish that the eligible public servant was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site, such additional information may include but is not limited to—
(i)Records of employment;
(ii)Contemporaneous records of a federal, state, city, or local government agency;
(iii)An affidavit or declaration of the eligible public servant's employer; or
(iv)A sworn statement (or an unsworn statement complying with 28 U.S.C. 1746) regarding the presence of the eligible public servant at the site.
(3)To establish that the disability of the eligible public servant is due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, such additional information may include but is not limited to—
(i)Contemporaneous medical records of hospitals, clinics, physicians, or other licensed medical personnel;
(ii)Registries maintained by federal, state, or local governments; or
(iii)Records of all continuing medical treatment.
(4)To establish the borrower's relationship to the eligible public servant, such additional information may include but is not limited to—
(i)Copies of relevant legal records including court orders, letters of testamentary or similar documentation;
(ii)Copies of wills, trusts, or other testamentary documents; or
(iii)Copies of approved joint FFEL or Federal Direct Consolidation loan applications.
(f)*Limitations on discharge.*
(1)Only Defense, NDSL, and Perkins Loans for which amounts were owed on September 11, 2001, are eligible for discharge under this section.
(2)Eligibility for a discharge under this section does not qualify a borrower for a refund of any payments made on the borrower's Defense, NDSL, or Perkins Loans prior to the date the loan was discharged.
(3)A determination by an institution that an eligible public servant became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 for purposes of this section does not qualify the eligible public servant for a discharge based on a total and permanent disability under § 674.61.
(4)The spouse of an eligible public servant may not receive a discharge under this section if the eligible public servant has been identified as a participant or conspirator in the terrorist-related aircraft crashes on September 11, 2001. PART 682—FEDERAL FAMILY EDUCATION LOAN
(FFEL)PROGRAM 3. The authority citation for part 682 continues to read as follows: Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1071 to 1087-2, unless otherwise noted. 4. New § 682.407 is added to read as follows: § 682.407 Discharge of student loan indebtedness for survivors of victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks.
(a)*Definition of terms.* As used in this section—
(1)*Eligible public servant* means an individual who—
(i)Served as a police officer, firefighter, other safety or rescue personnel, or as a member of the Armed Forces; and (ii)(A) Died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; or
(B)Became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(2)*Eligible victim* means an individual who died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 or became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(3)*Eligible parent* means the parent of an eligible victim if—
(i)The parent owes a FFEL PLUS Loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim; or
(ii)The parent owes a FFEL Consolidation Loan that was used to repay a FFEL or Direct Loan PLUS Loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim.
(4)*Died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001* means the individual—
(i)Was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of or in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes on September 11, 2001, and the individual died as a direct result of these crashes; or
(ii)Died on board American Airlines flights 11 or 77 or United Airlines flights 93 or 175 on September 11, 2001.
(5)*Became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001* means the individual was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of or in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes on September 11, 2001 and the individual became permanently and totally disabled as a direct result of these crashes.
(i)An individual is considered permanently and totally disabled if—
(A)The disability is the result of a physical injury to the individual that was treated by a medical professional within 24 hours of the injury having been sustained or within 24 hours of the rescue;
(B)The physical injury that caused the disability is verified by contemporaneous medical records created by or at the direction of the medical professional who provided the medical care; and
(C)The individual is unable to work and earn money due to the disability and the disability is expected to continue indefinitely or result in death.
(ii)If the injuries suffered due to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes did not make the individual permanently and totally disabled at the time of or in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the individual may be considered to be permanently and totally disabled for purposes of this section if the individual's medical condition has deteriorated to the extent that the individual is permanently and totally disabled.
(6)*Immediate aftermath* means, except in the case of an eligible public servant, the period of time from the aircraft crashes until 12 hours after the crashes. With respect to eligible public servants, the immediate aftermath includes the period of time from the aircraft crashes until 96 hours after the crashes.
(7)*Present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site* means physically present at the time of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or in the immediate aftermath—
(i)In the buildings or portions of the buildings that were destroyed as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes; or
(ii)In any area contiguous to the crash site that was sufficiently close to the site that there was a demonstrable risk of physical harm resulting from the impact of the aircraft or any subsequent fire, explosions, or building collapses. Generally, this includes the immediate area in which the impact occurred, fire occurred, portions of buildings fell, or debris fell upon and injured persons.
(b)*September 11 survivors discharge.*
(1)The obligation of a borrower and any endorser to make any further payments on an eligible FFEL Program Loan is discharged if the borrower was, at the time of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and currently is, the spouse of an eligible public servant, unless the eligible public servant has died. If the eligible public servant has died, the borrower must have been the spouse of the eligible public servant at the time of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and until the date the eligible public servant died.
(2)The obligation of a borrower to make any further payments towards the portion of a joint FFEL Consolidation Loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim is discharged if the borrower was, at the time of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and currently is, the spouse of an eligible victim, unless the eligible victim has died. If the eligible victim has died, the borrower must have been the spouse of the eligible victim at the time of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and until the date the eligible victim died.
(3)If the borrower is an eligible parent—
(i)The obligation of a borrower and any endorser to make any further payments on a FFEL PLUS Loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim is discharged.
(ii)The obligation of the borrower to make any further payments towards the portion of a FFEL Consolidation Loan that repaid a FFEL or Direct Loan PLUS Loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim is discharged.
(c)*Applying for discharge.*
(1)A FFEL Program Loan owed by the spouse of an eligible public servant or the spouse or parent of an eligible victim may be discharged under the procedures for a discharge in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(12) of this section.
(2)After being notified by the borrower that the borrower claims to qualify for a discharge under this section, the lender shall suspend collection activity on the borrower's eligible FFEL Program Loan and promptly request that the borrower submit a request for discharge on a form approved by the Secretary.
(3)If the lender determines that the borrower does not qualify for a discharge under this section, or the lender does not receive the completed discharge request form from the borrower within 60 days of the borrower notifying the lender that the borrower claims to qualify for a discharge, the lender shall resume collection and shall be deemed to have exercised forbearance of payment of both principal and interest from the date the lender was notified by the borrower. The lender must notify the borrower that the application for the discharge has been denied, provide the basis for the denial, and inform the borrower that the lender will resume collection on the loan. The lender may capitalize, in accordance with § 682.202(b), any interest accrued and not paid during this period.
(4)If the lender determines that the borrower qualifies for a discharge under this section, the lender shall provide the guaranty agency with the following documentation—
(i)The original promissory note or a copy of the promissory note certified by the lender as true and exact;
(ii)The loan application, if a separate loan application was provided to the lender; and
(iii)The completed discharge form, and all accompanying documentation supporting the discharge request that formed the basis for the determination that the borrower qualifies for a discharge.
(5)The lender must file a discharge claim within 60 days of the date on which the lender determines that the borrower qualifies for a discharge.
(6)The guaranty agency must review a discharge claim under this section promptly.
(7)If the guaranty agency determines that the borrower does not qualify for a discharge under this section, the guaranty agency must return the claim to the lender with an explanation of the basis for the agency's denial of the claim. Upon receipt of the returned claim, the lender must notify the borrower that the application for the discharge has been denied, provide the basis for the denial, and inform the borrower that the lender will resume collection on the loan. The lender is deemed to have exercised forbearance of both principal and interest from the date collection activity was suspended until the first payment due date. The lender may capitalize, in accordance with § 682.202(b), any interest accrued and not paid during this period.
(8)If the guaranty agency determines that the borrower qualifies for a discharge, the guaranty agency pays the lender on an approved claim the amount of loss required under paragraph (c)(9) of this section. The guaranty agency shall pay the claim within the timeframe established for payment of disability claims in § 682.402(h)(1)(i)(B).
(9)The amount of loss payable on a discharge claim is—
(i)An amount equal to the sum of the remaining principal balance and interest accrued on the loan, unpaid collection costs incurred by the lender and applied to the borrower's account within 30 days of the date those costs were actually incurred, and unpaid interest up to the date the lender should have filed the claim; or
(ii)In the case of a partial discharge of a Consolidation Loan, the amount specified in paragraph (c)(9)(i) of this section for the portion of the Consolidation Loan incurred on behalf of the eligible victim.
(10)After being notified that the guaranty agency has paid a discharge claim, the lender shall notify the borrower that the loan has been discharged or, in the case of a partial discharge of a Consolidation Loan, partially discharged. Except in the case of a partial discharge of a Consolidation Loan, the lender shall return to the sender any payments received by the lender after the date the guaranty agency paid the discharge claim.
(11)The Secretary reimburses the guaranty agency for a discharge claim paid to the lender under this section after the agency pays the lender. Any failure by the lender to satisfy due diligence requirements prior to the filing of the claim that would have resulted in the loss of reinsurance on the loan in the event of default are waived by the Secretary, provided the loan was held by an eligible loan holder at all times.
(12)Except in the case of a partial discharge of a Consolidation Loan, the guaranty agency shall promptly return to the sender any payment on a discharged loan made by the sender and received after the Secretary pays a discharge claim. At the same time that the agency returns the payment it shall notify the borrower that the loan has been discharged and that there is no further obligation to repay the loan.
(13)A FFEL Program Loan owed by an eligible public servant or an eligible victim may be discharged under the procedures in § 682.402 for a discharge based on the death or total and permanent disability of the eligible public servant or eligible victim.
(d)*Documentation that an eligible public servant or eligible victim died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.*
(1)Documentation that an eligible public servant died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 must include—
(i)A certification from an authorized official that the individual was a member of the Armed Forces, or was employed as a police officer, firefighter, or other safety or rescue personnel, and was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or in the immediate aftermath of these crashes; and
(ii)The inclusion of the individual on an official list of the individuals who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(2)If the individual is not included on an official list of the individuals who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the borrower must provide—
(i)The certification described in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section;
(ii)An original or certified copy of the individual's death certificate; and
(iii)A certification from a physician or a medical examiner that the individual died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(3)If the individual owed a FFEL Program Loan, a Direct Loan, or a Perkins Loan at the time of the terrorist attacks, documentation that the individual's loans were discharged by the lender, the Secretary, or the institution due to death may be substituted for the original or certified copy of a death certificate.
(4)Documentation that an eligible victim died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 is the inclusion of the individual on an official list of the individuals who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(5)If the eligible victim is not included on an official list of the individuals who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the borrower must provide—
(i)The documentation described in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), and (d)(3) of this section; and
(ii)A certification signed by the borrower that the eligible victim was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or in the immediate aftermath of these crashes.
(6)If the borrower is the spouse of an eligible public servant, and has been granted a discharge on a Perkins Loan, a Direct Loan, or a FFEL Program Loan held by another FFEL lender because the eligible public servant died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, documentation of the discharge may be used as an alternative to the documentation in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section.
(7)If the borrower is the spouse or parent of an eligible victim, and has been granted a discharge on a Direct Loan or on a FFEL Program Loan held by another FFEL lender because the eligible victim died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, documentation of the discharge may be used as an alternative to the documentation in paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5) of this section.
(8)Under exceptional circumstances and on a case-by-case basis, the determination that an eligible public servant or an eligible victim died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 may be based on other reliable documentation approved by the chief executive officer of the guaranty agency.
(e)*Documentation that an eligible public servant or eligible victim became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.*
(1)Documentation that an eligible public servant became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 must include—
(i)A certification from an authorized official that the individual was a member of the Armed Forces or was employed as a police officer, firefighter or other safety or rescue personnel, and was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or in the immediate aftermath of these crashes;
(ii)Copies of contemporaneous medical records created by or at the direction of a medical professional who provided medical care to the individual within 24 hours of the injury having been sustained or within 24 hours of the rescue; and
(iii)A certification by a physician, who is a doctor of medicine or osteopathy and legally authorized to practice in a state, that the individual became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(2)Documentation that an eligible victim became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 must include—
(i)The documentation described in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(1)(iii) of this section; and
(ii)A certification that the eligible victim was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or in the immediate aftermath of these crashes.
(3)If the borrower is the spouse of an eligible public servant, and has been granted a discharge on a Perkins Loan, a Direct Loan, or a FFEL Program Loan held by another FFEL lender because the eligible public servant became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, documentation of the discharge may be used as an alternative to the documentation in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(4)If the borrower is the spouse or parent of an eligible victim, and has been granted a discharge on a Direct Loan or on a FFEL Program Loan held by another FFEL lender because the eligible victim became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, documentation of the discharge may be used as an alternative to the documentation in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(f)*Additional information.*
(1)A lender or guaranty agency may require the borrower to submit additional information that the lender or guaranty agency deems necessary to determine the borrower's eligibility for a discharge under this section.
(2)To establish that the eligible public servant or eligible victim was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site, such additional information may include but is not limited to—
(i)Records of employment;
(ii)Contemporaneous records of a federal, state, city, or local government agency;
(iii)An affidavit or declaration of the eligible public servant's or eligible victim's employer; and
(iv)A sworn statement (or an unsworn statement complying with 28 U.S.C. 1746) regarding the presence of the eligible public servant or eligible victim at the site.
(3)To establish that the disability of the eligible public servant or eligible victim is due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, such additional information may include but is not limited to—
(i)Contemporaneous medical records of hospitals, clinics, physicians, or other licensed medical personnel;
(ii)Registries maintained by federal, state, or local governments; or
(iii)Records of all continuing medical treatment.
(4)To establish the borrower's relationship to the eligible public servant or eligible victim, such additional information may include but is not limited to—
(i)Copies of relevant legal records including court orders, letters of testamentary or similar documentation;
(ii)Copies of wills, trusts, or other testamentary documents; or
(iii)Copies of approved joint Consolidation Loan applications or approved FFEL or Direct Loan PLUS loan applications.
(g)*Limitations on discharge.*
(1)Only Federal SLS Loans, Federal Stafford Loans, Federal PLUS Loans, and Federal Consolidation Loans for which amounts were owed on September 11, 2001, or Federal Consolidation Loans incurred to pay off loan amounts that were owed on September 11, 2001, are eligible for discharge under this section.
(2)Eligibility for a discharge under this section does not qualify a borrower for a refund of any payments made on the borrower's loan prior to the date the loan was discharged.
(3)A determination by a lender or a guaranty agency that an eligible public servant or an eligible victim became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 for purposes of this section does not qualify the eligible public servant or the eligible victim for a discharge based on a total and permanent disability under § 682.402.
(4)The spouse of an eligible public servant or eligible victim may not receive a discharge under this section if the eligible public servant or eligible victim has been identified as a participant or conspirator in the terrorist-related aircraft crashes on September 11, 2001. An eligible parent may not receive a discharge on a FFEL PLUS Loan or on a Consolidation Loan that was used to repay a FFEL or Direct Loan PLUS Loan incurred on behalf of an individual who has been identified as a participant or conspirator in the terrorist-related aircraft crashes on September 11, 2001. PART 685—WILLIAM D. FORD FEDERAL DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM 5. The authority citation for part 685 continues to read as follows: Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087a *et seq.,* unless otherwise noted. 6. Section 685.212 is amended by adding a new paragraph
(i)to read as follows: § 685.212 Discharge of a loan obligation.
(i)*September 11 survivors discharge.* If a borrower meets the requirements in § 685.218, the Secretary discharges the obligation of the borrower and any endorser to make any further payments—
(1)On an eligible Direct Loan if the borrower qualifies as the spouse of an eligible public servant;
(2)On the portion of a joint Direct Consolidation Loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim, if the borrower qualifies as the spouse of an eligible victim;
(3)On a Direct PLUS Loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim if the borrower qualifies as an eligible parent; and
(4)On the portion of a Direct Consolidation Loan that repaid a PLUS loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim, if the borrower qualifies as an eligible parent. 7. New § 685.218 is added to read as follows: § 685.218 Discharge of student loan indebtedness for survivors of victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks.
(a)*Definition of terms.* As used in this section—
(1)*Eligible public servant* means an individual who—
(i)Served as a police officer, firefighter, other safety or rescue personnel, or as a member of the Armed Forces; and (ii)(A) Died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; or
(B)Became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(2)*Eligible victim* means an individual who died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 or became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(3)*Eligible parent* means the parent of an eligible victim if—
(i)The parent owes a Direct PLUS Loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim; or
(ii)The parent owes a Direct Consolidation Loan that was used to repay a Direct PLUS Loan or a FFEL PLUS Loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim.
(4)*Died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001* means the individual—
(i)Was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of or in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes on September 11, 2001 and the individual died as a direct result of these crashes; or
(ii)Died on board American Airlines flights 11 or 77 or United Airlines flights 93 or 175 on September 11, 2001.
(5)*Became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001* means the individual was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of or in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes on September 11, 2001 and the individual became permanently and totally disabled as a direct result of these crashes.
(i)An individual is considered permanently and totally disabled if—
(A)The disability is the result of a physical injury to the individual that was treated by a medical professional within 24 hours of the injury having been sustained or within 24 hours of the rescue;
(B)The physical injury that caused the disability is verified by contemporaneous medical records created by or at the direction of the medical professional who provided the medical care; and
(C)The individual is unable to work and earn money due to the disability and the disability is expected to continue indefinitely or result in death.
(ii)If the injuries suffered due to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes did not make the individual permanently and totally disabled at the time of or in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the individual may be considered to be permanently and totally disabled for purposes of this section if the individual's medical condition has deteriorated to the extent that the individual is permanently and totally disabled.
(6)*Immediate aftermath* means, except in the case of an eligible public servant, the period of time from the aircraft crashes until 12 hours after the crashes. With respect to eligible public servants, the immediate aftermath includes the period of time from the aircraft crashes until 96 hours after the crashes.
(7)*Present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site* means physically present at the time of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or in the immediate aftermath—
(i)In the buildings or portions of the buildings that were destroyed as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes; or
(ii)In any area contiguous to the crash site that was sufficiently close to the site that there was a demonstrable risk of physical harm resulting from the impact of the aircraft or any subsequent fire, explosions, or building collapses. Generally, this includes the immediate area in which the impact occurred, fire occurred, portions of buildings fell, or debris fell upon and injured persons.
(b)*September 11 survivors discharge.*
(1)The Secretary discharges the obligation of a borrower and any endorser to make any further payments on an eligible Direct Loan if the borrower was, at the time of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and currently is, the spouse of an eligible public servant, unless the eligible public servant has died. If the eligible public servant has died, the borrower must have been the spouse of the eligible public servant at the time of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and until the date the eligible public servant died.
(2)The Secretary discharges the obligation of a borrower and any endorser to make any further payments towards the portion of a joint Direct Consolidation Loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim if the borrower was, at the time of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and currently is, the spouse of an eligible victim, unless the eligible victim has died. If the eligible victim has died, the borrower must have been the spouse of the eligible victim at the time of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and until the date the eligible victim died.
(3)If the borrower is an eligible parent—
(i)The Secretary discharges the obligation of a borrower and any endorser to make any further payments on a Direct PLUS Loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim.
(ii)The Secretary discharges the obligation of the borrower and any endorser to make any further payments towards the portion of a Direct Consolidation Loan that repaid a PLUS Loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim.
(c)*Applying for discharge.*
(1)The Secretary discharges a Direct Loan owed by the spouse of an eligible public servant or the spouse or parent of an eligible victim under the procedures for a discharge in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(4) of this section.
(2)After being notified by the borrower that the borrower claims to qualify for a discharge under this section, the Secretary suspends collection activity on the borrower's eligible Direct Loans and requests that the borrower submit a request for discharge on a form approved by the Secretary.
(3)If the Secretary determines that the borrower does not qualify for a discharge under this section, or the Secretary does not receive the completed discharge request form from the borrower within 60 days of the borrower notifying the Secretary that the borrower claims to qualify for a discharge, the Secretary resumes collection and grants forbearance of payment of both principal and interest for the period in which collection activity was suspended. The Secretary notifies the borrower that the application for the discharge has been denied, provides the basis for the denial, and informs the borrower that the Secretary will resume collection on the loan. The Secretary may capitalize any interest accrued and not paid during this period.
(4)If the Secretary determines that the borrower qualifies for a discharge under this section, the Secretary notifies the borrower that the loan has been discharged or, in the case of a partial discharge of a Direct Consolidation Loan, partially discharged. Except in the case of a partial discharge of a Direct Consolidation Loan, the Secretary returns to the sender any payments received by the Secretary after the date the loan was discharged.
(5)The Secretary discharges a Direct Loan owed by an eligible victim or an eligible public servant under the procedures in § 685.212 for a discharge based on death or under the procedures in § 685.213 for a discharge based on a total and permanent disability.
(d)*Documentation that an eligible public servant or eligible victim died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.*
(1)Documentation that an eligible public servant died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 must include—
(i)A certification from an authorized official that the individual was a member of the Armed Forces, or was employed as a police officer, firefighter, or other safety or rescue personnel, and was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or in the immediate aftermath of these crashes; and
(ii)The inclusion of the individual on an official list of the individuals who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(2)If the individual is not included on an official list of the individuals who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the borrower must provide—
(i)The certification described in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section;
(ii)An original or certified copy of the individual's death certificate; and
(iii)A certification from a physician or a medical examiner that the individual died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(3)If the individual owed a FFEL Program Loan, a Direct Loan, or a Perkins Loan at the time of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, documentation that the individual's loans were discharged by the lender, the Secretary, or the institution due to death may be substituted for the original or certified copy of a death certificate.
(4)Documentation that an eligible victim died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 is the inclusion of the individual on an official list of the individuals who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(5)If the eligible victim is not included on an official list of the individuals who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the borrower must provide—
(i)The documentation described in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), and (d)(3) of this section; and
(ii)A certification signed by the borrower that the eligible victim was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or in the immediate aftermath of these crashes.
(6)If the borrower is the spouse of an eligible public servant, and has been granted a discharge on a Perkins Loan, a FFEL Program loan or another Direct Loan because the eligible public servant died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, documentation of the discharge may be used as an alternative to the documentation in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section.
(7)If the borrower is the spouse or parent of an eligible victim, and has been granted a discharge on a FFEL Program Loan or another Direct Loan because the eligible victim died due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, documentation of the discharge may be used as an alternative to the documentation in paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5) of this section.
(8)The Secretary may discharge the loan based on other reliable documentation that establishes, to the Secretary's satisfaction, that the eligible public servant or the eligible victim died due to injuries suffered in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The Secretary discharges a loan based on documentation other than the documentation specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of this section only under exceptional circumstances and on a case-by-case basis.
(e)*Documentation that an eligible public servant or eligible victim became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.*
(1)Documentation that an eligible public servant became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 must include—
(i)A certification from an authorized official that the individual was a member of the Armed Forces or was employed as a police officer, firefighter or other safety or rescue personnel, and was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or in the immediate aftermath of these crashes;
(ii)Copies of contemporaneous medical records created by or at the direction of a medical professional who provided medical care to the individual within 24 hours of the injury having been sustained or within 24 hours of the rescue; and
(iii)A certification by a physician, who is a doctor of medicine or osteopathy and legally authorized to practice in a state, that the individual became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(2)Documentation that an eligible victim became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 must include—
(i)The documentation described in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(1)(iii) of this section; and
(ii)A certification that the eligible victim was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site at the time of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or in the immediate aftermath of these crashes.
(3)If the borrower is the spouse of an eligible public servant, and has been granted a discharge on a Perkins Loan, a FFEL Program loan, or another Direct Loan because the eligible public servant became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, documentation of the discharge may be used as an alternative to the documentation in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(4)If the borrower is the spouse or parent of an eligible victim, and has been granted a discharge on a FFEL Program Loan, or another Direct Loan because the eligible victim became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, documentation of the discharge may be used as an alternative to the documentation in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(f)*Additional information.*
(1)The Secretary may require the borrower to submit additional information that the Secretary deems necessary to determine the borrower's eligibility for a discharge under this section.
(2)To establish that the eligible public servant or eligible victim was present at the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, at the Pentagon in Virginia, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site, such additional information may include but is not limited to—
(i)Records of employment;
(ii)Contemporaneous records of a federal, state, city, or local government agency;
(iii)An affidavit or declaration of the eligible public servant's or eligible victim's employer; or
(iv)A sworn statement (or an unsworn statement complying with 28 U.S.C. 1746) regarding the presence of the eligible public servant or eligible victim at the site.
(3)To establish that the disability of the eligible public servant or eligible victim is due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, such additional information may include but is not limited to—
(i)Contemporaneous medical records of hospitals, clinics, physicians, or other licensed medical personnel;
(ii)Registries maintained by federal, state, or local governments; or
(iii)Records of all continuing medical treatment.
(4)To establish the borrower's relationship to the eligible public servant or eligible victim, such additional information may include but is not limited to—
(i)Copies of relevant legal records including court orders, letters of testamentary or similar documentation;
(ii)Copies of wills, trusts, or other testamentary documents; or
(iii)Copies of approved joint FFEL or Direct Loan Consolidation Loan applications or an approved Direct PLUS Loan application.
(g)*Limitations on discharge.*
(1)Only Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, Direct PLUS Loans and Direct Consolidation Loans for which amounts were owed on September 11, 2001, or Direct Consolidation Loans incurred to pay off loan amounts that were owed on September 11, 2001, are eligible for discharge under this section.
(2)Eligibility for a discharge under this section does not qualify a borrower for a refund of any payments made on the borrower's Direct Loans prior to the date the loan was discharged.
(3)A determination that an eligible public servant or an eligible victim became permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 for purposes of this section does not qualify the eligible public servant or the eligible victim for a discharge based on a total and permanent disability under § 685.213.
(4)The spouse of an eligible public servant or eligible victim may not receive a discharge under this section if the eligible public servant or eligible victim has been identified as a participant or conspirator in the terrorist-related aircraft crashes on September 11, 2001. An eligible parent may not receive a discharge on a Direct PLUS Loan or on a Direct Consolidation Loan that was used to repay a Direct Loan or FFEL Program PLUS Loan incurred on behalf of an individual who has been identified as a participant or conspirator in the terrorist-related aircraft crashes on September 11, 2001. [FR Doc. E6-22245 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 80 and 86 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0363; FRL-8263-4] RIN 2060-AN66 Amendment to Tier 2 Vehicle Emission Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Requirements: Partial Exemption for U.S. Pacific Island Territories AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to exempt the three U.S. Pacific Island Territories—American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (C.N.M.I.)—from the gasoline sulfur requirements that EPA promulgated in the Tier 2 motor vehicle rule. The Governor of American Samoa petitioned us for an exemption from the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur requirement because of the potential for gasoline shortages, the added cost, and the minimal air quality benefits the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur requirement would provide to American Samoa. Representatives of the Governors of Guam and C.N.M.I. have also requested an exemption referencing the petition submitted by American Samoa. Generally, the Far East market, primarily Singapore, supplies gasoline to the U.S. Pacific Island Territories. The Tier 2 sulfur standard effectively requires special gasoline shipments, which would increase the cost and could jeopardize the security of the gasoline supply to the Pacific Island Territories. The air quality in American Samoa, Guam, and C.N.M.I. is generally pristine, due to the wet climate, strong prevailing winds, and considerable distance from any pollution sources. We recognize that exempting the U.S. Pacific Island Territories from the gasoline sulfur standard will result in smaller emission reductions. However, Tier 2 vehicles using higher sulfur gasoline still emit 30% less hydrocarbons and 60% less NOX than Tier 1 vehicles and negative effects on the catalytic converter due to the higher sulfur levels are, in many cases, reversible. Additionally, these reduced benefits are acceptable due to the pristine air quality, the fact that gasoline quality will not change, and the cost and difficulty of consistently acquiring Tier 2 compliant gasoline. The Tier 2 motor vehicle rule also sets standards for vehicle emissions. Vehicles in use on the U.S. Pacific Island Territories will not be exempt from the Tier 2 vehicle emission standards. However, additional flexibility will be afforded due to the lack of low sulfur gasoline. DATES: This direct final rule is effective on March 28, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 29, 2007. If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that this rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0363, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0363. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0363. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://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 *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202)566-1742. Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's **Federal Register** notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* for current information on docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for submitting comments to www.regulations.gov are not affected by the flooding and will remain the same. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Hillson, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Mailcode AASMCG, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:
(734)214-4789; fax number:
(734)214-4052; e-mail address: *Hillson.Sean@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we view this action as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to adopt the provisions in this direct final rule if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on March 28, 2007 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by January 29, 2007 or a request for a public hearing by January 12, 2007. If we receive adverse comment on one or more distinct amendments, paragraphs, or sections of this rulemaking, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** indicating which provisions are being withdrawn due to adverse comment. We may address all adverse comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Any distinct amendment, paragraph, or section of today's rulemaking for which we do not receive adverse comment will become effective on the date set out above, notwithstanding any adverse comment on any other distinct amendment, paragraph, or section of today's rule. Today's action is also available electronically on the date of publication from EPA's Federal Register Internet Web site listed below. This service is free of charge, except any cost that you already incur for connecting to the Internet. EPA Federal Register Web Site: *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/* (Either select a desired date or use the Search feature). The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline: I. General Information II. Background III. American Samoa IV. Guam V. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (C.N.M.I.) VI. What Is EPA Promulgating? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews VIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action will affect you if you produce new motor vehicles, alter individual imported motor vehicles to address U.S. regulation, or convert motor vehicles to use alternative fuels for use in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories—American Samoa, Guam, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (C.N.M.I.). It will also affect you if you produce, import, distribute, or sell gasoline fuel for use in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories. The following table gives some examples of entities that may have to follow the regulations. But because these are only examples, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR parts 80 and 86. If you have questions, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICS codes a SIC codes b Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 336111 3711 336112 336120 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Converters 336311 3592 336312 3714 422720 5172 454312 5984 811198 7549 541514 8742 541690 8931 Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle Components 811112 7533 811198 7549 541514 8742 Petroleum Refiners 324110 2911 Gasoline Marketers and Distributers 422710 5171 422720 5172 Gasoline Carriers 484220 4212 484230 4213 a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI Do not submit confidential business information to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 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. II. Background A. What Is the Tier 2 Rule? The Tier 2 rule (65 FR 6697, February 10, 2000) instituted a comprehensive regulatory program designed to significantly reduce the emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks, including pickup trucks, vans, minivans, and sport-utility vehicles. These reductions provide for cleaner air and greater public health protection, primarily by reducing ozone and PM pollution. The program treats vehicles and fuels as a system, combining requirements for much cleaner vehicles with requirements for much lower levels of sulfur in gasoline. The program phases in a single set of tailpipe emission standards that apply to all passenger cars, light trucks, and larger passenger vehicles operated on any fuel. To enable the very clean Tier 2 vehicle emission control technology to be introduced and to maintain its effectiveness, we also require reduced gasoline sulfur levels. The reduction in sulfur levels contributes directly to cleaner air in addition to its beneficial effects on vehicle emission control systems. Refiners have installed additional refining equipment to remove sulfur in their refining processes. Importers of gasoline are required to import and market only gasoline meeting the sulfur standards. These standards currently apply to the U.S. Pacific Island Territories—American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (C.N.M.I.). However, these Territories have received enforcement discretion 1 from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance which is applicable until November 1, 2007, or once the final rule becomes effective, whichever is earlier. 1 EPA, “Exercise of Enforcement Discretion for Gasoline Sulfur Regulations for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the Territory of Guam”, October 30, 2006. B. Summary of American Samoa's Petition Section 325(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act 2 states in relevant part: 2 42 U.S.C. 7625-l(a)(1). Upon petition by the Governor of Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Administrator is authorized to exempt any person or source or class of persons in such territory from any requirement under this chapter other than section 7412 of this title or any requirement under section 7410 of this title or part D of subchapter I of this chapter necessary to attain or maintain a national primary ambient air quality standard. Such exemption may be granted if the Administrator finds that the compliance with such requirement is not feasible or is unreasonable due to unique geographical, meteorological or economic factors of such territory, or such other local factors as the Administrator deems significant. Pursuant to Section 325(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, the Honorable Togiola Tulafono, Governor of American Samoa, petitioned 3 the EPA to exempt all persons in American Samoa from the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur requirements promulgated by the EPA pursuant to Section 211(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act and set forth at 40 CFR Part 80, Subpart H (“Gasoline Sulfur Regulations”). According to the petition, compliance with these requirements in American Samoa is unreasonable due to the unique geographical, meteorological and economic factors of the Territory. The reasons supporting this petition include the following: 3 Tulafono, T., Governor of American Samoa, “Petition for Exemption from the Gasoline Sulfur Regulations”, February 10, 2004. • Transportation costs dictate that gasoline be supplied to American Samoa from Far East markets, and the imposition of the rules would cause the American Samoan market to be even less attractive to foreign suppliers in an already limited market and, therefore, compromise the security of the American Samoa gasoline supply; • Compliance with the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur regulations would result in higher prices for gasoline in an already fragile economy, resulting in added economic hardship to American Samoan residents, the majority of which live below the poverty level; and • The isolation and small volumes of gasoline used in American Samoa obviate any measurable danger to the environment with respect to an exemption for American Samoa from the Tier 2 rule. C. Rationale for Guam and C.N.M.I. Tier 2 Exemption Representatives of the Governors of C.N.M.I. and Guam have also filed requests 4 5 for exemption from the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards. These territories have referenced the American Samoa petition as they have the same fuel suppliers and similar geographical, meteorological and economic factors as American Samoa. Gasoline is transported to the U.S. Pacific Island Territories from Far East markets. Imposing the Tier 2 regulations on the Territories would make the market less attractive to foreign suppliers. This compromises the security of the gasoline supply. One supplier has already pulled out of the market due to difficulty in supplying compliant gasoline. 4 Rabauliman, F., Director of the C.N.M.I. Division of Environmental Quality, “Request for Exemption from Gasoline Sulfur Requirements”, August 10, 2006. 5 Soto, A., Acting Administrator of the Guam Environmental Protection Agency, “Request for Exemption from Gasoline Sulfur Requirements”, August 14, 2006. III. American Samoa A. American Samoa's Geography and Climate American Samoa is a group of five volcanic islands and two coral atolls. It is located in Polynesia, approximately 2300 miles southwest of Hawaii and 1600 miles north of New Zealand. American Samoa is an unincorporated Territory of the United States. American Samoa is comprised of approximately 76 square miles, most of which is mountainous. Over 96 percent of the population lives on the largest island, Tutuila, which is approximately 53 square miles. The small island of Annu'u lies near the east end of the Tutuila. The Manu's Islands (Ta'u, Ofu and Olesega) are located approximately 60 miles east of Tutuila. Swains Island and the uninhabited Rose Atoll are the two remaining islands in the American Samoan group. American Samoa's closest neighbor is Western Samoa, lying about 60 miles to the west. There are no major population centers in the vicinity of American Samoa—the nearest is New Zealand, 1600 miles away. American Samoa has a tropical maritime climate, with abundant rain, winds, and warm, humid days and nights. Rainfall is about 125 inches a year near the airport but varies greatly over small distances because of the mountainous topography. The mean annual temperature is approximately 80 degrees Fahrenheit and remains fairly constant throughout the year. The prevailing winds throughout the year are the Easterly Trades. The average wind speed is 12.1 miles per hour, and does not vary to a great degree throughout the year. The lowest monthly average wind speeds occur in February, March and April and average about 8.5 miles per hour. B. What Is the Air Quality Impact for American Samoa? Due to the wet climate, strong prevailing winds, and the remoteness of American Samoa, the air quality is generally pristine. It is in attainment with EPA's air quality standards, including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and SO <sup>2</sup> . Exempting American Samoa from the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards would not cause an increase in emissions. As noted above, American Samoa has received enforcement discretion for the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards from the onset of the program and therefore the gasoline sent to American Samoa has not been required to meet the Tier 2 sulfur levels. Emissions from older vehicles will remain unchanged. Tier 2 vehicles using high sulfur gasoline will be cleaner than Tier 1 vehicles. Tier 2 vehicles using gasoline with 330 ppm sulfur emit 30% less hydrocarbons and 60% less NO <sup>X</sup> than Tier 1 vehicles 6 . While this rule will lead to a smaller reduction in emissions than would occur if the Tier 2 sulfur regulations are required, American Samoa's current air quality does not require further reductions. Because of American Samoa's remoteness, there are no cross border issues. 6 EPA, “EPA Staff Paper on Gasoline Sulfur Issues”, May 1, 1998, EPA420-R-98-005. C. Special Market Limitations for American Samoa American Samoa's gasoline market has unique characteristics due to American Samoa's remoteness. It is not realistic to supply America Samoa from the mainland United States. Consequently, the majority of American Samoa's gasoline is supplied from the Far East market (Singapore and Australia). The American Samoa petroleum market poses unique challenges, and suppliers periodically withdraw from the market. The amount of fuel purchased by American Samoa is so small that America Samoa is only a minor part of the business of its current suppliers. These suppliers may not be willing to modify their refineries to comply with the EPA's Tier 2 gasoline sulfur requirements simply to supply the small American Samoa market. For instance, Australia currently enforces a gasoline sulfur standard higher than the Tier 2 standard and Singapore does not regulate gasoline sulfur content 7 . 7 International Fuel Quality Center, “Asia/Australasia: 2005 Regional Fuel Quality Overview and Outlook for 2006”, February 23, 2006. In addition, American Samoa is economically challenged. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 61 percent of American Samoans lived below the poverty level 8 . Its 2000 per capita gross domestic product purchasing power parity was $5,825, compared to the 2005 U.S. per capita GDP purchasing power parity of $41,800 9 . Revenue transfers from the U.S. government add substantially to its economic well-being. American Samoa's economic activity is primarily fishing and processing and canning of tuna. 8 U.S. Census Bureau, “American Samoa: 2000 Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics”, 2001. 9 Central Intelligence Agency, “World Fact Book”, June 2006. IV. Guam A. Guam's Geography and Climate Guam is the southern-most island in the Marianas Archipelago. It is located in Polynesia, approximately 3,700 miles west-southwest of Honolulu and 1,550 miles south of Tokyo. The island is about 28 miles long and between 4 and 8.5 miles wide, with a total land area of 209 square miles, about three times the size of Washington, DC. It has a tropical climate with consistently warm and humid weather and westward prevailing trade winds. There is no land mass downwind of Guam within 600 miles. B. What Is the Air Quality Impact for Guam? Guam is in attainment with the primary NAAQS, with the exception of sulfur dioxide in two areas. This action is not expected to have any significant impact on the ambient air quality status of Guam, including the status of the two areas designated as nonattainment for sulfur dioxide. Both areas are designated nonattainment for sulfur dioxide as a result of monitored and modeled exceedences in the 1970's prior to implementing changes to power generation facilities. In the 1990's both plants were rebuilt, upgrading their emission controls. Guam has submitted a redesignation request to EPA. That pending redesignation request shows that they are now in attainment. An emissions inventory shows that the power plants are the major source of SO <sup>2</sup> on Guam. Both plants are on the western side of the island. The Trade Winds blow persistently from east-to-west, further lessening the impact of the SO <sup>2</sup> emissions on the people of Guam from the power plants. Mobile sources, like cars, are a minor contributor to the SO <sup>2</sup> emission budget. Exempting Guam from the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur and vehicle emission standards would not cause an increase in emissions. Guam has received enforcement discretion for the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards from the onset of the program and therefore the gasoline sent to Guam has not been required to meet the Tier 2 sulfur levels. Emissions from older vehicles will remain unchanged. Tier 2 vehicles using high sulfur gasoline will be cleaner than Tier 1 vehicles. Tier 2 vehicles using gasoline with 330 ppm sulfur emit 30% less hydrocarbons and 60% less NO <sup>X</sup> than Tier 1 vehicles. While this rule will lead to a smaller reduction in emissions than would occur if the Tier 2 sulfur regulations are required, Guam's current air quality does not require further reductions. Because of Guam's remoteness, there are no cross border issues C. Special Market Limitations for Guam The history of the Guam gasoline market has unique characteristics due to its remoteness. It is not realistic to supply Guam from the mainland United States. Consequently, the majority of Guam's gasoline is supplied from Singapore refineries. The shipments to Guam are in relatively small quantities because the island lacks the economy of scale for bigger bulk purchases. These suppliers may not be willing to modify their refineries to comply with the EPA's Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standard simply to supply the small Guam market. As stated earlier, Singapore currently does not regulate gasoline sulfur content. In addition, Guam is economically challenged. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Guam's population was 148,060 with 23% living below poverty 10 . Its 2005 per capita GDP purchasing power parity was $15,000, compared to the U.S. per capita GDP purchasing power parity in 2005 of $41,800 11 . Guam's economy depends significantly on U.S. military spending and on revenue from the tourism industry. Most food and industrial goods are imported, about 75% from the U.S. 10 U.S. Census Bureau, “Guam: 2000 Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics”, 2003. 11 Central Intelligence Agency, “World Fact Book”, June 2006. V. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (C.N.M.I.) A. C.N.M.I. Geography and Climate The C.N.M.I. consists of 14 islands of volcanic origin that extend in a general north-south direction for 388 nautical miles. It lies in the Western part of the Pacific Ocean about 1,150 miles south of Tokyo, 108 miles north of Guam, and 5,280 miles from the U.S. mainland. The land area is 176.5 square miles, about 2.5 times the size of Washington, DC. It has a tropical climate with consistently warm and humid weather and westward prevailing trade winds. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2000 the population was 68,775, with population centers primarily on the western side of Saipan, and to a much lesser extent on Tinian and Rota. C.N.M.I. has approximately 200 miles of roads, of which approximately 50 percent are paved. B. What is the Air Quality Impact for C.N.M.I.? The concentration of development on the west side of the islands, meteorology (westward trade winds), and lack of heavy industry all have a beneficial impact on C.N.M.I.'s air quality. C.N.M.I. is in attainment with EPA's air quality standards, including the National Ambient Air Quality standard for ozone and SO <sup>2</sup> . Exempting C.N.M.I. from the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur and vehicle emission standards would not cause an increase in emissions. C.N.M.I. has received enforcement discretion for the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards from the onset of the program and therefore the gasoline sent to C.N.M.I. has not been required to meet the Tier 2 sulfur levels. Emissions from older vehicles will remain unchanged. Tier 2 vehicles using high sulfur gasoline will be cleaner than Tier 1 vehicles. Tier 2 vehicles using gasoline with 330 ppm sulfur emit 30% less hydrocarbons and 60% less NO <sup>X</sup> than Tier 1 vehicles. While this rule will lead to a smaller reduction in emissions than would occur if the Tier 2 sulfur regulations are required, C.N.M.I.'s current air quality does not require further reductions. Because of its remoteness, there are no cross border issues. C. Special Market Limitations for C.N.M.I. The history of the C.N.M.I. gasoline market has unique characteristics due to its remoteness. It is not realistic to supply C.N.M.I. from the mainland United States. Consequently, the majority of C.N.M.I. gasoline is supplied from the Far East market where gasoline sulfur content may be unregulated or does not meet Tier 2 levels. Gasoline is shipped from Singapore to Guam and then to C.N.M.I. in one ship. Several factors impact the wholesale pricing of gasoline in C.N.M.I., including small volumes, a lack of purchasing power leverage, high transportation costs, and lack of competition. The Tier 2 gasoline sulfur requirements would make the C.N.M.I. market even less attractive to suppliers. In addition, C.N.M.I. is economically challenged, with 46% of the population living below the poverty level in 2000 12 . The GDP per capita purchasing power parity in 2000 was $12,500, compared to the United States per capita GDP purchasing power parity in 2005 of $41,800 13 . The economy benefits substantially from financial assistance from the United States, but this assistance has declined as locally generated government revenues have grown. Chief sources of income are tourism and garment production. 12 U.S. Census Bureau, “Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: 2000 Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics”, 2003. 13 Central Intelligence Agency, “World Fact Book”, June 2006. VI. What Is EPA Promulgating? A. Gasoline Sulfur Requirements 1. Standards We are exempting American Samoa, Guam, and C.N.M.I. from the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standard due to the high economic burden of compliance, isolated nature of the territories, both in terms of gasoline importation and pollution transport, and minimal air quality effects. American Samoa, Guam, and C.N.M.I. have each filed a request for exemption from the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards. American Samoa has also submitted a petition providing justification for the exemption, which Guam and C.N.M.I. have referenced in their requests as they have the same fuel suppliers and similar geographical, meteorological, and economic factors as American Samoa. 2. Rationale EPA's Gasoline Sulfur Regulations were published on February 10, 2000. The rules are designed to lower sulfur levels in gasoline in order to reduce emissions from mobile sources of sulfur compounds, ozone, air toxics, and particulate matter. The rules currently apply to the U.S. Pacific Island Territories (65 FR 6713, f.n. 24, February 10, 2000). However, the U.S. Pacific Island Territories have received enforcement discretion of the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards until November 1, 2007. Compliance with the EPA's Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards would result in undue economic hardship in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories. All three of the territories lack internal petroleum supplies and refining capabilities and rely on long distance imports. Given their remote location from Hawaii and the U.S. mainland, most petroleum products are imported from East Rim nations, particularly Singapore where no gasoline sulfur regulations are in place. The economies of the Territories are underdeveloped compared with the U.S. mainland, with poverty rates ranging between 23% and 61%. Gasoline must be imported over long distances and in small cargo parcels. This makes the cost of gasoline in the Pacific Island Territories higher than on the mainland United States, exclusive of the effects of taxes. Higher gasoline prices adversely affect the economies of the Territories. Imposition of the low sulfur gasoline standards would result in a further limitation in potential suppliers to the U.S. Pacific Island Territories. Suppliers will either be dissuaded from supplying the Territories at all, or they would charge prices that would make the importation of the gasoline economically impracticable for its residents. One supplier has pulled out of the market in American Samoa because they were unable to provide compliant gasoline. The fact that a major supplier of gasoline has pulled out of the market speaks to the impracticality of supplying Tier 2 gasoline to the Territories. B. Vehicle Emission Standards 1. Standards We are not exempting American Samoa, Guam, and C.N.M.I. from the Tier 2 vehicle emission standards. However, we are providing additional flexibilities for Tier 2 vehicles since low sulfur gasoline is unavailable. These flexibilities are similar to the flexibilities which EPA provided for 1999-2003 model vehicles meeting National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV)emission standards and 2004-2007 model year vehicles meeting either Interim non-Tier 2 or Tier 2 vehicle emission standards. Under current EPA regulations, these flexibilities are set to expire at the end of the 2007 model year. Today's action extends the flexibilities to 2008 and later model year vehicles introduced into commerce in American Samoa, C.N.M.I., and Guam. The flexibilities
(1)allow additional preconditioning prior to conducting exhaust emission tests (to remove sulfur deposits on the catalyst and emission control system components) and
(2)allow special OBD system considerations to account for higher levels of sulfur present in gasoline. 2. Sulfur Effects on Tier 2 and NLEV Vehicle Exhaust Emissions and OBD Systems The effects of sulfur levels in gasoline on vehicle emissions and OBD systems have been well documented in recent years in various Society of Automotive Engineer
(SAE)papers and other references. A discussion of sulfur effects on vehicle emissions and OBD systems can be found in the Tier 2 final rule (65 FR 6729, February 10, 2000). In brief, sulfur in gasoline has a negative impact on vehicle emissions, reducing the effectiveness of the catalytic converter. Sulfur compounds attach to some of the precious metal sites in the catalyst, neutralizing some of the catalytic action. Tier 2 and NLEV vehicles are more sensitive to sulfur poisoning than Tier 1 and Tier 0 vehicles. The amount of reduced activity depends on many factors such as the catalyst precious metal formulation, the oxygen storage capacity of the catalyst, the catalyst location, catalyst temperature environment, the air/fuel calibration of the engine, vehicle speed, vehicle load, etc. Data presented in the Tier 2 final rule (65 FR 6729, February 10, 2000) indicates that for vehicles meeting LEV emission standards, NMHC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions can increase by approximately 150 percent and 50 percent, respectively, on the FTP
(city)test if the vehicle was operated on gasoline containing 330 ppm sulfur. While sulfur poisoning is reversible, the amount of reversibility also depends on many factors. Sulfur can be removed from some catalysts by operating the vehicle with a rich exhaust (absence of oxygen) while the catalyst experiences a high temperature environment (above 700 °C). As discussed in the Tier 2 final rule (65 FR 6729, February 10, 2000), sulfur poisoning has a potential to adversely affect the on-board diagnostic
(OBD)system of the vehicle. First, sulfur poisoning can impair the decisions made by the OBD system, and affect the ability of the OBD system to accurately detect catalyst efficiency problems. For example, the OBD system could operate properly on low-sulfur gasoline, but falsely indicate sulfur-induced passes when exposed to high sulfur gasoline. Second, sulfur poisoning has a potential to affect consumer confidence in the OBD system itself. For example, if the OBD system were to detect a substantially higher rate of (sulfur induced) catalyst efficiency problems when operating on high sulfur gasoline, the more frequent illumination of the OBD warning light could lead to a loss of consumer confidence in the OBD system itself. Thus, consumers might become inclined to ignore the OBD warning light and drive potentially high emitting vehicles with emission-related problems unrelated to sulfur in gasoline. 3. Discussion of Vehicle Requirements Today's action extends the flexibilities of Tier 2 OBD and in-use testing requirements while allowing American Samoa, Guam, and C.N.M.I. to use in-use fuels with sulfur levels above the Tier 2 requirements. We believe that it is appropriate to retain the Tier 2 vehicle emission standards for many reasons, including the following: a. *Exhaust emission benefits.* EPA Tier 2 emission standards are significantly lower than Tier 1 emission standards. For example, Tier 1 exhaust emission standards for passenger cars are approximately 5-6 times higher than Tier 2 standards. Tier 1 exhaust emission standards for large light-duty trucks and medium duty passenger vehicles are approximately 12 times higher than Tier 2 emission standards. Although Tier 2 vehicles operating in American Samoa, Guam, and C.N.M.I. on high sulfur gasoline would not be expected to achieve the same emissions performance as Tier 2 vehicles operated on low sulfur fuel, the emission reductions realized by Tier 2 vehicles even when operating on high sulfur fuel remain significant relative to a fleet of Tier 1 vehicles operating on such fuels. As noted above, Tier 2 vehicles using gasoline with 330 ppm sulfur emit 30% less hydrocarbons and 60% less NOX than Tier 1 vehicles. b. *Evaporative emission benefits and other benefits.* EPA Tier 2 evaporative emission standards are approximately 50 percent lower than Tier 1 evaporative emission standards (a reduction which is unaffected by the sulfur level of in-use gasoline). Other beneficial requirements of Tier 2 regulations include extending the passenger car useful life mileage from 100,000 miles to 120,000 miles; eliminating redundant idle CO emission standards for trucks; eliminating adjusted loaded weight
(ALVW)test requirements for heavy light-duty trucks; reducing the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure emission standards; and requiring vehicles to have leak-free exhaust systems. c. *No significant in-use testing problems to date.* EPA conducts “as received” in-use surveillance tests on approximately 50 classes of vehicles each year. Three vehicles are normally tested in each class, for a total of approximately 150 vehicles per year. Although EPA tests have been instrumental in several emission-related recalls, we have found that the vast majority of 1999 to 2004 model year vehicles comply with the applicable NLEV/Tier 2 emission standards (even though low sulfur fuel was not available during much of this period). In some cases, the “as received” emission test failed to comply with applicable emission standards and the vehicle was retested after performing additional (sulfur removal) preconditioning. For the majority of these retests, emissions changed very little, however in one case, NO <sup>X</sup> emissions decreased by approximately 50 percent. There have been no sulfur-related OBD failures to date. Beginning in the 2005 calendar year, automobile manufacturers were also required to perform “as received” in-use testing on approximately 1500 vehicles per year. The results of the manufacturer tests generally agree with the results of the EPA tests. The manufacturer tests also showed a high level of compliance with the NLEV and Tier 2 emission standards and no sulfur-related OBD problems. A list of vehicle recalls is available at *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/recall.htm.* During the time when EPA and manufacturers were conducting their in-use tests on NLEV and Tier 2 vehicles, the nationwide average sulfur levels of gasoline in the United States ranged from approximately 300 ppm in 1999 to 80 ppm in 2004. We note that sulfur levels averaged 300 ppm in 2002 and 130 ppm in 2004 in the Detroit, Michigan area (where test vehicles were recruited for all EPA tests and many manufacturer tests). While EPA believes that the Tier 2 vehicle standards should continue to apply for vehicles introduced in American Samoa, Guam, and C.N.M.I., we believe that the pre-existing flexibilities provided for vehicles that are exposed to high sulfur gasoline should be extended for vehicles introduced in these Territories. Flexibilities provided in the Tier 2 rule
(1)allow additional preconditioning prior to conducting exhaust emission tests (to remove sulfur deposits on the catalyst and emission control system components) and
(2)allow special OBD system considerations to account for sulfur which is present in gasoline. The specific requirements of these flexibilities are found in the current regulations (40 CFR 86.1806-05(d) and 40 CFR 86.1845-04(a)), and are applicable to vehicles up to the 2007 model year. The revised regulations provided with today's action extend these provisions beyond the 2007 model year for vehicles in American Samoa, C.N.M.I., and Guam. The flexibility to allow additional preconditioning prior to emission testing is being extended to accommodate any possible emission testing which may be performed on American Samoa, Guam, or C.N.M.I. vehicles. The OBD flexibilities are being extended (even though current data indicate that they will probably not be needed) because EPA cannot conclude with certainty that they will not be needed for future technology vehicles. VII. 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 OMB review. 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.* This rule does not create new requirements. Its purpose is to relieve a burden imposed on the three U.S. Pacific Island Territories. 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 The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business as 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; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would exempt the three U.S. Pacific Island Territories—American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands—from the Tier 2 rule for gasoline sulfur requirements and extend related existing flexibilities to the vehicle emission standards for the three territories. It does not create new requirements. Its purpose is to relieve a burden imposed on the three U.S. Pacific Island Territories. We have therefore concluded that today's rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 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. Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It does not create new requirements. Its purpose is to relieve a burden imposed on the three U.S. Pacific Island Territories. 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.” This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 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 representatives of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories in developing this rule. A summary of the concerns raised during that consultation and EPA's response to those concerns is provided in previous sections of this preamble. 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 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule would exempt the three U.S. Pacific Island Territories—American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands—from the Tier 2 rule for gasoline sulfur requirements and extend related existing flexibilities to the vehicle emission standards for the three territories. It applies only to the three U.S. Pacific Island Territories. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and 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. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. 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. J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective March 28, 2007. VIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority Statutory authority for today's final rule is found in the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* , in particular, sections 325, 211 and 202 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7521. This rule is being promulgated under the administrative and procedural provisions of Clean Air Act section 307(d), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 80 Environmental protection, Adminstrative practice and procedure, Gasoline, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 86 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Motor vehicle pollution. Dated: December 21, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES 1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545, and 7601(a). Subpart H—[Amended] 2. A new § 80.382 is added to Subpart H to read as follows: § 80.382 What requirements apply to gasoline for use in American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands? The gasoline sulfur standards of §§ 80.195 and 80.240(a) do not apply to gasoline that is produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, supplied, offered for supply, stored, dispensed, or transported for use in the Territories of Guam, American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, provided that such gasoline is:
(a)Designated by the refiner or importer as high sulfur gasoline only for use in Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
(b)Used only in Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
(c)Accompanied by documentation that complies with the product transfer document requirements of § 80.365; and
(d)Segregated from non-exempt high sulfur fuel at all points in the distribution system from the point the fuel is designated as exempt fuel only for use in Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, while the exempt fuel is in the United States but outside these Territories. PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES AND ENGINES 3. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. Subpart S—[Amended] 4. Section 86.1806-05 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows: § 86.1806-05 On-board diagnostics.
(d)* * * (2)(i) For interim non-Tier 2 and Tier 2 LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/MDPVs produced through the 2007 model year, upon a manufacturer's written request, EPA will consider allowing the use of an on-board diagnostic system during the certification process that functions properly on low-sulfur gasoline but indicates sulfur-induced passes when exposed to high sulfur gasoline. After the 2007 model year, this provision can be used only for interim non-Tier 2 and Tier 2 LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/MDPVs introduced into commerce in American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, but this provision only can be used for such vehicles in any of those locations if low sulfur gasoline is determined by the Administrator to be unavailable in that specific location.
(ii)For interim non-Tier 2 and Tier 2 LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/MDPVs, if vehicles produced through the 2007 model year exhibit illuminations of the emission control diagnostic system malfunction indicator light due to high sulfur gasoline, EPA will consider, upon a manufacturer's written request, allowing modifications to such vehicles on a case-by-case basis so as to eliminate the sulfur induced illumination. After the 2007 model year, this provision can be used only for interim non-Tier 2 and Tier 2 LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/MDPVs introduced into commerce in American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, but this provision only can be used for such vehicles in any of those locations if low sulfur gasoline is determined by the Administrator to be unavailable in that specific location. 5. Section 86.1845-04 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: § 86.1845-04 Manufacturer in-use verification testing requirements.
(a)* * *
(3)Upon a manufacturer's written request, prior to in-use testing, that presents information to EPA regarding pre-conditioning procedures designed solely to remove the effects of high sulfur in gasoline from vehicles produced through the 2007 model year, EPA will consider allowing such procedures on a case-by-case basis. EPA's decision will apply to manufacturer in-use testing conducted under this section and to any in-use testing conducted by EPA. Such procedures are not available for complete HDVs. After the 2007 model year, this provision can be used only for in-use vehicles in American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, but this provision only can be used for such vehicles in any of those locations if low sulfur gasoline is determined by the Administrator to be unavailable in that specific location. 6. Section 86.1846-01 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: § 86.1846-01 Manufacturer in-use confirmatory testing requirements.
(a)* * *
(4)Upon a manufacturer's written request, prior to in-use testing, that presents information to EPA regarding pre-conditioning procedures designed solely to remove the effects of high sulfur in gasoline from vehicles produced through the 2007 model year, EPA will consider allowing such procedures on a case-by-case basis. EPA's decision will apply to manufacturer in-use testing conducted under this section and to any in-use testing conducted by EPA. This provision does not apply to heavy-duty vehicles and engines. After the 2007 model year, this provision can be used only for in-use vehicles in American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, but this provision only can be used for such vehicles in any of those locations if low sulfur gasoline is determined by the Administrator to be unavailable in that specific location. [FR Doc. E6-22310 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [FRL-8262-9] National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Deletion of the Brio Refining, Inc. Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)Region 6 announces the deletion of the Brio Refining, Inc. Superfund Site (Site), located in Friendswood, Texas, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This action is being taken by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Texas, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. Moreover, EPA and TCEQ have determined that with proper monitoring, operation and maintenance, this Site poses no significant threat to public health or the environment. DATES: *Effective Date:* December 28, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John C. Meyer, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-LP), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733,
(214)665-6742 or 1-800-533-3508 ( *meyer.john@epa.gov* ). *Information Repositories:* Comprehensive information about the Site is available for viewing and copying during central standard time at the Site information repositories located at: U.S. EPA Region 6 Library, 7th Floor, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,
(214)665-6424, Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.; San Jacinto College, South Campus Library, 13735 Beamer Road, Houston, Texas, 77089,
(281)992-3416, Monday through Thursday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Saturday 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Central File Room Customer Service Center, Building E, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas, 78753,
(512)239- 2900, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Brio Refining, Inc. Superfund Site, Friendswood, Texas. A direct final deletion and a notice of intent to delete were published in the **Federal Register** on June 23, 2006 (71 FR 36015 and 36048). In these notices, EPA requested public comment on the proposed NPL deletion of the Site until July 24, 2006. During the 30-day comment period, EPA received correspondence offering critical comments. As a result of the critical comments, EPA published a Notice of Withdrawal of Direct Final Deletion of the Site on August 22, 2006. EPA evaluated the comments received and prepared a Responsiveness Summary and has concluded after a review of the comments that the Site does not pose a significant threat to public health or the environment. Copies of the Responsiveness Summary are available at the information repositories. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment and it maintains the NPL as the active list of these sites. As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3), any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for remedial action in the unlikely event that conditions at a site warrant such action. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect the liability of potentially responsible parties nor does it impede EPA efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous Waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water Pollution control, Water supply. Dated: December 20, 2006. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193. Appendix B—[Amended] 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended under Texas (“TX”) by removing the entry for “Brio Refining, Inc.”. [FR Doc. E6-22298 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 71 249 Thursday, December 28, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26378; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-230-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) Airplanes and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. These models may be referred to by their marketing designations as RJ100, RJ200, RJ440, CRJ100, CRJ200, CRJ440, and CL-65. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that currently requires revising the Emergency Procedures section of the airplane flight manual
(AFM)to advise the flightcrew of additional procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway. The existing AD also requires revising the Abnormal Procedures section of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of procedures to follow in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions. The existing AD also requires revising the Normal section of the AFM to require a review of the location of certain circuit breakers and a functional check of the stabilizer trim system. In addition, the existing AD requires installing circuit breaker identification collars and provides an optional terminating action for the requirements of the AD. The original NPRM proposed to require doing the previously optional terminating action (installation of a new horizontal stabilizer trim control unit). The original NPRM resulted from a determination that the terminating action is necessary to address reports of uncommanded horizontal stabilizer trim motion. This new action revises the original NPRM by not allowing the removal of applicable temporary revisions
(TRs)to the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM and by adding the proposed requirement for certain airplanes to re-insert the applicable TRs of the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM under certain conditions. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent horizontal stabilizer trim uncommanded motion, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by January 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • 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. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7305; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-26378; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-230-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)(the “original NPRM”) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-22-06, amendment 39-14803 (71 FR 63219, October 30, 2006). The existing AD applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67502). The original NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2006-22-06 and proposed to require terminating action (installation of a new horizontal stabilizer trim control unit (HSTCU)). Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the original NPRM, we determined that paragraph
(m)of AD 2006-22-06 inadvertently allows the removal of the airplane flight manual
(AFM)revisions specified in paragraph
(h)of AD 2006-22-06. We also determined that paragraph
(l)of the original NPRM inadvertently allowed the same removal of the AFM revisions. The AFM revisions specified in paragraph
(f)of the original NPRM (which correspond to the AFM revisions specified in paragraph
(h)of the AD 2006-22-06) should not be allowed to be removed after the installation specified in paragraph
(l)of the original NPRM unless the revision is incorporated into the general revisions of the corresponding AFM. Therefore, we have revised paragraph
(l)of this supplemental NPRM by removing the phrase “the AFM revisions required by paragraph
(f)of this AD may be removed from the applicable AFM.” We have also added paragraph
(n)of this supplemental NPRM to propose to reinsert the AFM revisions specified in paragraph
(f)of this supplemental NPRM for airplanes for which the AFM revisions have been removed in accordance with the requirements of paragraph
(m)of the AD 2006-22-06. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM The changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost AFM Revisions and Installation of Circuit Breaker Collars (required by AD 2006-22-06) 2 $3 $163 875 $142,625 Installation of HSTCU (new proposed action) 11 Between $2,530 and $3,995 Between $3,410 and $4,875 875 Between $2,983,750 and $4,265,625 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14803 (71 FR 63219, October 30, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26378; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-230-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 17, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-22-06. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes, serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive; and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive and 8000 through 8066 inclusive; certificated in any category. Note 1: The Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes may be referred to by their marketing designations as RJ100, RJ200, RJ440, CRJ100, CRJ200, CRJ440, and CL-65. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of uncommanded horizontal stabilizer trim motion. We are issuing this AD to prevent horizontal stabilizer trim uncommanded motion, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 2006-22-06 Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)Revisions
(f)Within 14 days after November 14, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-22-06), make the applicable AFM revisions specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD by incorporating the applicable Canadair (Bombardier) temporary revisions
(TRs)identified in Table 1 of this AD into the applicable AFM.
(1)For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes: Revise the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of additional procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway and to advise the flightcrew of revised procedures to follow in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions.
(2)For Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes: Revise the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of revised procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway and in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions. Table 1.—TRs For Bombardier Model Use Dated To the CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes Canadair Challenger TR 604/21-1 October 3, 2006 Canadair Challenger CL-604 AFM, PSP 604-1. CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes Canadair Regional Jet TR RJ/152-5 October 3, 2006 Canadair Regional Jet AFM, CSP A-012.
(g)When the applicable TR specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, those general revisions may be inserted into the AFM and the applicable TR may be removed, provided the relevant information in the general revisions is identical to that in the TR. Installation of Circuit Breaker Identification Collars
(h)Within 14 days after November 14, 2006, install circuit breaker identification collars in accordance with Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS601R27410051, Revision C, dated September 29, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes); or the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-27-029, dated September 28, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes); as applicable. Additional AFM Revision
(i)For Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes: Within 14 days after November 14, 2006, revise the Normal section of the Canadair Regional Jet AFM, CSP A-012, to include the statement specified in Figure 1 of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of Figure 1 of this AD into the AFM. “Prior to the flightcrew's first flight of the day, do the following actions: 1. Review the location of the STAB CH1 HSTCU and STAB CH2 HSTCU circuit breakers. 2. Complete a functional check of the stabilizer trim system as detailed below. Control Wheel Stab Trim Disconnect Check Control Wheel Stab Trim Disconnect switches—Check • Make sure STAB TRIM caution message is out. • Activate the pilot's Control Wheel Stab Trim Disconnect switch and make sure the STAB TRIM caution message comes on. Note: During ground testing only, do not activate the Control Wheel Stab Trim Disconnect switch if the horizontal stabilizer trim is in motion. • Engage the STAB TRIM switches and make sure the STAB TRIM caution message is out. • Activate the co-pilot's Control Wheel Stab Trim Disconnect switch and make sure the STAB TRIM caution message comes on. • Engage the STAB TRIM and MACH TRIM switches and make sure the STAB TRIM and MACH TRIM caution messages are out.” Figure 1 Note 2: When a statement identical to that in paragraph
(i)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, those general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
(j)For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes: Within 14 days after November 14, 2006, revise the Normal section of the Canadair Challenger CL-604 AFM, PSP 604-1, to include the following statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. “Prior to the flightcrew's first flight of the day, do the following actions: 1. Review the location of the STAB CH1 HSTCU and STAB CH2 HSTCU circuit breakers. 2. Check the stabilizer trim system as detailed in CL-604 AFM ‘Normal Procedures' section titled ‘Flight Controls Trim Systems, Before Flight—First Flight of the Day.’ ” Note 3: When a statement identical to that in paragraph
(j)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, those general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM. Previous Actions Accomplished According to Modification Summary Package
(k)Actions accomplished before November 14, 2006, in accordance with Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS601R27410051, Revision A, dated September 18, 2006; or Revision B, dated September 27, 2006; are considered acceptable for compliance with the action specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD, provided that the circuit breaker collars meet the color requirements of Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS601R27410051, Revision C, dated September 29, 2006. New Requirements of This AD Terminating Action—Installation of New, Improved Part
(l)Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, install horizontal stabilizer trim control unit (HSTCU), part number (P/N) 601R92301-15 (vendor P/N 7060-10) or higher dash number, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-27-029, dated September 28, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147, dated September 28, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes); as applicable. After doing the installation, the circuit breaker identification collars required by paragraph
(h)of this AD may be removed. After doing the installation, the AFM revision required by paragraphs
(i)and
(j)of this AD may also be removed from the AFM but operators should note that the functional check of the stabilizer trim system on the airplane's first flight of the day must still be done. Note 4: Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147, dated September 28, 2006, refers to Sagem Service Bulletin HSTCU-27-011, dated September 22, 2006, as an additional source of service information for accomplishment of the installation. Service Bulletin Exception
(m)Although Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-27-029, dated September 28, 2006, specifies to return certain parts to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Reinsert AFM Revisions
(n)For airplanes on which the AFM revisions required by paragraph
(f)of this AD were removed from the applicable AFM before the effective date of this AD: Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, reinsert the applicable AFM revisions specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD. When the applicable TR specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, the applicable TR may be removed. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (o)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(p)Canadian airworthiness directives CF-2006-20R1, dated October 4, 2006, and CF-2006-21R1, dated October 3, 2006, also address the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 14, 2006. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-22271 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26709; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-202-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting the carbon-fiber reinforced plastic
(CFRP)main landing gear
(MLG)door to determine whether certain part numbers are installed. For airplanes having certain doors, this proposed AD would require inspecting the MLG outboard door for cracks, play, and loose sealant/bolts/nuts, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also require, for airplanes having certain doors, modifying the rod bracket attachment of the MLG outboard door. This proposed AD results from a report of a rod bracket of the MLG door detaching during flight. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the rod bracket attachment bolts, which could result in the rod brackets detaching from the MLG door and blocking the proper functioning of the MLG. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • 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. Contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26709; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-202-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority—The Netherlands (CAA-NL), which is the airworthiness authority for the Netherlands, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes equipped with certain carbon-fiber reinforced plastic
(CFRP)main landing gear
(MLG)doors. The CAA-NL reports that a rod bracket of the MLG door of a Model F.28 Mark 0070 airplane detached during flight. Investigation showed that the operating rod between the MLG outboard door and the MLG fitting was broken and the rod's bracket was detached from the outboard door. The affected parts subsequently got stuck between the MLG and the outboard door hinge, resulting in damage to the two adjacent hydraulic lines. An investigation of a similar event revealed an operating rod bracket broken loose from the CFRP MLG door. Several other operators have also reported finding partly detached operating rod brackets. This condition, if not corrected, could result in rod brackets detaching from the CFRP MLG outboard door and blocking the proper functioning of the MLG. Relevant Service Information Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-080, dated December 12, 2005, including Fokker Manual Change Notification—Maintenance Documentation MCNM-F100-103, dated November 15, 2005. In Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, the service bulletin describes procedures for doing a detailed inspection of the MLG outboard door for cracks, play, and loose sealant/bolts/nuts. The detailed inspection consists of the following actions: • Inspecting for any cracks in the CFRP skin of the MLG outboard door. • Inspecting for play between the countersunk bolt-heads and the CFRP outer skin. • Inspecting for cracks in the paint. • Inspecting for play between the operating rod bracket and the MLG outboard door. • Inspecting for loose sealant around the edges of the bracket and loose bolts and nuts. Part 1 of the service bulletin also describes doing the following related investigative action if play is found or if there are any loose bolts/nuts: Inspecting the inside of the door for cracks in the CFRP outer skin at the bolt hole locations and/or checking for delamination by tapping. Part 1 of the service bulletin also describes doing one of the following corrective actions if play is found, if there are any loose bolts/nuts, or if any crack is found: Contacting Fokker, operating under Configuration Deviation List
(CDL)item 52-07 (“operating with MLG strut bay doors missing”) of the Fokker Appendix CDL, to Fokker 70/Fokker 100 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), Version 06, Issue 010, or doing the modification of the MLG outboard door operating rod bracket attachment specified in Part 2 of the service bulletin. Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the MLG outboard door operating rod bracket attachment. The modification includes installing internal and external reinforcement plates, reidentifying the outboard MLG door, and doing the following related investigative actions and corrective actions: • Inspecting for damage of the operating rod bracket and operating rod. • If any damage is found, doing one of the following: contacting Fokker, operating under CDL item 52-07, or replacing damaged part with a new part. • Inspecting for cracks and and/or checking for delamination by tapping of the skin around the attachment holes. • If any crack or delamination is found, doing one of the following: Repairing the cracks or delamination, or contacting Fokker if any crack or delamination is found beyond 10 millimeters
(mm)(0.040 inches) from the bolt holes. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The CAA-NL mandated the service information and issued Dutch airworthiness directive NL-2006-001, dated January 5, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the Netherlands. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in the Netherlands and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA-NL has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the CAA-NL's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions using a method that we or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)(or its delegated agent) approve. In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair we or the EASA approve would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD. Clarification of Service Bulletin Paragraph B.(3) of Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specifies to inspect for loose sealant and paragraph B.(6) specifies to inspect for delamination. However corrective actions for those conditions are not specified in the service bulletin. This proposed AD would require doing the corrective action specified in paragraph C.(3) of the service bulletin if any loose sealant or delamination is found during any inspection specified in paragraph
(g)of the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspections 2 $80 $0 $160 7 $1,120 Modification 6 80 1,066 1,546 7 10,822 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Fokker Services B.V:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26709; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-202-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 29, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of a rod bracket of the main landing gear
(MLG)door detaching during flight. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the rod bracket attachment bolts, which could result in the rod brackets detaching from the MLG door and blocking the proper functioning of the MLG. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspections
(f)Within nine months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the carbon-fiber reinforced plastic
(CFRP)MLG doors to determine if any MLG door having a part number (P/N) D13312-401 through -410 inclusive is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the CFRP MLG doors can be conclusively determined from that review. If the CFRP MLG doors have any part number other than P/N D13312-401 through -410 inclusive installed, no further action is required by this AD.
(g)If any CFRP MLG door having any P/N D13312-401 through-410 inclusive is found during the inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD: Within nine months after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the MLG outboard door for cracks, play, and loose sealant/bolts/nuts as specified in Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-080, dated December 12, 2005, including Fokker Manual Change Notification—Maintenance Documentation MCNM-F100-103, dated November 15, 2005, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by doing all the applicable actions specified in Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, except as provided by paragraphs (i), (j), and
(k)of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Modification
(h)If any CFRP MLG door having any P/N D13312-401 through-410 inclusive is found during the inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the MLG outboard door operating rod bracket attachment and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions by doing all the applicable actions specified in Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-080, dated December 12, 2005, including Fokker Manual Change Notification—Maintenance Documentation MCNM-F100-103, dated November 15, 2005, except as provided by paragraph
(i)of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Exceptions to the Service Bulletin
(i)Where Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-080, dated December 12, 2005, including Fokker Manual Change Notification—Maintenance Documentation MCNM-F100-103, dated November 15, 2005, specifies to contact the manufacturer for repair, before further flight, repair using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)(or its delegated agent).
(j)If any loose sealant or any delamination is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD, before further flight, do the corrective action specified in paragraph C.(3) of Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-080, dated December 12, 2005, including Fokker Manual Change Notification—Maintenance Documentation MCNM-F100-103, dated November 15, 2005.
(k)Although the service bulletin referenced in this AD specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(m)Dutch airworthiness directive NL-2006-001, dated January 5, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 19, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-22282 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26707; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-157-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330 Airplanes and A340-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Airbus Model A330 airplanes and A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would require inspecting to determine the part number of certain S4- and MZ-type spoiler servo-controls (SSCs). For certain other airplanes, this proposed AD would require inspecting to determine the part number of all SSCs. This proposed AD would also require replacing any affected SSC with a new SSC. This proposed AD results from a new load duty cycle defined by the manufacturer. Additional fatigue tests and calculations done on this basis indicated that the spoiler valve manifold of the S4-type SSCs, and, on certain airplanes, the maintenance cover of the MZ-type SSCs, may crack during its service life due to pressure impulse fatigue. We are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of certain SSCs, which could result in hydraulic leakage and consequent loss of SSC function and loss of the associated hydraulic system. These conditions could affect all three hydraulic systems, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • 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. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2797; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26707; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-157-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the airworthiness authority for the European Union, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A330 airplanes and A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The EASA advises that a new load duty cycle has been defined by the manufacturer. Additional fatigue tests and calculations done on this basis indicated that the spoiler valve manifold of the S4-type spoiler servo-controls
(SSCs)may crack during its service life due to pressure impulse fatigue. The maintenance cover of the MZ-type SSCs on Model A330-200 airplanes may also crack during its service life due to pressure impulse fatigue. This fatigue cracking, if not corrected, could result in hydraulic leakage and consequent loss of SSC function and loss of the associated hydraulic system. These conditions could affect all three hydraulic systems, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-27-3113, Revision 04, dated June 13, 2006 (for Model A330 airplanes). The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting to determine the part number and serial number of all S4- and MZ-type SSCs. For airplanes on which any S4-or MZ-type SSC is installed, the service bulletin describes procedures for replacing any affected SSC installed in positions 2 through 6 inclusive with a 138X-type SSC, and any affected SSC installed in position 1 with a 138X-type SSC. Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A340-27-4139, Revision 01, dated June 12, 2006 (for Model A340-200 and -00 series airplanes). The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting to determine the part number and serial number of all SSCs. For airplanes on which any MZ-or 138X-type SSC is installed, no further action is necessary. For airplanes on which any S4-type SSC is installed, the service bulletin describes procedures for replacing any affected SSC installed in positions 2 through 6 inclusive with a 138X-type SSC, and any affected SSC installed in position 1 with a 138X-type SSC. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directives 2006-0158 and 2006-0159, both dated June 7, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. The Airbus service information refers to LIEBHERR Service Information Letter SIL 142, Revision 2, dated September 28, 2005; and SIL 190, dated September 27, 2005, as additional sources of service information for accomplishing the specified actions. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. As described in FAA Order 8100.14A, “Interim Procedures for Working with the European Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness,” dated August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Among Proposed AD, EASA Airworthiness Directives, and Airbus Service Information.” Differences Among Proposed AD, EASA Airworthiness Directives, and Airbus Service Information EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0159 (which supersedes French airworthiness directive F-2003-357) requires identifying the part number of all S4- or MZ-type SSCs installed on airplanes identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3113, Revision 04, no later than January 31, 2004. At the time French airworthiness directive F-2003-357(B) was issued October 1, 2003, there were no Model A330-200 airplanes registered in the U.S., and those delivered since that time were not equipped with the S4- or MZ-type SSCs on delivery. EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0158 requires identifying the part number of all SSCs installed on airplanes identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4139, Revision 01, no later than August 31, 2006. This proposed AD would require identifying the part number for all affected airplanes within 70 days after the effective date of this AD for all affected airplanes. We find that a 70-day compliance time represents an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety. This difference has been coordinated with the EASA. The EASA airworthiness directives do not specify a compliance time for SSCs that have exceeded the total number of flight cycles recommended since new. This proposed AD would require those SSCs be replaced before further flight. The Accomplishment Instructions of the Airbus service bulletins specify to provide LIEBHERR-AEROSPACE with the part number and serial number of the cylinder housing of the SSC if the identification plate is missing; however, this proposed AD does not require that action, but would require obtaining the part number and serial number using a method that we or the EASA (or its delegated agent) approve. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 27 airplanes of U.S. registry. It would take about 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the inspection to determine the part number, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the inspection proposed by this AD for U.S. operators is $2,160, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26707; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-157-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 29, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes; certificated in any category; excluding airplanes on which AIRBUS Modification 44670 has been embodied in production. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a new load duty cycle defined by the manufacturer. Additional fatigue tests and calculations done on this basis indicated that the spoiler valve manifold of the S4-type spoiler servo-controls (SSCs), and, on certain airplanes, the maintenance cover of the MZ-SSCs, may crack during its service life due to pressure impulse fatigue. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of certain SSCs, which could result in hydraulic leakage and consequent loss of SSC function and loss of the associated hydraulic system. These conditions could affect all three hydraulic systems, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Determine the Part Number of the SSCs/Replace if Necessary
(f)For Model A330-200 airplanes: Within 70 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine the part number of all SSCs in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3113, Revision 04, dated June 13, 2006.
(1)If the part number is not identified in Table 1 of paragraph 3.B.(1)(a) or 3.B.(2)(a) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin: No further action is required by this paragraph.
(2)If the part number is identified in Table 1 of paragraph 3.B.(1)(a) or 3.B.(2)(a) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin: Do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i), (f)(2)(ii), and (f)(2)(iii) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(i)If any SSC is installed in positions 2 through 6: Before the accumulation of 6,000 total flight cycles on the SSC since new, replace the SSC with a 138X-type SSC.
(ii)If any SSC is installed in position 1: Before the accumulation of 11,000 total flight cycles on the SSC since new, replace the SSC with a 138X-type SSC.
(iii)If the total flight cycles on any SSC exceeds the total flight cycles specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, or on which the total flight cycles are unknown: Before further flight, replace the SSC with a 138X-type SSC.
(3)If any SSC has a missing identification plate, before further flight, identify the part number of the cylinder housing of the SSC by using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)(or its delegated agent). Before further flight after determining the part number, accomplish the requirements in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(g)For Model A330-300 airplanes and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes: Within 70 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine the part number of all SSCs in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3113, Revision 04, dated June 13, 2006; or A340-27-4139, Revision 01, dated June 12, 2006; as applicable.
(1)If the part number is not identified in Table 1 of paragraph 3.B.(1)(a) or 3.B.(2)(a) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin: No further action is required by this paragraph.
(2)If the part number is identified in Table 1 of paragraph 3.B.(1)(a) or 3.B.(2)(a) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin: Do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), and (g)(2)(iii) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.
(i)If any SSC is installed in positions 2 through 6: Before the accumulation of 14,000 total flight cycles on the SSC since new, replace the SSC with a 138X-type SSC.
(ii)If any SSC is installed in position 1: Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles on the SSC since new, replace the SSC with a 138X-type SSC.
(iii)If the total flight cycles on any SSC exceeds the total flight cycles specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, or if the total flight cycles are unknown: Before further flight, replace the SSC with a 138X-type SSC.
(3)If any SSC has a missing identification plate, before further flight, identify the part number of the SSC cylinder housing by using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Before further flight after determining the part number, accomplish the requirements in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Note 1: Airbus Service Bulletins A330-27-3113, Revision 04, dated June 13, 2006; and A340-27-4139, Revision 01, dated June 12, 2006; refer to LIEBHERR Service Information Letters, SIL 142, Revision 2, dated September 28, 2005; and SIL 190, dated September 27, 2005; respectively, as additional sources of service information for accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this AD. Action Not Required
(h)Airbus Service Bulletins A330-27-3113, Revision 04, dated June 13, 2006; and A340-27-4139, Revision 01, dated June 12, 2006; recommend providing LIEBHERR-AEROSPACE with the part number and serial number of the cylinder housing of the SSC if the identification plate is missing; this AD requires identifying the part number of the SSC cylinder housing by using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Actions Done According to Previous Issues of Service Bulletins
(i)Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of that paragraph if done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Airbus Service Bulletins Service bulletin Revision level Date A330-27-3113 Original September 15, 2003. A330-27-3113 Revision 01 October 3, 2003. A330-27-3113 Revision 02 June 11, 2004. A330-27-3113 Revision 03 March 17, 2006. A340-27-4139 Original March 17, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(k)EASA airworthiness directives 2006-0158 and 2006-0159, both dated June 7, 2006, also address the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 19, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-22281 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26706; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-216-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. This proposed AD would require installing spacer assemblies at the attachment points of the YZ-latches of the cargo loading system in the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable. This proposed AD results from tests that have shown that the attachment points of the YZ-latches of the cargo loading system fail under maximum loads. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the attachment points of the YZ-latches, which could result in unrestrained cargo causing damage to the fire protection system, hydraulic system, electrical wiring, or other equipment located in the forward and aft cargo compartments. This damage could adversely affect the continued safe flight of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2125; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26706; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-216-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the airworthiness authority for the European Union, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The EASA advises that tests have revealed that the attachment points of the YZ-latches of the cargo loading system fail under maximum loads. Unrestrained cargo parts, if not corrected, could result in damage to the fire protection system, hydraulic system, electrical wiring, or other equipment located in the forward and aft cargo compartments. This damage could adversely affect the continued safe flight of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, Revision 01, dated March 27, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing spacer assemblies (supporting ring with spring ring) at the attachment points of the YZ-latches of the cargo loading system in the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive 2006-0184, dated July 3, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. As described in FAA Order 8100.14A, “Interim Procedures for Working with the European Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness,” dated August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and EASA Airworthiness Directive.” Differences Between the Proposed AD and EASA Airworthiness Directive The applicability of EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0184 excludes airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1294 has been accomplished in service. However, we have not excluded those airplanes in the applicability of this proposed AD; rather, this proposed AD includes a requirement to accomplish the actions specified in Revision 01 of that service bulletin. This requirement would ensure that the actions specified in the service bulletin and required by this proposed AD are accomplished on all affected airplanes. Operators must continue to operate the airplane in the configuration required by this proposed AD unless an alternative method of compliance is approved. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 1 airplane of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 4 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $2,049 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for the U.S. operator is $2,369. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26706; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-216-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 29, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category. This AD excludes Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1)Including airplanes on which one the following has been incorporated in production: Airbus Modification 20065, 20040, 24495, 24848, 24496, 21895, 21896, 25905, 25907, 22601, 22602, 27187, 28319, 28322, 28330, 28335, or 31797.
(2)Including airplanes on which one of the following has been incorporated in service: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1132, A320-25-1133, A320-25-1145, A320-25-1175, A320-25-1177, A320-25-1276, A320-25-1278, A320-28-1134, or A320-28-1141.
(3)Excluding airplanes on which both Airbus Modifications 32244 and 32245, or both Airbus Modifications 32316 and 32317, have been incorporated in production. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from tests that have shown that the attachment points of the YZ-latches of the cargo loading system fail under maximum loads. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the attachment points of the YZ-latches, which could result in unrestrained cargo causing damage to the fire protection system, hydraulic system, electrical wiring, or other equipment located in the forward and aft cargo compartments. This damage could adversely affect the continued safe flight of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Installation
(f)Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, install spacer assemblies at the attachment points of the YZ-latches of the cargo loading system in the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, Revision 01, dated March 27, 2006. Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin
(g)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, dated March 14, 2003, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph
(f)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(i)European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)airworthiness directive 2006-0184, dated July 3, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 19, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-22280 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25391; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-097-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that currently requires a one-time inspection of the sliding members in the main landing gear
(MLG)for cracking and replacement of the sliding members with serviceable parts if necessary. The original NPRM proposed to require repetitive magnetic particle inspections of the sliding members of the MLG for cracking and corrective actions as necessary. The original NPRM resulted from inspection findings that have shown repetitive inspections are needed to establish fleet safety. This new action revises the original NPRM by correcting a certain part number in the applicability. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the sliding member, which could result in possible separation of the MLG from the airplane and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane upon landing and possible injury to passengers. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by January 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • 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. Contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-25391; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-097-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in ADDRESSES. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)(the “original NPRM”) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2004-08-01, amendment 39-13570 (69 FR 19759, April 14, 2004). The existing AD applies to certain Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 19, 2006 (71 FR 40945). The original NPRM proposed to continue to require a one-time inspection of the sliding members in the main landing gear
(MLG)for cracking and replacement of the sliding members with serviceable parts if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require repetitive magnetic particle inspections of the sliding members of the MLG for cracking and corrective actions as necessary. Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the original NPRM, we have discovered a typographical error in the applicability of AD 2004-08-01 and the original NPRM. Table 1 of AD 2004-08-01 and the original NPRM incorrectly identified MLG part number (P/N) 201012014. We have revised Table 1 of the supplemental NPRM to refer to P/N 201072014. Comments We have considered the following comment on the original NPRM. Request To Publish Service Information The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, typically, ADs are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an AD, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings. MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the **Federal Register** needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals; traditionally, “affected individuals” means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA adds that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument, and published in the DMS. We do not agree that documents should be incorporated by reference during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register
(OFR)requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. A final rule incorporates by reference the documents necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by the AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information. In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the supplemental NPRM is necessary in response to this comment. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM The change discussed above expands the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 37 airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspection that is required by AD 2004-08-01 and retained in this proposed AD takes either about 4 or 12 work hours per airplane, depending on airplane configuration, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is either $320 or $960 per airplane, depending on airplane configuration. The new proposed inspections would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new inspections specified in this proposed AD for U.S. operators is $5,920, or $160 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13570 (69 FR 19759, April 14, 2004) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Fokker Services B.V.:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25391; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-097-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 22, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2004-08-01. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category; equipped with any Dowty or Messier-Dowty main landing gear
(MLG)listed in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Affected Parts MLG part number (P/N) Equipped with sliding member P/N 201072011 201072301 or 201072305 201072012 201072301 or 201072305 201072013 201072301 or 201072305 201072014 201072301 or 201072305 201072015 201072301 or 201072305 201072016 201072301 or 201072305 Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from inspection findings that have shown repetitive inspections are needed to establish fleet safety. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the sliding member, which could result in possible separation of the MLG from the airplane and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane upon landing and possible injury to passengers. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Requirements of AD 2004-08-01 Inspection and Replacement if Necessary
(f)Within 1,000 flight cycles or six months after May 19, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-08-01), whichever occurs first, perform a magnetic inspection of the sliding members of the MLG for cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-133, dated April 1, 2002. If any crack is found during the inspection, before further flight, replace the sliding members with serviceable parts in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Note 1: Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-133, dated April 1, 2002, refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-103, dated March 11, 2002, as an additional source of service information. Parts Installation With Accomplishment of New Service Bulletins
(g)As of May 19, 2004, no person may install a sliding member of the MLG, P/N 201072301 or P/N 201072305, on any airplane, unless it has been inspected in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-133, dated April 1, 2002; Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-139, dated March 5, 2004; or Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-144, dated September 19, 2005; and found to be serviceable. Note 2: Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-139, dated March 5, 2004, refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-105, dated March 2, 2004, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing a magnetic inspection. Note 3: Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-144, dated September 19, 2005, refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-110, dated August 25, 2005, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing a magnetic inspection. Reporting Requirement Difference
(h)Although Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-133, dated April 1, 2002, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include such a requirement. New Requirements of This AD Repetitive Inspections
(i)At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Do a magnetic inspection of the sliding members of the left and right MLG for cracking, and do all corrective actions before further flight after the inspection, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-144, dated September 19, 2005. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles.
(1)Within 2,000 flight cycles after accomplishing paragraph
(f)of this AD.
(2)Within 4 months after the effective date of this AD. Credit for Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-139
(j)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-139, dated March 5, 2004, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph
(f)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(l)Dutch airworthiness directive NL-2005-012, dated October 17, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 19, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-22279 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 505 [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-05-23393] RIN 2125-AF08 Projects of National and Regional Significance Evaluation and Rating AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FHWA is reopening the comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)and request for comments, which was published on July 24, 2006, at 71 FR 41748. That NPRM proposed to establish the required evaluation and rating guidelines for projects proposed under the Projects of National and Regional Significance
(PNRS)program. The original comment period closed on September 22, 2006. The extension is based on the desire of the FHWA to receive the fullest and most comprehensive comments possible from the broadest group of stakeholders. During the initial analysis of comments the FHWA recognized that a number of subject areas were not commented upon, and significant segments of the transportation stakeholder community did not respond. The FHWA believes that those interested in commenting on this important program may not have had the opportunity to provide comments and that the comment period should be reopened. Therefore, the comment period is being reopened until February 9, 2007, which will provide those interested in commenting additional time to discuss, evaluate, and submit responses to the docket. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit* or fax comments to
(202)366-7909. All comments should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, or labor union). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edward Strocko, Office of Freight Management and Operations,
(202)366-2997; or Ms. Alla Shaw, Office of the Chief Counsel,
(202)366-0764, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access and Filing You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management System
(DMS)at: *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit* . Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. Alternatively, internet users may access all comments received by the DOT Docket Facility by using the universal resource locator
(URL)*http://dms.dot.gov* . It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: *http://www.archives.gov* or the Government Printing Office's Web page at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara* . Background The Projects of National and Regional Significance program established under section 1301 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59) is intended to finance critical, high-cost transportation infrastructure facilities that address critical national economic and transportation needs. These projects often involve multiple levels of government, agencies, modes of transportation, and transportation goals and planning processes that are not easily addressed or funded within existing surface transportation program categories. Projects of National and Regional Significance would have national and regional benefits, including improving economic productivity by facilitating international trade, relieving congestion, and improving transportation safety by facilitating passenger and freight movement. Additionally, this program would further the goals of the Secretary's Congestion Initiative. 1 1 Speaking before the National Retail Foundation's annual conference on May 16, 2006, in Washington, DC, former U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta unveiled a new plan to reduce congestion plaguing America's roads, rail and airports. The National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network includes a number of initiatives designed to reduce transportation congestion and is available at the following URL: *http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/OST/012988.pdf* . The benefits of PNRS would accrue beyond local areas and States to the Nation as a whole. A program dedicated to constructing PNRS would improve the safe, secure, and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the United States as well as improve the health and welfare of the national economy. On July 24, 2006, at 71 FR 41748, the FHWA published a NPRM proposing the establishment of regulations for 23 CFR 505, the evaluation and rating guidelines for projects proposed for funding under the PNRS program. The FHWA is looking for specific and detailed comments that contribute to the definition of grant criteria, project eligibility, project ratings, and the nature and form of full funding grant agreements. The FHWA specifically invites comments that contribute to an understanding and a quantification of criteria related to congestion, system throughput, safety, technology, private contributions and national and/or regional economic benefits. The original comment period for the NPRM closed on September 22, 2006. The FHWA recognizes that additional time will allow interested parties a broader and more comprehensive review and discussion of the proposed regulations; and then, allow the development and submission of complete responses to the docket. To allow time for interested parties to submit comprehensive comments, the comment period is being reopened until February 9, 2007. Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32 and 49 CFR 1.48(b). Issued on: December 21, 2006. J. Richard Capka, Federal Highway Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-22322 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 199 [DOD-2006-HA-0149; RIN 0720-AB01] Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); TRICARE: Implementation of Changes to the Pharmacy Benefits Program; Double Coverage With Medicare Part D AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: TRICARE eligible beneficiaries, who are entitled to Medicare Part A on the basis of age, disability, or end-stage renal disease, maintain their TRICARE eligibility when they are enrolled in the supplementary medical insurance program under Part B of Medicare. In general, in the case of medical or dental care provided to these individuals for which payment may be made under both Medicare and TRICARE, Medicare is the primary payer and TRICARE will normally pay the actual out-of-pocket costs incurred by the person. This proposed rule prescribes double coverage payment procedures and makes revisions to TRICARE rules to accommodate beneficiaries who are eligible under both Medicare and TRICARE, and who participate in Medicare's outpatient prescription drug program under Medicare Part D. These revisions are necessary because of the requirements contained in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS)final rule for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, Part D Plans with Other Prescription Drug Coverage. This proposed rule also establishes requirements and procedures for implementation of the improvements to the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program directed by section 714 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA FY 05) (Public Law 108-365). The rule clarifies that the cost-sharing requirements for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries may not be in excess of the cost-sharing requirements applicable to other retirees, their dependents, former spouses and survivors. Additionally, the rule authorizes the DoD Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee to make a separate and additional determination of the relative clinical and cost effectiveness of pharmaceutical agents to assure pharmacies of the uniformed services have on their formularies pharmaceutical agents that provide greater value than other uniform formulary agents in that therapeutic class. This rule also describes the transition process that will occur as the uniform formulary is developed and uniform service facilities move to a uniform formulary, consistent with their scope of practice. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule will be accepted until February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MAJ Travis Watson, TRICARE Management Activity, Pharmacy Directorate, telephone
(703)681-2890 x6707. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Double Coverage With Medicare Part D Section 101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), (Pub. L. 108-173), amended Title XVIII of the Social Security Act by establishing a new Part D: the Voluntary Prescription Drug Benefit Program (henceforth, Medicare Part D). The Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), published their Final Rule on January 28, 2005 (70 FR 4193—4585). The addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare represents a landmark change to the Medicare program, and became available to beneficiaries beginning on January 1, 2006. The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-398), established the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program under section 711 (which was effective April 1, 2001). The Act also under section 712 (which was effective October 1, 2001) continued TRICARE eligibility for beneficiaries entitled to Medicare Part A on the basis of age, provided they also are enrolled in Medicare Part B. This program has come to be known as TRICARE for Life. Under section 701 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), codified at Title 10, United States Code, Section 1074g, the Department established its new pharmacy benefits program for all TRICARE beneficiaries (as implemented by 32 CFR 199.21). The full implementation of the pharmacy benefits program was not effective until May 3, 2004, however, changes in pharmacy cost shares were effective with the implementation of TRICARE Senior Pharmacy on April 1, 2001. In implementing TRICARE Senior Pharmacy, DoD stated that the double coverage rules in 32 CFR 199.8 are applicable to services provided to all beneficiaries under the retail pharmacy network, retail pharmacy non-network, or TRICARE Mail Order programs. In implementing TRICARE for Life, DoD explained the double coverage rules under 10 U.S.C. 1086(d)(3). The statute states that if a TRICARE-Medicare dual-eligible beneficiary receives medical or dental care for which payment may be made under Medicare and TRICARE, the amount payable for that care by TRICARE shall be the amount of the actual out-of-pocket costs incurred by the person for that care over the sum of
(i)the amount paid for that care under Medicare; and
(ii)the total of all amounts paid or payable by third party payers other than Medicare. The amount payable by TRICARE may not exceed the total amount that would be paid under TRICARE if payment for the care were made solely under TRICARE. TRICARE for Life did not expand the scope of benefits available to this group of beneficiaries beyond the scope of TRICARE benefits available to other retirees and their families. The critical fact is whether the service or supply is payable by both Medicare and TRICARE. For health care services for which payment may be made under both Medicare and TRICARE, TRICARE will pay up to the beneficiary's legal liability the actual out-of-pocket costs incurred by the beneficiary, less any payments made by Medicare or other sources of insurance). Actual out-of-pocket costs incurred by the beneficiary include the initial deductible, which are for services payable by Medicare and TRICARE, but for the fact that the beneficiary has not met the deductible amount, and any subsequent beneficiary cost shares. However, if a health care service or supply is a benefit payable only by Medicare, but not TRICARE, then Medicare has sole responsibility for payment of the health care service or supply, as defined by Medicare, and the beneficiary has the responsibility to pay any corresponding Medicare cost-share or deductible. Likewise, if a health care service or supply is a benefit payable only by TRICARE, but not Medicare, then TRICARE has sole responsibility for payment of the health care service and supply, and the beneficiary has the responsibility to pay any corresponding TRICARE cost-shares or deductible. Finally, if a health care service or supply is neither a benefit payable by Medicare or TRICARE, the beneficiary pays the total cost. TRICARE has applied the double coverage rules of 32 CFR 199.8 to the Pharmacy Benefits Program under section 199.21(m), and said to the extent they provide a prescription drug benefit, Medicare supplemental insurance plans or Medicare HMO plans are double coverage plans and will be primary payer. This rule was written prior to Medicare providing a prescription drug benefit under Medicare Part D, and CMS's final rule on the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. Under 42 CFR part 423, Subpart J, Coordination of Part D Plans With Other Prescription Drug Coverage, section 423.464(f)(1)(iv), military coverage, including TRICARE coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, qualifies as other prescription drug coverage with which a Part D plan must coordinate benefits. Medicare Part D plans are offered by private insurance companies that contract with CMS. Part D benefits may be offered by a stand-alone prescription drug plan sponsor, a Medicare Advantage Organization offering qualified prescription drug coverage, a Program for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly
(PACE)organization offering qualified prescription drug coverage, or a cost plan offering qualified prescription drug coverage (collectively referred to as a “Part D plan sponsor”). Each Part D plan sponsor submits a bid to CMS for plan benefit packages, which results in, among other things, the offering of Part D plans with varying monthly premiums and benefits designs. Part D plan sponsors may offer a defined standard benefit, which is the type of benefit used as an example in this preamble, or an actuarially equivalent standard benefit. Part D plan sponsors may also offer alternative prescription drug coverage, which may consist of basic alternative coverage or enhanced alternative coverage. Therefore depending on the Part D plan that a beneficiary chooses, monthly premiums, coinsurances, co-pays, deductibles and benefit design may vary from plan to plan. Under the MMA, certain low-income beneficiaries may be eligible for reduced premiums and cost-sharing for their drug coverage. In some cases, beneficiaries pay no premium and nominal cost-sharing. Other beneficiaries have a reduced premium and lower cost-sharing. The standard Part D benefit includes several phases of beneficiary spending, as described below. *Premiums.* Statute requires a beneficiary to pay a monthly premium to participate in the plan. A beneficiary who wants to participate in a standard Medicare Part D plan is solely responsible for payment of any premium that is not otherwise subsidized under the program. Beneficiary premiums do not count toward any required beneficiary cost-sharing to reach the deductible, coverage gap, or catastrophic limit (described below). *Deductible.* Under the Medicare Part D defined standard benefit, the beneficiary is responsible for paying an out-of-pocket deductible ($265 in 2007) that adjusts annually according to the annual percentage increase in spending on covered Part D drugs. For purposes of meeting the deductible, both spending by the beneficiary and spending by TRICARE on behalf of the beneficiary (i.e., the TRICARE wraparound coverage) qualify. *Cost-sharing between deductible and coverage gap.* After the deductible is met, the standard Part D plan sponsors are responsible for 75% of the actual cost of the covered Part D drug, and the beneficiary is responsible for 25% of the actual cost of the covered Part D drug, until the beneficiary reaches the coverage gap. TRICARE wraparound coverage qualifies as beneficiary cost-sharing between the deductible and coverage gap. *Coverage gap.* To reach the coverage gap, the beneficiary must reach a statutorily-specified amount of total drug spending. Total beneficiary spending needed to meet the coverage gap is defined as beneficiary out-of-pocket spending, or TRICARE spending on behalf of the beneficiary, and spending by the Part D plan sponsor. In 2007, a beneficiary reaches the coverage gap when he has incurred $2,400 in total drug spending and remains in the gap until he has incurred $3,850 in beneficiary out-of-pocket spending. Individuals who qualify for the low-income subsidies pay lower cost-sharing amounts before they reach the coverage gap. In the coverage gap, the beneficiary is responsible for 100% of the cost of the drug, although the beneficiary by law is entitled to receive the plan's negotiated price. Individuals who qualify for low-income subsidies do not have a coverage gap. *Catastrophic threshold.* To reach the catastrophic threshold defined in the standard benefit, the beneficiary must have incurred total spending defined in statute as true out-of-pocket spending (TrOOP) ($3,850 in 2007). In the catastrophic phase, the beneficiary is responsible for the greater of 5% of the cost of the drug, or, in 2007, $2.15 for a generic/preferred multi-source drug or $5.35 for other drugs. In the catastrophic phase of the defined standard benefit, the Part D plan sponsor and Medicare are responsible for what is not paid by the beneficiary up to the Part D plan sponsor's negotiated price. Under 42 CFR 423.100, incurred costs means costs incurred by the Part D enrollee for covered Part D drugs—(1) That are not paid for under the Part D plan as a result of application of any annual deductible or other cost-sharing rules for covered Part D drugs prior to the Part D enrollee satisfying annual out-of-pocket threshold amount under section 423.104(d)(5)(iii); and
(2)That are paid for by the Part D enrollee or on behalf of the enrollee by another person, and the enrollee or other person is not reimbursed through insurance or otherwise, a group health plan or other third party arrangement. Because TRICARE falls under the definition of “or otherwise,” which refers to “government-funded health programs,” wraparound payments made by TRICARE for covered Part D drugs on behalf of an enrollee eligible for both Part D and TRICARE do not count towards beneficiary incurred costs. Therefore, for purposes of reaching the catastrophic limit, only true beneficiary out-of-pocket spending (TrOOP) counts as beneficiary spending. Although TRICARE supplementary coverage counts toward meeting the deductible and the initial coverage limit, it does not count toward meeting the catastrophic threshold. Generally, a Part D plan is primary payer under 42 CFR 423.464, coordination of benefits with other providers of prescription drug coverage, which includes military coverage (including TRICARE) under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code. A Part D plan under section 423.464(f)(2) must exclude expenditures for covered Part D drugs made by TRICARE for purposes of determining whether a Part D enrollee has satisfied the out-of-pocket threshold, which for 2007 is $3,850. As a result of these provisions implementing Medicare Part D, TRICARE double coverage rules must be modified. If a TRICARE-Medicare beneficiary enrolls in a Part D plan that adds prescription coverage to their Medicare plan, the Medicare Part D plan is generally primary payer and TRICARE is secondary payer. TRICARE will pay the beneficiary's out-of-pocket costs for Medicare and TRICARE covered medications, including the initial deductible and Medicare Part D cost-share. TRICARE will not pay the beneficiary's out-of-pocket cost associated with any monthly premium required to enroll in and participate in the Medicare Part D plan. In the coverage gap, the Part D plan is generally still the primary payer. Thus, assuming the beneficiary is accessing a pharmacy under contract with his or her Part D plan, the pharmacy would bill the Part D plan, which would respond by indicating that it is responsible for $0, at which point the pharmacy would bill TRICARE. When the beneficiary becomes responsible for 100% of the drug costs in the coverage gap, the beneficiary may use the TRICARE pharmacy benefit as the secondary payer. TRICARE will cost share during the coverage gap to the same extent as it does under section 199.21 for beneficiaries not enrolled in a Medicare Part D plan. The beneficiary is responsible for the applicable TRICARE pharmacy cost-sharing amounts (and deductible if using a retail non-network pharmacy). During the coverage gap, TRICARE is incurring the cost of the drugs during the Medicare Part D coverage gap and not the beneficiary. Thus none of the costs of the drugs borne by TRICARE will be applied to meeting the beneficiary's annual Medicare Part D true out-of-pocket (TrOOP) threshold. Generally, however, the beneficiary's own TRICARE pharmacy benefit cost-share will accrue to meeting his/her annual Medicare Part D TrOOP spending because this cost-sharing is an actual out-of-pocket expense incurred by the beneficiary. Any actual out-of-pocket expense incurred by the beneficiary also will apply toward the TRICARE fiscal year catastrophic cap. Similarly, if the TRICARE-Medicare dual-eligible beneficiary enrolls in a Medicare Advantage drug plan, the beneficiary has to pay the plan's monthly premiums and obtain all medical care and prescription drugs through the Medicare Advantage plan. The Medicare Advantage plan will generally be the primary payer, and TRICARE will be the secondary payer. If the Medicare Advantage plan has a Part D drug benefit, TRICARE will pay secondary as described above. II. Legislative Changes for TRICARE-Medicare Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries Section 701 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), codified at Title 10, United States Code, Section 1074g, directs the Department to establish an effective, efficient, integrated pharmacy benefits program. The Department published the final rule on the Pharmacy Benefits Program on April 1, 2004 (69 FR 17035-17052) implementing the pharmacy benefits program, effective May 3, 2004. Congress in section 714 of the Ronald W. Reagan NDAA for FY 05 has directed certain improvements to the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program. Section 714(a) directs that for a TRICARE-Medicare dual-eligible beneficiary, the cost-sharing requirements under the pharmacy benefits program may not be greater than the cost-sharing requirements applicable to all other beneficiaries covered by 10 U.S.C. 1086, which are beneficiaries who are retirees, their authorized dependents, survivors, and certain former spouses. Under 10 U.S.C. 1074g(a)(6), the Department may establish cost-sharing requirements for the pharmacy benefits program, which may be established as a percentage or fixed dollar amount, for generic, formulary, and non-formulary pharmaceutical agents. For non-formulary agents, cost-sharing shall be consistent with common industry practice and not in excess of amounts generally comparable to 20 percent for beneficiaries who are dependents of active duty members of the uniformed services, and 25 percent for beneficiaries who are retirees, their authorized dependents, survivors, and certain former spouses. In the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program final rule, the Department published the cost share amounts for pharmaceutical agents based upon two factors:
(1)The agent's status as generic, formulary, or non-formulary; and
(2)the venue in which the agent was obtained, that is, military treatment facility (MTF), TRICARE Mail Order Program (TMOP), retail network pharmacy, or retail non-network pharmacy. The Department is authorized under 10 U.S.C. 1074g(a)(6) to have two non-formulary cost-shares based upon the status of the beneficiary, no more than 20 percent for active duty family members and no more than 25 percent for all others (other than active duty members who have no cost share). The Department chose to have one non-formulary cost-share equal to no more than 20 percent of the anticipated aggregated cost of non-formulary agents that is $22 for non-formulary agents obtained in the TMOP or retail network pharmacies, and $22 or 20 percent (whichever is greater) for non-formulary agents obtained in retail non-network pharmacies. *(For more information on TRICARE Pharmacy Benefit Program cost shares, see Section 199.21(i)).* Section 714(a) emphasizes that if the Department were to move to a two-tier non-formulary cost-share based upon the status of the beneficiary, the Department may not have a higher cost-share for TRICARE-Medicare dual-eligible beneficiaries than for other retirees, their authorized dependents, survivors, and certain former spouses. The Department has no intention at this time of establishing two separate non-formulary cost-shares based upon the status of the beneficiary as an active duty family member or other category of beneficiary. This proposed rule adds to § 199.21 a provision incorporating into the regulation the new statutory requirement. III. Legislative Changes To Improve the Uniform Formulary Process Under 10 U.S.C. 1074g(a)(2)(E)(i), pharmaceutical agents included on the uniform formulary on the basis of relative clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness are required to be available to beneficiaries through facilities of the uniformed services, consistent with the scope of health care services offered in such facilities. Section 714(b) of the Ronald W. Reagan NDAA for FY 05 directs the Department to allow the DoD Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee (P&T Committee) to make additional relative clinical and cost effectiveness determinations for military treatment facilities (MTFs). This change in the law means that MTFs are not required to include on their formularies every pharmaceutical agent in a therapeutic class that is on the uniform formulary that is consistent with the scope of health care services offered in the MTF. This proposed rule incorporates into section 199.21 a provision reflecting the change in statute. IV. Transition to the Uniform Formulary The DoD P&T Committee is required under section 199.21 to make recommendations concerning which pharmaceutical agents should be on the uniform formulary and the Basic Core Formulary (BCF), and may now make recommendations concerning which agents should be on the Extended Core Formulary (ECF). The BCF contains the minimum set of pharmaceutical agents that each MTF pharmacy must have on its formulary to support the primary care scope of practice for Primary Care Manager enrollment sites. The ECF contains the minimum set of pharmaceutical agents that each MTF pharmacy must have on its formulary to support an extended care scope of practice if the MTF Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee has authorized agents in that class based upon the scope of practice at that facility. The DoD Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee will review the classes in a methodical but expeditious manner, taking into consideration circumstances that may include but are not limited to: DoD national contracting, or DoD and Veterans Affairs national joint contracting or other agreements with pharmaceutical manufacturers; approval of a new drug by FDA; approval of a new indication for an existing drug; changes in the clinical use of existing drugs; new information concerning the safety, effectiveness or clinical outcomes of existing drugs; price changes; shifts in market share; scheduled review of a therapeutic class; and requests from DoD P&T Committee members, military treatment facilities, or other Military Health System officials. During the transition period from the previous methodology of formulary management involving only the MTFs and the TRICARE Mail Order Program, previous decisions by the DoD P&T Committee or committed use requirements contracts executed by DoD, or jointly by DoD and VA, shall continue in effect. This is necessary to comply with the statutory requirements of 38 U.S.C. 8111 and 10 U.S.C. 1104 relating to resource sharing between DoD and VA, and allow time to incorporate the impact of uniform formulary management into those agreements. As therapeutic classes are reviewed under the new formulary management process and pharmaceutical agents are designated for formulary or non-formulary status, this transition methodology shall apply. The P&T Committee will meet at least quarterly to review new and existing drugs and drug classes, and recommend pharmaceutical agents for inclusion on or exclusion from the uniform formulary after evaluating their relative clinical and cost effectiveness. Pending review of a pharmaceutical agent or class, previous decisions by the predecessor to the P&T Committee regarding national contracts, agreements, formulary status, BCF status, pre-authorization requirements and quantity limits shall remain in effect. The P&T Committee will eventually evaluate all applicable drug classes at which time the transition period will be complete. During this transition period, pharmaceutical agents in drug classes not yet evaluated by the P&T Committee will continue to be available from the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy
(TMOP)and the TRICARE Retail Pharmacy network at either the generic or formulary (brand) cost share. MTFs may evaluate for inclusion on the MTF formulary pharmaceutical agents in drug classes that do not already have BCF status, or have not yet been evaluated by the P&T Committee. BCF listed agents must be on the formulary at all full-service MTF pharmacies at all times. V. Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits available, regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Order classifies a rule as a significant regulatory action requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including: having an annual effect on the national economy of $100 million or more, creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel legal or policy issues. DoD has examined the economic, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule and has concluded that it is a significant regulatory action as it addresses novel policy issues relating to implementation of coordination of medical benefits programs for covered beneficiaries of the uniformed services under TRICARE and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. Thus, this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)requires that each Federal Agency prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency issues regulations which would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, because its economic impact will be less than $100 million. There are approximately 1.9 million TRICARE-Medicare dual-eligible beneficiaries, and approximately 7% have enrolled in Medicare Part D plans. For those who have Medicare Part D coverage, the cost of their pharmacy benefit to DoD is less, as Medicare Part D Plans are the first payer as opposed to DoD, resulting in a cost avoidance for DoD. The amount of the cost avoidance is directly related to the number and cost of prescriptions filled by beneficiaries for which Medicare is first payer. Under the standard benefit package, there is a potential of about $1,601.25 in DoD cost avoidance (in 2007) for Medicare/TRICARE Part D enrollees whose drug spending is high enough to enter the Medicare coverage gap. For beneficiaries with lower drug spending, DoD's cost avoidance would also be lower. In addition, this rule will have minor impact and will not significantly affect a substantial number of small entities. In light of the above, no regulatory impact analysis is required. This proposed rule will not impose additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 55). In order to determine which dual-eligible beneficiaries are participating in Medicare Part D, TRICARE will rely on the Defense Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System (DEERS) to identify which beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Part D through existing data sharing agreements with CMS and will not need to collect additional information from them. We have examined the impact(s) of the proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and it does not have policies that have federalism implications that would 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, therefore, consultation with State and local officials is not required. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 199 Claims, Health care, Health insurance, Military personnel, Pharmacy benefits. Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 199—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 199 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55. 2. Section 199.8 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(C) and revising paragraph (d)(1)(vi) to read as follows: § 199.8 Double coverage.
(d)* * *
(1)* * *
(iii)* * *
(C)For Medicare beneficiaries who enroll in Medicare Part D, the Part D plan is primary and TRICARE is secondary payer. TRICARE will pay the beneficiary's out-of-pocket costs for Medicare and TRICARE covered medications, including the initial deductible and Medicare Part D cost sharing amounts up to the initial coverage limit of the Medicare Part D plan. The Medicare Part D plan, although the primary plan pays nothing during any coverage gap period. When the beneficiary becomes responsible for 100 percent of the drug costs under a Part D coverage gap period, the beneficiary may use the TRICARE pharmacy benefit as the secondary payer. TRICARE will cost share during the coverage gap to the same extent as it does under § 199.21 for beneficiaries not enrolled in a Medicare Part D plan. The beneficiary is responsible for the applicable TRICARE pharmacy cost-sharing amounts (and deductible if using a retail non-network pharmacy). Part D plan sponsors may offer a defined standard benefit, or an actuarially equivalent standard benefit. Part D plan sponsors may also offer alternative prescription drug coverage, which may consist of basic alternative coverage or enhanced alternative coverage. Therefore depending on the Part D plan that a beneficiary chooses, monthly premiums, coinsurances, co-pays, deductibles and benefit design may vary from plan to plan. TRICARE payment of the beneficiary's initial deductible, if any, along with payment of any beneficiary cost share count towards total spending on drugs, and may have the effect of moving the beneficiary more quickly through the initial phase of coverage to the coverage gap. Irrespective of the phase of the benefit in which a beneficiary may be, if a beneficiary is accessing a pharmacy under contract with his or her Part D plan, the provider will bill the Part D plan first, then TRICARE. If the beneficiary chooses to use his or her TRICARE pharmacy benefit during a coverage gap under Part D, the beneficiary may do so, but the beneficiary is responsible for the TRICARE cost-shares.
(vi)*Effect of enrollment in Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug* (MA-PD) plan. In the case of a beneficiary enrolled in a MA-PD plan who receives items or services for which payment may be made under both the MA-PD plan and CHAMPUS/TRICARE, a claim for the beneficiary's normal out-of- pocket costs under the MA-PD plan may be submitted for CHAMPUS/TRICARE payment. However, consistent with paragraph (c)(4) of this section, out-of-pocket costs do not include costs associated with unauthorized out-of-system care or care otherwise obtained under circumstances that result in a denial or limitation of coverage for care that would have been covered or fully covered had the beneficiary met applicable requirements and procedures. In such cases, the CHAMPUS/TRICARE amount payable is limited to the amount that would have been paid if the beneficiary had received care covered by the Medicare Advantage plan. If the TRICARE-Medicare beneficiary enrolls in a MA-PD drug plan, it will be governed by Medicare Part C, although plans that offer a prescription drug benefit also must comply with Medicare Part D rules. The beneficiary has to pay the plan's monthly premiums and obtain all medical care and prescription drugs through the Medicare Advantage plan before seeking CHAMPUS/TRICARE payment. CHAMPUS/TRICARE payment for such beneficiaries may not exceed that which would be payable for a beneficiary under paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(C) of this section. 3. Section 199.21 is amended by adding new paragraphs (g)(4) and (i)(2)(xi), and by revising paragraphs (h)(2)(ii) and (m), to read as follows: § 199.21 Pharmacy benefits program.
(g)* * *
(4)*Transition to the uniform formulary.* Beginning in Fiscal Year 2005, under an updated charter for the DoD P&T Committee, the committee shall meet at least quarterly to review therapeutic classes of pharmaceutical agents and make recommendations concerning which pharmaceutical agents should be on the Uniform Formulary, Basic Core Formulary, and Extended Core Formulary. The P&T Committee will review the classes in a methodical, but expeditious manner. During the transition period from the previous methodology of formulary management involving only the MTFs and the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy Program, previous decisions by the predecessor DoD P&T Committee concerning MTF and Mail Order Pharmacy Program formularies shall continue in effect. As therapeutic classes are reviewed under the new formulary management process, the processes established by this section shall apply.
(h)* * *
(2)* * *
(ii)*Availability of formulary pharmaceutical agents at military treatment facilities.* Pharmaceutical agents included on the uniform formulary are available through facilities of uniformed services, consistent with the scope of health care services offered in such facilities and additional determinations by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee of the relative clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness, based on costs to the Program associated with providing the agents to beneficiaries. The Basic Core Formulary
(BCF)is a subset of the uniform formulary and is a mandatory component of formularies at all full-service MTF pharmacies. The BCF contains the minimum set of pharmaceutical agents that each full-service MTF pharmacy must have on its formulary to support the primary care scope of practice for Primary Care Manager enrollment sites. Limited-service MTF pharmacies ( *e.g.* , specialty pharmacies within an MTF or pharmacies servicing only active duty military members) are not required to include the entire BCF on their formularies, but may limit their formularies to those BCF agents appropriate to the needs of the patients they serve. An Extended Core Formulary
(ECF)may list preferred agents in drug classes other than those covered by the BCF. Among BCF and ECF agents, individual MTF formularies are determined by local Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committees based on the scope of health care services provided at the respective MTFs. All pharmaceutical agents on the local formulary of full-service MTF pharmacies must be available to all categories of beneficiaries.
(i)* * *
(2)* * *
(xi)For a Medicare-eligible beneficiary, the cost sharing requirements may not be in excess of the cost-sharing requirements applicable to all other beneficiaries covered by 10 U.S.C. 1086.
(m)*Effect of other health insurance.* The double coverage rules of section 199.8 of this part are applicable to services provided under the pharmacy benefits program. For this purpose, the Medicare prescription drug benefit under Medicare Part D, prescription drug benefits provided under Medicare Part D plans are double coverage plans and such plans will be the primary payer, to the extent described in section 199.8 of this part. Beneficiaries who elect to use these pharmacy benefits shall provide DoD with other health insurance information. Dated: December 21, 2006. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD. [FR Doc. E6-22258 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2005-AZ-0009; FRL-8262-5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona; Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve two revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. These revisions consist of changes to Arizona's Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection Programs that would exempt collectible vehicles in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and collectible vehicles and motorcycles in the Tucson metropolitan area, from emissions testing requirements; an updated performance standard evaluation for the vehicle emissions inspection program in the Phoenix area; and new contingency measures. EPA is proposing approval of these two state implementation plan revisions because they meet all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's regulations and because the exemptions would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards in the two affected areas. EPA is proposing this action under the Clean Air Act obligation to take action on State submittals of revisions to state implementation plans. The intended effect is to exempt these vehicle categories from the emissions testing requirements of the State's vehicle emissions inspection programs as approved for the Phoenix and Tucson areas. DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or before January 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09- OAR-2005-AZ-0009 by one of the following methods: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: *tax.wienke@epa.gov.* Fax:
(415)947-3579 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). Mail: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. Hand Delivery: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. 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-R09-OAR-2005-AZ-0009. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://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 *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. 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: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,
(520)622-1622, e-mail: *tax.wienke@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms “we”, “us”, and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. Introduction and Background II. Summary of Arizona's SIP Submittals III. EPA Review of the SIP Revisions A. CAA Procedural Provisions B. I/M Program Requirements 1. Vehicle Coverage and Exemptions 2. Compliance Enforcement 3. Performance Evaluation C. Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance Under CAA Section 110(l) 1. Ozone 2. Carbon Monoxide 3. Particulate Matter 4. Air Toxics 5. Conclusion D. Contingency Provisions of CAA Section 175A(d) IV. EPA's Proposed Action and Request For Public Comment V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Introduction and Background In May 1995, EPA approved Arizona's Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance
(VEI)Programs as meeting the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or “Act”) and EPA's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance rule (“EPA's I/M rule” or “federal I/M rule”) as amended. See 60 FR 22518 (May 8, 1995). A “basic” I/M program was required in the Tucson Air Planning Area carbon monoxide
(CO)nonattainment area (referred to by Arizona in this context as “Area B”) and in the Phoenix metropolitan CO and ozone nonattainment area (referred to as “Area A”). The VEI programs were designed to reduce emissions of CO, volatile organic compounds
(VOC)and oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ). 1 At that time, Arizona was not required to have an “enhanced” I/M program, although Arizona was implementing most elements of an enhanced program in Phoenix. Arizona's program, as implemented in Phoenix, however, was not approved as an enhanced program, because the program did not satisfy all the requirements in EPA's I/M rule for enhanced programs. An enhanced I/M program became a requirement for the Phoenix area when the area was reclassified from “moderate” nonattainment to “serious” nonattainment for the CO NAAQS effective August 28, 1996 (61 FR 39343, July 29, 1996), and when the area was reclassified from “moderate” nonattainment to “serious” nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS effective February 13, 1998 (63 FR 7290, February 13, 1998). 1 The Phoenix metropolitan area is also a nonattainment area for respirable particulate matter (PM <sup>10</sup> ); however, the VEI program plays a very minor role in the control strategy for this pollutant. There is no CAA requirement for I/M programs in PM <sup>10</sup> nonattainment areas. Since the Arizona VEI programs were originally approved in May 1995, EPA has amended the federal I/M rule several times to provide states with more flexibility in designing their programs but also to require testing of the on-board diagnostic
(OBD)system. Since that time, Arizona has also made a number of changes to its enhanced and basic VEI programs. In January 2003, we approved changes to the Arizona VEI programs submitted to us on July 6, 2001 and April 10, 2002, including the incorporation of OBD testing, an exemption for the first five model year vehicles from the programs on a rolling basis, replacement of the previously-approved remote sensing program in Phoenix with an on-road testing study, and legislative changes to the waiver provisions. See 68 FR 2912 (January 22, 2003). In our January 2003 final rule, we also approved the VEI program in the Phoenix area as meeting the enhanced I/M program performance standard. In today's notice, we propose action on a statutory change made by the Arizona Legislature to the Arizona VEI programs to exempt certain categories of vehicles from emissions testing requirements. II. Summary of Arizona's SIP Submittals The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ)submitted the most recent statutory changes to its Basic and Enhanced VEI Programs as a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan
(SIP)on December 23, 2005 (“VEI SIP Revision”). The VEI SIP Revision submittal includes the SIP revision itself, divided into a non-regulatory portion, “Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Programs” (December 2005), and a regulatory portion, House Bill
(HB)2357, as well as supporting materials related to legal authority, adoption, public process and technical analysis. HB 2357 amends the Arizona Revised Statutes
(ARS)Section 49-542 by exempting vehicles that are at least 15 years old or are of a unique and rare design and that carry collectible vehicle insurance that restricts the mileage and/or use of the vehicle (“collectible vehicles”) from emissions testing in both Area A (i.e., the Phoenix area) and Area B (i.e., the Tucson area). In addition, HB 2357 exempts motorcycles in the Tucson area from emissions testing. Specifically, the amendments to ARS 49-542 are found in paragraphs or subparagraphs (J)(2)(k), (J)(2)(l), (Y), and
(Z)of that section of code. The changes to ARS Section 49-542 are self-implementing, which means that they become effective upon EPA approval as a revision to the Arizona SIP. Among the technical materials included in the VEI SIP Revision submittal package is a report 2 prepared by ADEQ that evaluates the impacts of exempting three vehicle categories (vehicles 25 model years old and older, motorcycles, and collectible vehicles) from the emissions testing requirements on ambient air quality and on the ability of Areas A and B (i.e., Phoenix and Tucson, respectively) to maintain or attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The report concluded that the testing and repair of these vehicle categories as a whole does provide a significant air quality benefit. The analysis, however, also identified a subset of vehicle categories (collectible vehicles in Phoenix and Tucson plus motorcycles in Tucson) for which the emissions testing requirement does not provide a significant air quality benefit and for which exemption would not interfere with continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS or progress towards the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. HB 2357 was a Legislative response to the findings in this report. 2 “Report on Potential Exemptions from Vehicle Emissions Testing for Motorcycles, Collectible Vehicles, and Vehicles 25 Model Years Old and Older” (December 2004). In consultation with EPA concerning the VEI SIP Revision, ADEQ prepared an updated performance standard evaluation for the VEI program in the Phoenix area to reflect the new exemption for collectible vehicles, and developed new contingency measures that are intended to provide for reinstatement of emissions testing for the newly exempt vehicle categories in the event that a violation of the carbon monoxide NAAQS were to be recorded in the Phoenix or Tucson areas. On October 3, 2006, ADEQ adopted and submitted the updated performance standard evaluation and new contingency measures in a supplemental SIP revision, entitled, “Supplement to Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Programs, December 2005” (September 2006) (“VEI SIP Supplement”). As part of the submittal of the VEI SIP Supplement, ADEQ documented the public participation process that was conducted by ADEQ prior to adoption and submittal to EPA. III. EPA Review of the SIP Revisions A. CAA Procedural Provisions CAA section 110(l) requires revisions to a SIP to be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA has promulgated specific requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. On October 20 and 21, 2005, ADEQ published notices in newspapers of general circulation in the Phoenix and Tucson areas of public hearings on proposed revisions to the Arizona SIP to exempt collectible vehicles in Phoenix and collectible vehicles and motorcycles in Tucson from emissions testing requirements under the Arizona VEI programs (i.e., a draft VEI SIP Revision). Public hearings were held on November 28, 2005 in Phoenix and November 30, 2005 in Tucson. On December 23, 2005, in accordance with Arizona law, ADEQ adopted these exemptions as set forth in “Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Programs” (December 2005) as a revision to the Arizona SIP and submitted the revision to EPA for approval. ADEQ followed a similar process in adopting and submitting the VEI SIP Supplement. ADEQ held a public hearing in Tucson on August 30, 2006 and in Phoenix on August 31, 2006 on a draft VEI SIP Supplement and adopted the VEI SIP Supplement on October 3, 2006 in accordance with Arizona law prior to submittal to EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP. ADEQ's VEI SIP Revision and VEI SIP Supplement submittal packages include evidence of public notice and hearing, ADEQ responses to public comments, and ADEQ adoption as described above, and, based on review of these materials, we find that ADEQ has met the procedural requirements of CAA section 110(l) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. B. I/M Program Requirements As noted in Section I, Introduction and Background, herein, Arizona's VEI programs were most recently approved as meeting federal I/M program requirements on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2912). Although the Phoenix and Tucson areas have been redesignated to “attainment” for the CO NAAQS, the VEI programs continue to be relied upon to maintain the CO standard in those areas. Moreover, “enhanced” I/M remains an “applicable requirement” for the Phoenix area under our final rule implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.900(f) and 51.905(a)(1)) based on the designation of that area as a nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (and designation as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS at the time of designation for the 8-hour standard). Thus, to be approved, the VEI programs, as amended and evaluated herein, must continue to meet the relevant enforceability requirements for I/M programs in subpart S of 40 CFR part 51 and, for the Phoenix area with respect to ozone, the enhanced performance standard in 40 CFR 51.351. In the following paragraphs, we review ADEQ's VEI SIP Revision and VEI SIP Supplement to determine whether the amended VEI programs continue to meet federal I/M program requirements. The aspects of I/M affected by the submitted revisions to the VEI programs include vehicle coverage and exemptions, compliance enforcement, and the performance standard evaluation. 1. Vehicle Coverage and Exemptions The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs (including alternate low enhanced programs) assumes coverage of all 1968 and later model year light duty vehicles and trucks. Light duty trucks are not included in the performance standard for basic I/M programs. Other levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary emission reductions are achieved. See 40 CFR 51.356. The Arizona VEI programs approved by EPA in 1995 exempt several categories of vehicles from the emissions testing requirements. Such vehicle categories included, among others, vehicles manufactured in or before the 1966 model year and vehicles being sold between motor vehicle dealers. See 60 FR 22518, 22521 (May 8, 1995). In 2003, we approved revisions to the VEI programs including an exemption for the first five model year vehicles on a rolling basis. See 68 FR 2912 (January 22, 2003). The SIP revision we are acting on today would establish additional vehicle categories that would be exempt from emissions testing requirements: collectible vehicles in the Phoenix and Tucson areas and motorcycles in the Tucson area. Based on data for calendar year 2003, collectible vehicles make up 0.5 percent of the fleet of vehicles subject to VEI in the Phoenix area, and collectible vehicles and motorcycles together make up 2.1 percent of the subject fleet in the Tucson area. See Table 1 below. Table 1.—Percentage of Fleet Affected by SIP Revision 1 Number of vehicles tested Percent of vehicle fleet Phoenix: Total Tested Fleet 825,812 100.0 Estimated Number of Collectible Vehicles 3,800 0.5 Tucson: Total Tested Fleet 373,734 100.0 Estimated Number of Collectible Vehicles 1,400 0.4 Number of Motorcycles 6,240 1.7 1 From Table 1 on page 4 of the VEI SIP Revision. Basic and enhanced I/M programs are not required to test motorcycles. However, the emissions testing of motorcycles was shown to have a significant air quality benefit in the Phoenix area, so the State has not adopted an exemption for motorcycles in that area. The effect of the new exemptions on the continued ability of the VEI program in the Phoenix area to meet the enhanced I/M program performance standard is discussed below in Section III.B.3, “Performance Evaluation,” and the effect of the new exemptions on emissions and ambient air quality in both Phoenix and Tucson is discussed herein in Section III.C, “Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment And Maintenance Under CAA Section 110(l).” 2. Compliance Enforcement Section 51.361 of title 40 of the CFR requires that denial of motor vehicle registration be the method used to ensure compliance with enhanced I/M programs. ARS Section 49-542(D) and Arizona Administrative Code
(AAC)R18-2-1007 require that all vehicles must complete a vehicle emissions inspection to obtain a vehicle registration. Collectible vehicles exempt from emissions testing under the submitted SIP revision are required to have collectible vehicle insurance. This type of vehicle is “maintained primarily for use in car club activities, exhibitions, parades or other functions of public interest or for a private collection and is used only infrequently for other purposes” and “has a collectible vehicle or classic automobile insurance coverage that restricts the collectible vehicle mileage or use, or both, and requires the owner to have another vehicle for personal use.” 3 3 See HB 2357, in Appendix A of the VEI SIP submittal. The Arizona Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division (MVD), will be able to track collectible vehicles in cooperation with collectible vehicle insurers. Insurers who submit evidence of collectible vehicle insurance to MVD will have those vehicles automatically tagged in MVD's database to be exempt from testing at renewal of registration. Should those vehicles' collectible insurance be cancelled or not be renewed, MVD will be notified by the insurer and will send the vehicle owner a letter that the collectible vehicle's registration will be cancelled. The owner of the vehicle has 14 days after receipt of the letter from MVD to submit a new policy. If this is not done, the vehicle's registration is cancelled, as is the exemption from emissions testing. In contrast to collectible vehicles, exemption of motorcycles in the Tucson area from emissions testing would be straightforward from the standpoint of compliance enforcement and would not undermine compliance enforcement for other types of vehicles that continue to be subject to the emissions testing requirements under the VEI program in the Tucson area. Owners of motorcycles registered in the Tucson area will simply receive a registration or re-registration form from MVD that indicates “emissions test not required.” Therefore, we propose to find that the Arizona VEI programs, as amended to exempt collectible vehicles in the Phoenix and Tucson areas and motorcycles in the Tucson area, continue to meet the compliance enforcement requirements of 40 CFR 51.361. 3. Performance Evaluation In our review of ADEQ's VEI SIP Revision submittal, we concluded that the revision could not be approved without a performance evaluation demonstrating that the VEI program, as amended to exempt collectible vehicles, would continue to meet the federal enhanced I/M performance standard (codified at 40 CFR 51.351) in the Phoenix area. The need for an updated performance evaluation follows from the fact that the Phoenix area, which was designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (at the time of designation for the 8-hour ozone nonattainment), is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that enhanced I/M remains an “applicable requirement” for such areas under our final rule implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.900(f) and 51.905(a)(1)). In response, ADEQ prepared an updated performance evaluation using the most recent version of EPA's motor vehicle emissions model, MOBILE6.2. This updated evaluation was included in the VEI SIP Supplement submitted to EPA on October 3, 2006. The VEI SIP Supplement includes a summary report and paper copies of MOBILE6.2 input and output files. For the updated evaluation, ADEQ developed and applied reduction factors to exclude collectible vehicles from the fleet tested under the VEI program as provided for in HB 2357. ADEQ then compared the emissions reduction benefits from the revised VEI program with the corresponding benefits that would be achieved under EPA's alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard. The results of ADEQ's analysis are summarized in Table 2 below, which shows that the emissions reduction benefits achieved by the Arizona VEI program as amended are higher than those achieved under the performance standard. The amended Arizona VEI program continues to achieve greater emissions reductions than the federal model program because the VEI program includes elements that go beyond federal I/M requirements. These include a requirement for a one-time only waiver, an implementation area beyond the nonattainment area boundaries, and denial of waivers for grossly-emitting vehicles. Table 2.—Results of ADEQ's Alternate Low Enhanced Performance Standard Modeling 1 VOC 2008 NO <sup>X</sup> CO VOC NO <sup>X</sup> CO I/M Benefits in Area A (grams/mile) 0.21 0.10 3.66 0.07 0.09 1.40 I/M Performance Standard benefits (grams/mile) 0.16 0.02 2.91 0.04 0.01 1.02 1 The emission rates in this table represent the difference between the fleet-wide emission rate under the applicable program ( *i.e.* , amended Arizona VEI program or EPA's I/M model program) and the corresponding emission rate under the no-I/M scenario. See Tables 1, 2, and 3 of appendix B to the VEI SIP Supplement. Based on our review of the VEI SIP Supplement, we find ADEQ's methods used to update the performance standard evaluation and use of the alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard to be acceptable, and we find that the VEI program, as amended to exempt collectible vehicles in the Phoenix area from the emissions testing requirements, exceeds the alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard in the Phoenix area as required under 40 CFR 51.351 and 51.905(a)(1). Therefore, we propose to approve the updated performance standard evaluation for the Phoenix VEI program, as submitted on October 3, 2006 in the VEI SIP Supplement, as a revision to the Phoenix portion of the Arizona Ozone SIP. C. Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance Under CAA Section 110(l) Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(l) to be approved by EPA. Section 110(l) states: “* * *. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.” We interpret section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of the CAA and to all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment, unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria pollutants. We also interpret section 110(l) to require a demonstration addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. Thus, for example, modification of a SIP-approved measure may impact NO <sup>X</sup> emissions, which may impact PM <sup>2.5</sup> . The scope and rigor of an adequate section 110(l) demonstration of noninterference depends on the air quality status of the area, the potential impact of the revision on air quality, the pollutant(s) affected, and the nature of the applicable CAA requirements. As described above, the changes to the Arizona VEI programs that would occur with EPA approval of the two SIP revision submittals evaluated herein ( *i.e.* , the new exemptions from emissions testing for collectible vehicles in Phoenix and collectible vehicles and motorcycles in Tucson) affect both the Phoenix and Tucson areas. Therefore, EPA needs to review the effect of the exemptions in both of these areas before we can determine whether we can approve the two SIP revisions under CAA section 110(l). The VEI SIP Revision submittal that seeks exemption of collectible vehicles from the Phoenix enhanced I/M program and collectible vehicles and motorcycles from the Tucson basic I/M program includes an evaluation of the effects of the revisions to the VEI programs on ozone, carbon monoxide, PM <sup>2.5</sup> , and air toxics in both geographic areas. The details of ADEQ's evaluation of the emissions effects and related ambient air quality impacts of the new exemptions are contained in “Report on Potential Exemptions from Vehicle Emissions Testing for Motorcycles, Collectible Vehicles and Vehicles 25 Model Years Old and Older (December 2004)” (“2004 Report”), which was included as Appendix B to the VEI SIP Revision. The 2004 report indicates that ADEQ used the latest version of EPA's motor vehicle emissions model program, MOBILE6.2, to estimate the emissions effects of the new exemptions. The methods used to gather data included surveys of collectible vehicle insurers and collectible vehicle and motorcycle owners, in addition to acquisition of data from the State vehicle emissions inspections programs, other state agencies, air quality planning agencies and relevant air quality plans. We find that ADEQ used reasonable methods and appropriate models in estimating the emissions effects of the new exemptions. Table 3 below summarizes ADEQ's estimates by geographic area, vehicle category, and pollutant in units of metric tons per day (mtpd). Table 3 also shows the emissions impact as a percentage of the overall pollutant-specific inventory in the applicable area. Table 3.—VOC and CO Emissions Inventory Impacted by the VEI SIP Revision Vehicle category Area-wide total emissions inventory
(mtpd)I/M benefit from test and repair of vehicles 1
(mtpd)Percent of areawide total emissions inventory Phoenix: Collectible Vehicles: VOC 328.9 0.03 0.009 CO 912.3 0.32 0.035 Tucson: Collectible Vehicles: VOC 84.8 0.01 0.012 CO 598.5 0.14 0.023 Motorcycles: VOC 84.8 0.03 0.035 CO 598.5 0.09 0.015 1 I/M Benefit = the reduction in emissions due to the repair of vehicles that exceed the prescribed emissions standards in Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R18-2-1031. 1. Ozone Ozone is formed by the interaction of directly-emitted precursor emissions, volatile organic compounds
(VOC)and oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ), in the presence of sunlight under the influence of meteorological and topographical features of an area. *Phoenix.* By rule effective June 15, 2004, EPA designated the Phoenix area as a “basic” nonattainment area for the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 2001-2003 air quality monitoring data. See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). As indicated in Table 3 above, the revision to the VEI program in Phoenix would increase VOC emissions by 0.03 metric tons per day, which represents approximately 0.009% of the overall VOC emissions inventory in this area under existing conditions. ADEQ did not estimate NO <sup>X</sup> emissions, but we agree with ADEQ's reasoning that any change, positive or negative, in NO <sup>X</sup> emissions would be minimal given the small number of vehicles involved, the fact that repairs to vehicles to reduce VOC and CO emissions often result in an incremental increase in NO <sup>X</sup> emissions, and the small fraction of collectible vehicles (approximately 8 percent) currently subject to NO <sup>X</sup> testing (only those that are model years 1981 and newer). These incremental emissions impacts of the VEI SIP Revision would occur in an area for which overall VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions are expected to decline. Specifically, in the Phoenix area, overall VOC emissions are expected to decrease by 7% between 2006 and 2015 and overall NO <sup>X</sup> emissions are expected to decrease by 13% over the same period. 4 Moreover, data collected by the ozone monitoring network in the Phoenix area appears to show that the area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the years 2003-2005. 5 4 See Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), “One-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area,” March 2004, pp. 3-11 and 3-12. 5 See Table 4 in the VEI SIP Revision and see the Quick Look Reports (dated August 14, 2006 and August 31, 2006) included in the docket for this proposed rule. Therefore, based on the minimal likely effect of the VEI SIP Revision on VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions, the downward trend in overall ozone precursor emissions, and monitoring data that appears to show that the area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, we find that exempting collectible vehicles from emissions testing under the VEI program would not interfere with attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix area. *Tucson.* EPA included the Tucson area in “rest of state,” an area that we designated as “unclassifiable/attainment” for the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). As indicated in Table 3 above, the revision to the VEI program in Tucson would increase VOC emissions by 0.04 metric tons per day, which represents approximately 0.047% of the overall VOC emissions inventory in this area under existing conditions. For the reasons given above for the Phoenix area, we would expect any change, positive or negative, in NO <sup>X</sup> emissions due to the VEI SIP Revision to be minimal. These incremental changes in ozone precursor emissions would occur in an area where the highest three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum level ( *i.e.* , the statistical basis for the NAAQS) collected among the nine stations comprising the ozone monitoring network in the Tucson area was approximately 10% below the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (based on 2003-2005 data). 6 As such, we agree with ADEQ's conclusion that the slight change in ozone precursor emissions from the exemption of collectible vehicles and motorcycles from emissions testing requirements of the VEI program would not interfere with continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Tucson area. 6 See Table 5 of the VEI SIP Revision and the Quick Look Reports (dated August 14, 2006 and August 31, 2006) included in the docket for this proposed rule. 2. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide
(CO)is a product of incomplete combustion of fuels. In most urban areas, most of the CO comes from motor vehicle exhaust. *Phoenix.* In 2005, EPA redesignated the Phoenix area for CO, and approved a maintenance plan that provides for maintenance of the CO NAAQS in that area through 2015. See 70 FR 11553 (March 9, 2005) and 70 FR 52926 (September 6, 2005). As indicated in Table 3 above, the revision to the VEI program in Phoenix would increase CO emissions by 0.32 metric tons per day, which represents approximately 0.035% of the overall CO emissions inventory in this area under existing conditions. The incremental CO emissions increase of the SIP revision would occur in an area where overall CO emissions are expected to remain relatively constant over the next 10 years and where ambient CO levels are well below the NAAQS. Specifically, in the Phoenix area, overall CO emissions are expected to decrease by only 1% between 2006 and 2015, 7 and the highest second-highest value ( *i.e.* , the basis for the NAAQS) collected among the 15 stations comprising the CO monitoring network in the Phoenix area is 5.1 parts per million (ppm), eight-hour average, or less than 60% of the 8-hour CO NAAQS (based on 2004-2005 data). 8 7 See Maricopa Association of Governments, “Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area,” May 2003, pp. 3-10. 8 See Table 14 of the VEI SIP Revision and the Quick Look Reports (dated August 14, 2006 and August 31, 2006) included in the docket for this proposed rule. Therefore, based on the minimal estimated increase in CO emissions due to the VEI SIP Revision, the relatively constant level of overall CO emissions, and monitoring data that shows that ambient CO levels remain well below the CO NAAQS, we find that exempting collectible vehicles from emissions testing under the VEI program would not interfere with continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Phoenix area. *Tucson.* Tucson was designated as a “not classified” CO nonattainment area following the CAA Amendments of 1990. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). Arizona implemented its VEI program in the Tucson area as part of the control strategy to attain and maintain the CO NAAQS in the area. In 2000, EPA redesignated the Tucson area to attainment for CO and approved the area's maintenance plan, which provides for maintenance of the CO NAAQS through 2008. See 65 FR 36353 (June 8, 2000), 65 FR 50651 (August 21, 2000), and 69 FR 12802 (March 18, 2004). As indicated in Table 3 above, the revision to the VEI program in Tucson would increase CO emissions by 0.23 metric tons per day, which represents approximately 0.038% of the overall CO emissions inventory in this area under existing conditions. The incremental CO emissions increase of the SIP revision would occur in an area where ambient CO levels are well below the NAAQS. Specifically, in the Tucson area the highest second-highest value ( *i.e.* , the basis for the NAAQS) collected among the six stations comprising the CO monitoring network in the Tucson area is 2.5 ppm, eight-hour average, or less than 30% of the 8-hour CO NAAQS (based on 2004-2005 data). 9 9 See Table 15 of the VEI SIP Revision and the Quick Look Reports (dated August 14, 2006 and August 31, 2006) included in the docket for this proposed rule. Therefore, based on the minimal estimated increase in CO emissions due to the VEI SIP Revision and monitoring data that shows that ambient CO levels remain well below the CO NAAQS, we find that exempting collectible vehicles and motorcycles from emissions testing under the VEI program would not interfere with continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Tucson area. 3. Particulate Matter EPA has promulgated different NAAQS for particles with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM <sup>10</sup> ) and for particles with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers (microns) or less (PM <sup>2.5</sup> ). Ambient PM <sup>10</sup> and PM <sup>2.5</sup> levels consist of directly-emitted particles as well as secondary particles formed through atmospheric reactions involving such precursors as NO <sup>X</sup> and SO <sup>X</sup> . *Phoenix.* In 1990, the Phoenix area was designated as a “moderate” nonattainment for the PM <sup>10</sup> NAAQS by operation of law under the CAA Amendments of 1990. EPA reclassified the area as “serious” in 1996. See 61 FR 21372 (May 10, 1996). In 2002, EPA approved the “serious area” PM <sup>10</sup> plan, which was intended to provide for attainment of the PM <sup>10</sup> NAAQS in the Phoenix area by 2006. See 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002); certain plan elements re-approved at 71 FR 43979 (August 3, 2006). The Phoenix area PM <sup>10</sup> attainment plan relies largely on control of fugitive dust sources such as paved and unpaved roads, vacant disturbed lots, and unpaved parking lots. On-road vehicle exhaust accounts for approximately 2.1% of the annual average area-wide (directly-emitted) PM <sup>10</sup> inventory. 10 The area continues to violate both the annual and 24-hour PM <sup>10</sup> NAAQS and thus appears to have failed to meet the PM <sup>10</sup> NAAQS by the 2006 attainment date. 11 10 See Maricopa Association of Governments, “Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area,” February 2000, pp. 8-15. 11 We will make this determination when quality-assured data for 2006 are available. PM <sup>10</sup> emissions are emitted as a product of incomplete combustion along with such other pollutants as CO and VOC, and because the exemption of collectible vehicles from emissions testing requirements of the VEI program in the Phoenix area would incrementally increase emissions of the latter pollutants, it would also likely result in the incremental increase of the former as well. ADEQ did not quantify the PM <sup>10</sup> emissions impact of this new exemption. However, we can safely conclude that any such impact would be negligible, even though the area will likely miss its attainment deadline, given the small number of vehicles involved (see Table 1 herein), the magnitude of the emission impact of other products of incomplete combustion (see Table 3 herein and related discussion of ozone and CO above), and the small contribution of the applicable source category (on-road motor vehicle exhaust) to overall PM <sup>10</sup> emissions in the Phoenix area. Thus, the VEI SIP Revision would not interfere with attainment of the PM <sup>10</sup> NAAQS in the Phoenix area. Based on the same rationale, we can also conclude that the exemption of collectible vehicles from the emissions testing requirements of the VEI program in the Phoenix area would not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS for PM <sup>2.5</sup> , a pollutant for which the Phoenix area is designated as “unclassifiable/attainment.” See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005). Ambient PM <sup>2.5</sup> concentrations in the Phoenix area are well below the applicable NAAQS. *Tucson.* EPA has included the Tucson area in the “unclassifiable” area designation for the PM <sup>10</sup> NAAQS and in the county-specific “unclassifiable/attainment” designation ( *i.e.* , Pima County) for the PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS. See 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992), 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005), and 40 CFR 81.303. Ambient PM <sup>10</sup> and PM <sup>2.5</sup> concentrations in the Tucson area are well below the applicable NAAQS. For the reasons given above for Phoenix, the PM <sup>10</sup> and PM <sup>2.5</sup> emissions impact of exemption of collectible vehicles and motorcycles from emissions testing requirements would be negligible and would not interfere with continued attainment of the PM <sup>10</sup> and PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS in the Tucson area. 4. Air Toxics *Phoenix and Tucson.* Since the CAA does not have ambient air quality standards for air toxics, the EPA's interpretation of section 110(l) is that an area's compliance with any applicable MACT standards, as well as any Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP) under sections 112 or 202(l) of the CAA constitutes an acceptable demonstration of noninterference for air toxics. Motor vehicles are not subject to MACT standards, and the VEI SIP Revision will not interfere with any Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs that apply in the area. For these reasons, the State thus concludes, and EPA concurs, that the VEI SIP Revision would not interfere with any applicable CAA requirements relative to air toxics. 5. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, EPA concludes that the changes to the Arizona VEI programs that would occur with EPA approval of the VEI SIP Revision and VEI SIP Supplement ( *i.e.* , the exemptions from emissions testing for collectible vehicles in the Phoenix area and collectible vehicles and motorcycles in the Tucson area) would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in the Phoenix or Tucson areas and would not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the Act, and thus, are approvable under CAA section 110(l). Therefore, we propose to approve statutory exemptions from emissions testing for collectible vehicles in Phoenix and collectible vehicles and motorcycles in Tucson, as submitted on December 23, 2005 in the VEI SIP Revision, as a revision to the Phoenix and Tucson portions of the Arizona CO and Ozone SIPs. D. Contingency Provisions of CAA Section 175A(d) In 2000, EPA redesignated the Tucson area from nonattainment to attainment for the CO NAAQS and approved a maintenance plan. See 65 FR 36353 (June 8, 2000), 65 FR 50651 (August 21, 2000), and 69 FR 12802 (March 18, 2004). In 2005, EPA did the same for the Phoenix area. See 70 FR 11553 (March 9, 2005) and 70 FR 52926 (September 6, 2005). The CO maintenance plans for the two areas include contingency elements or plans that we approved as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A(d). For the Phoenix area, the contingency plan establishes an action (or trigger) level protective of the NAAQS and identifies several measures, including expansion of “Area A” (the area in which certain control measures apply), for early implementation as well as consideration of additional measures on a set schedule following the triggering event. For the Tucson area, the contingency plan establishes trigger or action levels as well as schedules for review and collection of data and consideration of adoption of control measures from a preselected list of such measures. At the time of redesignation of the Phoenix and Tucson areas to attainment for the CO NAAQS, the VEI programs were adopted and approved into the Arizona SIP and were assumed to continue in effect throughout the maintenance periods. Moreover, the VEI programs at the time of redesignation of these areas did not exempt collectible vehicles or motorcycles in either area from the emissions testing requirements. Generally, contingency plans should clearly identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by the State and should also identify specific indicators, or triggers, which will be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. See EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, entitled “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” dated September 4, 1992. At a minimum, CAA section 175A(d) requires that the State adopt as contingency measures all control measures that had been approved in the SIP for the area prior to redesignation but that the State subsequently repeals or relaxes. In this instance, because the EPA-approved VEI emissions testing requirements applied to collectible vehicles and motorcycles at the time of redesignation for the Phoenix and Tucson areas, reinstatement of emissions testing for these newly-exempt vehicle categories must be adopted as contingency measures for the Phoenix and Tucson CO maintenance areas to comply with CAA section 175A(d). ADEQ's VEI SIP Supplement includes two new contingency measures that establish a binding commitment on ADEQ to request Legislative action to reinstate emissions testing for collectible vehicles in the Phoenix area or collectible vehicles and motorcycles in the Tucson area should the applicable area experience a violation of the CO NAAQS. See pages 1 and 2 of the VEI SIP Supplement. Specifically, ADEQ's contingency measures involve notification to the Legislature by the October following a violation of the CO NAAQS in the Phoenix or Tucson areas. After notifying the Legislature, ADEQ will request that the Arizona Legislature enact new legislation to reinstate the categories of vehicles exempted through EPA approval of the VEI SIP Revision and VEI SIP Supplement ( *i.e.* , collectible vehicles in Phoenix or collectible vehicles and motorcycles in Tucson) during the General Legislative Session that begins in January. ADEQ's request to the Legislature will call for testing to be renewed for the newly exempt vehicle categories in the applicable area beginning the January following the General Legislative Session. We view ADEQ's contingency measures in the context of the existing EPA-approved CO contingency plans for the Phoenix and Tucson areas, and as such, we find that the plans, as amended to include these new contingency measures, continue to meet the requirements of CAA section 175A(d), and that the new measures themselves are consistent with relevant EPA guidance. Therefore, we propose to approve the contingency measures, as adopted and submitted by ADEQ on October 3, 2006 in the VEI SIP Supplement, as a revision to the Phoenix and Tucson area portions of the Arizona CO SIP. IV. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment Under section 110(k) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the Arizona SIP submitted by the State of Arizona on December 23, 2005 and October 3, 2006 concerning the Arizona VEI programs implemented in the Phoenix and Tucson areas because we find that the revisions are consistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations. Specifically, we are proposing to approve exemptions from emissions testing requirements for collectible vehicles in the Phoenix area and collectible vehicles and motorcycles in the Tucson area as set forth in the “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Programs” (December 2005) and ARS Section 49-542 as amended in section 1 of Arizona House Bill 2357, 47th Legislature, 1st Regular Session
(2005)and approved by the Governor on April 13, 2005; and the updated performance standard evaluation for the Phoenix area and new contingency measures as set forth in the “Supplement to Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Programs, December 2005” (September 2006). We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. V. 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 approve changes to 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.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve changes to state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does 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), nor will it 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), because it merely proposes to approve changes to state law implementing a Federal requirement, 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 (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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. 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, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: December 12, 2006. Jane Diamond, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9. [FR Doc. E6-22305 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 80 and 86 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0363; FRL-8263-5] RIN 2060-AN66 Amendment to Tier 2 Vehicle Emission Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Requirements: Partial Exemption for U.S. Pacific Island Territories AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed Rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to exempt the three U.S. Pacific Island Territories—American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (C.N.M.I.)—from the gasoline sulfur requirements that EPA promulgated in the Tier 2 motor vehicle rule. The Governor of American Samoa petitioned us for an exemption from the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur requirement because of the potential for gasoline shortages, the added cost, and the minimal air quality benefits the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur requirement would provide to American Samoa. Representatives of the Governors of Guam and C.N.M.I. have also requested an exemption referencing the petition submitted by American Samoa. The Far East market, primarily Singapore, supplies gasoline to the U.S. Pacific Island Territories. The Tier 2 sulfur standard effectively requires special gasoline shipments, which would increase the cost and could jeopardize the security of the gasoline supply to the Pacific Island Territories. The air quality in American Samoa, Guam, and C.N.M.I. is generally pristine, due to the wet climate, strong prevailing winds, and considerable distance from any pollution sources. We recognize that exempting the U.S. Pacific Island Territories from the gasoline sulfur standard will result in smaller emission reductions. However, Tier 2 vehicles using higher sulfur gasoline still emit 30% less hydrocarbons and 60% less NO <sup>X</sup> than Tier 1 vehicles and negative effects on the catalytic converter due to the higher sulfur levels are, in many cases, reversible. Additionally, these reduced benefits are acceptable due to the pristine air quality, the fact that gasoline quality will not change, and the cost and difficulty of consistently acquiring Tier 2 compliant gasoline. The Tier 2 motor vehicle rule also sets standards for vehicle emissions. Vehicles in use on the U.S. Pacific Island Territories will not be exempt from the Tier 2 vehicle emission standards. However, additional flexibility will be afforded due to the lack of low sulfur gasoline. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 29, 2007. Request for a public hearing must be received by January 12, 2007. If we receive a request for a public hearing, we will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and the timing of a new deadline for public comments. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0363, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0363. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0363. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://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 *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202)566-1742. Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's **Federal Register** notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* for current information on docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for submitting comments to *http://www.regulations.gov* are not affected by the flooding and will remain the same. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Hillson, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Mailcode AASMCG, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:
(734)214-4789; fax number:
(734)214-4052; e-mail address: *Hillson.Sean@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** , we are making these revisions as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view these revisions as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for these revisions in the preamble to the direct final rule. For further information, please see the information provided in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment on the rule, or on one or more distinct actions in the rule, we will withdraw the direct final rule, or the portions of the rule receiving adverse comment. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline: I. General Information II. Summary of Rule III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action will affect you if you produce new motor vehicles, alter individual imported motor vehicles to address U.S. regulation, or convert motor vehicles to use alternative fuels for use in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories—American Samoa, Guam, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (C.N.M.I.). It will also affect you if you produce, import, distribute, or sell gasoline fuel for use in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories. The following table gives some examples of entities that may have to follow the regulations. But because these are only examples, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR parts 80 and 86. If you have questions, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICS codes a SIC codes b Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 336111 3711 336112 336120 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Converters 336311 3592 336312 3714 422720 5172 454312 5984 811198 7549 541514 8742 541690 8931 Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle Components 811112 7533 811198 7549 541514 8742 Petroleum Refiners 324110 2911 Gasoline Marketers and Distributers 422710 5171 422720 5172 Gasoline Carriers 484220 4212 484230 4213 a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI Do not submit confidential business information to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 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. II. Summary of Rule This proposed rule would exempt American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (C.N.M.I.) from the gasoline sulfur requirements that EPA promulgated in the Tier 2 motor vehicle rule. The proposed rule would not exempt American Samoa, Guam, and C.N.M.I. from the Tier 2 vehicle emission standards. However, we are providing additional flexibilities for Tier 2 vehicles considering low sulfur gasoline is unavailable in the territories. These flexibilities
(1)allow additional preconditioning prior to conducting exhaust emission tests (to remove sulfur deposits on the catalyst and emission control system components) and
(2)allow special OBD system considerations to account for higher levels of sulfur present in gasoline. Exempting these U.S. Pacific Island Territories from the gasoline sulfur standard and providing flexibilities to the vehicle regulations for Tier 2 vehicles located in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories would have minimal, if any, impact on air quality. For additional discussion of the proposed rule changes, see the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** . This proposal incorporates by reference all the reasoning, explanation, and regulatory text from the direct final rule. III. 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 OMB review. 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.* This rule does not create new requirements. Its purpose is to relieve a burden imposed on the three Pacific Island Territories. 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 The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business as 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; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would exempt the three U.S. Pacific Island Territories—American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands—from the Tier 2 rule for gasoline sulfur requirements and extend existing related flexibilities to the vehicle emission standards for the three territories. It does not create new requirements. Its purpose is to relieve a burden imposed on the three U.S. Pacific Island Territories. We have therefore concluded that today's rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. 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), Pub.L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 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. Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It does not create new requirements. Its purpose is to relieve a burden imposed on the three Pacific Island Territories. E. 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.” This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 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 representatives of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories in developing this rule. A summary of the concerns was raised during that consultation and EPA's response to those concerns is provided in previous sections of this preamble. 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 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule would exempt the three Pacific Island Territories—American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (C.N.M.I.)—from the Tier 2 rule for gasoline sulfur requirements and extend existing related flexibilities to the vehicle emission standards for the three territories. It applies only to the three U.S. Pacific Island Territories. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and 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. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 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. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority Statutory authority for today's final rule is found in the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* , in particular, sections 325, 211 and 202 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7521. This rule is being promulgated under the administrative and procedural provisions of Clean Air Act section 307(d), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 80 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Gasoline, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 86 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Motor vehicle pollution. Dated: December 21, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-22309 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 71 249 Thursday, December 28, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 21, 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)720-8681. 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. Rural Business-Cooperative Service *Title:* Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program. *OMB Control Number:* 0570-0035. *Summary of Collection:* The information collected is necessary to implement Section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 940(c)) that established a loan and grant program. Rural Business Service
(RBS)mission is to improve the quality of life in rural America by financing community facilities and businesses, providing technical assistance and creating effective strategies for rural development. Under this program, zero interest loans and grants are provided to electric and telecommunications utilities that have borrowed funds from RUS. The purpose of the program is to encourage these electric and telecommunications utilities to promote rural economic development and job creation projects such as business start-up costs, business expansion, community development, and business incubator projects. *Need and Use of the Information:* RBS needs this collected information to select the projects it believes will provide the most long-term economic benefit to rural areas. The selection process is competitive and RBS has generally received more applications than it could fund. RBS also needs to make sure the funds are used for the intended purpose, and in the case of the loan, the funds will be repaid. RBS must determine that loans made from revolving loan funds established with grants are used for eligible purposes. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit Institutions; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 120. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On Occasion, Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 4,725. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-22202 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XT-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-2006-0205; FV-06-317] United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revising official grade standards, is soliciting comments on the possible revisions to the United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups. AMS has been reviewing the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable grade standards for usefulness in serving the industry. As a result, AMS has identified the United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups for possible revisions. AMS is considering revising the (Application of Tolerances( section in the U.S. standards. Additionally, the (Unclassified( category would be eliminated from the standards. AMS is seeking comments on these proposed changes that may better serve the industry. DATES: Comments must be received by February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 1661 South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240; Fax
(202)720-8871, E-mail *FPB.DocketClerk@usda.gov* . Comments should make reference to the dates and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. The United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups are available either at the above address or by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri L. Emery, at the above address or call
(202)720-2185; e-mail *Cheri.Emery@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture (To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.( AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. AMS makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is considering revisions to the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups using procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). These standards were last revised on June 30, 1968. Background AMS has been reviewing the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable grade standards for usefulness in serving the industry. AMS has identified the United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups for possible revision. Prior to undertaking detailed work developing the proposed revisions in the standards, AMS is soliciting comments on the proposed revisions on the United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups to better serve the industry. AMS is considering revising the “Application of Tolerances” section in the U.S. standards by replacing the phrase “The contents of individual packages * * * ” with “Samples * * * ” and revising “(a) A package may contain * * * ” to “(a) Samples may contain * * * ” This change is needed in order to make the “Application of Tolerances” applicable to larger containers, such as bins, which may contain several hundred melons. AMS is also eliminating the “Unclassified” category. AMS is removing this section in all standards as they are revised. This category is not a grade and only serves to show that no grade has been applied to the lot. It is no longer considered necessary due to current marketing practices. This notice provides for a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on the proposed changes to the United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups. Should AMS go forward with the revisions, it will develop the proposed revised standards that will be published in the **Federal Register** with a request for comments in accordance with 7 CFR part 36. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: December 21, 2006 Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-22235 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0172] Interstate Movement of Garbage from Hawaii; Availability of a Pest Risk Assessment and an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that a pest risk assessment and an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service relative to a request to allow the interstate movement of garbage from Hawaii to a landfill in the State of Washington. The pest risk assessment evaluates the risks associated with the interstate movement of garbage from Hawaii to Washington. The environmental assessment examines the potential environmental effects associated with moving garbage interstate from Hawaii to Washington, subject to certain pest risk mitigation measures and documents our review and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with, and alternatives to, the action. Based on its finding of no significant impact, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shannon Hamm, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Policy and Program Development, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 20, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-4957. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The importation and interstate movement of garbage is regulated by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) under 7 CFR 330.400 and 9 CFR 94.5 (referred to below as the regulations) in order to protect against the introduction into and dissemination within the United States of plant and animal pests and diseases. On November 8, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 65454, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0172) a notice in which we announced the availability, for public review and comment of, a site-specific environmental assessment and a pest risk assessment relative to a request to allow the interstate movement of garbage from Hawaii to the State of Washington. The environmental assessment, titled “Movement of Plastic-baled Municipal Solid Waste from Honolulu, Hawaii to Roosevelt Regional Landfill, Washington” (October 2006), examines the potential environmental effects associated with moving garbage interstate from Hawaii to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat County, WA, subject to certain pest risk mitigation measures. The environmental assessment documents our review and analysis of environmental impacts associated with, and alternatives to, the proposed action. The pest risk assessment, titled “The Risk of Introduction of Pests to Washington State via Plastic-Baled Municipal Solid Waste from Hawaii” (September 2006), evaluates the plant pest risks associated with the interstate movement of garbage from Hawaii to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill. We solicited comments on the site-specific environmental assessment and the pest risk assessment for 30 days ending on December 8, 2006. We received five comments by that date, from three private citizens and two representatives of local municipalities. Of the comments, only one specifically addressed the substance of either assessment. That commenter noted that the environmental assessment incorrectly stated the capacity of the Roosevelt Regional Landfill. We have updated our environmental assessment to reflect the capacity reported by the commenter. One commenter questioned if a copy of the pest risk assessment had been made available for the public to view. The pest risk assessment was made available to the public in several ways. Our November 2006 notice of availability contained specific instructions for obtaining both electronic and paper copies of the pest risk assessment. One commenter disagreed with the idea of moving garbage from Hawaii to the mainland, asking how we can be sure the garbage does not harbor deadly diseases or tiny animals. We believe that the pest risk assessment provides a thorough analysis of risks presented, and that those risks are fully addressed by the baling technology and other safeguards that will be required. One commenter requested information on the companies that have expressed interest in sending municipal solid waste
(MSW)from Hawaii to Roosevelt Regional Landfill. As noted on page 2 of the pest risk assessment, Pacific Rim Environmental Resources and Hawaii Waste Systems have proposed moving baled MSW from Hawaii to a landfill in Washington State. Another commenter asked who initiated the request for an environmental assessment and if these assessments are done routinely by APHIS. For this particular action, APHIS does routinely prepare environmental assessments. As explained in the “Purpose and Need” section of the environmental assessment, APHIS is reviewing two requests to move MSW from Honolulu, HI, to the State of Washington under compliance agreements. APHIS must complete an environmental assessment to evaluate the potential impact on the human environment prior to the issuance of these compliance agreements. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the transport of Hawaiian MSW under compliance agreements would result in a significant impact on the human environment. One commenter asked what measures would be taken to ensure that unacceptable waste would be segregated from baled waste. APHIS recommends a series of mitigations in the pest risk assessment that would ensure that MSW is separated from prohibited materials and processed and shipped in a way that would prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests. Any companies interested in processing and shipping MSW from Hawaii to the mainland would have to enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS and the compliance agreement would spell out all required safeguards. If any company failed to observe the conditions of the compliance agreement, that company would no longer be permitted to process and ship MSW. Finally, one commenter stated that APHIS should not approve the proposals to ship plastic-baled MSW from Hawaii to the State of Washington. The commenter stated that any decisions regarding the disposition of a community's MSW should be left to the local government. To clarify, the pest risk assessment and the environmental assessment were conducted in order to determine if the movement of MSW from Hawaii to the mainland of the United States would present any risk of introduction and dissemination of plant pests or animal diseases or if that action would have any negative impacts on the environments. APHIS is satisfied with the conclusions of those assessments. Additionally, APHIS will enter into compliance agreements with companies that wish to move MSW from Hawaii to the mainland United States to ensure that the mitigations and protocols described in our assessments are being followed. It is entirely up to the local jurisdiction as to whether or not the community will avail itself of this potential disposal option for its MSW. The site-specific pest risk assessment and environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site. 1 Copies of the pest risk assessment and environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are also available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead on
(202)690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 1 Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , click on the “Advanced Search” tab and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2006-0172, click “Submit,” then click on the Docket ID link in the search results page. The pest risk assessment and the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact will appear in the resulting list of documents. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared in accordance with:
(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),
(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of December 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-22267 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Caribou-Targhee National Forest, ID, WY and UT, Caribou Oil and Gas Leasing EIS AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA and Bureau of Land Management, USDI. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Caribou-Targhee National Forest gives notice of the intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS)to document the analysis and disclose the anticipated environmental and human effects of oil and gas leasing on the Caribou administrative unit of the Forest and the Curlew National Grassland in southeast Idaho, with minor amounts of land in northern Utah and western Wyoming. The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (FOOGLRA) requires the Forest Service to evaluate National Forest System
(NFS)lands for potential oil and gas leasing. As the agency responsible for lease issuance and administration, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)will participate as a cooperating agency. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received within 45 days from the date of this notice to be most helpful. The draft environmental impact statement is expected by November, 2007 and the comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The final environmental impact statement is expected in April, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Steve Robison, Oil and Gas Team Leader, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 83401. Electronic comments can be submitted in rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to *comments-intermtn-caribou-targhee@fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ballard, Public Affairs Officer, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 83401; phone
(208)557-5765. For technical information contact: Steve Robison, Oil and Gas Team Leader,
(208)557-5799. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action FOOGLRA requires the Forest Service to evaluate National Forest System
(NFS)lands that are legally open to leasing for potential oil and gas leasing and development, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. FOOGLRA also establishes Forest Service consent authority for leasing prior to the BLM offering NFS lands for lease. Leasing on NFS lands is done under the authority of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as amended, and implementing regulations at 36 CFR 228, subpart E, and 43 CFR 3100. The MLA provides that all public lands are open to oil and gas leasing unless they have been closed by a specific land order. The Caribou administrative unit portion of the Caribou-Targhee NF and the Curlew National Grassland (herein referred to as “the Caribou”) do not have Land and Resource Management Plan direction or decisions that determine which NFS lands are administratively available for oil/gas leasing or the conditions (stipulations) necessary to lease those specific lands. Since the FOOGLRA was signed into law, there has been little industry interest in oil and gas leasing on the Caribou, and no leases have been issued in the past 15 years. The BLM Idaho State Office has received Expressions of Interest for leasing portions of the Caribou for oil/gas. The intent of the applicable laws and regulations (see summary) is to lease appropriate NFS lands and provide a reasonable opportunity to explore for, discover, and produce economic oil and gas reserves from available Federal lands, while meeting the requirements of environmental laws and protecting surface resources and interests not compatible with such activities. Proposed Action The Forest Service and BLM propose to conduct the analysis and decide which NFS lands on the Caribou will be made available for oil and gas leasing and under what terms and conditions (stipulations) these specific lands may be leased. As part of the analysis, the Forest Service will identify those areas that would be administratively available for leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard oil and gas lease form, and subject to constraints that would require the use of lease stipulations such as limiting surface use, timing restrictions, and/or prohibiting surface occupancy in accordance with the Caribou Land and Resource Management Plan (Caribou Plan, revised 2003) and the Curlew National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan (Curlew Plan, 2002). To comply with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, no road construction or reconstruction would be allowed in Inventoried Roadless Areas (see attached Inventoried Roadless Area map for a delineation of the IRAs on the Caribou). Leasing will be considered in some Roadless areas with no surface occupancy stipulations. The analysis will also:
(1)Identify alternatives to the proposed action;
(2)project the type/amount of post-leasing activity that is reasonably foreseeable; and
(3)analyze the reasonable foreseeable impacts of projected post-leasing activity [36 CFR 228.102(c)]. Possible Alternatives All alternatives studied in detail must fall within the scope of the purpose and need for action and will generally tier to and comply with the Caribou and Curlew Plans. Law requires the evaluation of a “no action alternative”. Under the No Action/No Lease alternative, no NFS lands on the Caribou would be made available for oil/gas leasing at this time. The other identified preliminary alternative would allow leasing on some NFS lands consistent with the Caribou and Curlew Plans. This alternative would be similar to the proposed action but would consider road construction or reconstruction in some of the inventoried roadless areas in the event of a future change in inventoried roadless area direction. Other alternatives which would involve making some lands unavailable for leasing and other lands available for leasing with lease stipulations for the protection of surface resources and other interests may be developed based on public input. Lead and Cooperating Agencies The Forest Service is the Lead Agency. The Bureau of Land Management will participate as a Cooperating Agency. Responsible Official Larry Timchak, Forest Supervisor, Caribou -Targhee National Forest, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 83401. Idaho State Director, Bureau of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709. Wyoming State Director, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, WY 82003. Utah State Director, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 45155, Salt Lake City, UT 84101. Nature of Decision To Be Made The Forest Supervisor, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, will decide which lands on the Caribou will be administratively available for oil and gas leasing, along with the associated conditions or constraints for the protection of non-mineral resources and interests [36 CFR 228.102(d)]. The Forest Supervisor will also authorize the BLM to offer specific lands for lease, subject to Forest Service identified stipulations that will be attached to the lease [36 CFR 228.102(e)]. The Forest Supervisor will amend, if necessary, the Caribou and Curlew Land and Resource Management Plans. The BLM is responsible for issuing and administering oil and gas leases under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3101.7. The BLM State Director (Idaho, Utah, and/or Wyoming) will decide whether or not to offer for lease specific lands, in their respective states, that have been authorized by the Caribou-Targhee Forest Supervisor for leasing with the Forest Service designated stipulations. Scoping Process The first formal opportunity to comment on the Caribou Oil and Gas Leasing analysis project is during the scoping process [40 CFR 1501.7] which begins with the issuance of this Notice of Intent. Mail comments to: Steve Robison, Oil and Gas Team Leader, 1405 Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83401. The Forest Service requests comments on the nature and scope of the environmental, social, and economic issues, and possible alternatives related to oil and gas leasing on the Caribou administrative unit of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest and the Curlew National Grassland. A series of public meetings are scheduled to describe the proposal and to provide an opportunity for public input. Four scoping meetings are planned as follows: January 16: 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., Tribal Business Center, Pima Dr., Fort Hall, ID. January 16: 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Westside Ranger District Office, 4350 Cliffs Dr., Pocatello, ID. January 18: 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Soda Springs Ranger District Office, 410 E. Hooper Ave., Soda Springs, ID. January 18: 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Montpelier Ranger District Office, 322 N. 4th, Montpelier, ID. Written comments will be accepted at these meetings. The Forest Service will work with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal government to address issues that could significantly or uniquely affect them. The project will be listed in the Caribou-Targhee NF Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions and a scoping letter will be sent to local tribal interests, interested agencies, organizations, media-contacts and the Forest-wide mailing list. Preliminary Issues Important goals for the project are to meet the legal requirements for evaluating National Forest System
(NFS)lands and make the required decisions. Preliminary issues are anticipated to involve potential effects to wildlife, biological diversity (Management Indicator Species), water, soil resources, social and economic settings, cultural and paleontological resources, inventoried roadless area characteristics, visual resources, traditional cultural properties (including plant and mineral gathering areas and sacred sites), forest transportation system, noxious weeds, and air quality. Specific issues will be developed through review of public comments and internal review. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Specific comments or concerns are the most important types of information needed for this EIS. Only public comments which address relevant issues and concerns will be considered and formally addressed in an appendix to the EIS. *Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review:* A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21) Dated: December 20, 2006. Lawrence A. Timchak, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 06-9906 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 45
Traces to 45 documents
U.S. Code
50 references not yet in our index
  • 26 CFR 300
  • T.D. 9306
  • Pub. L. 109-292
  • 24 CFR 104
  • Pub. L. 107-42
  • 20 USC 1087aa-1087hh
  • 20 USC 421-429
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 80
  • 40 CFR 86.1806-05(d)
  • 40 CFR 86.1845-04(a)
  • 40 CFR 9
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 40 CFR 86
  • 42 USC 7401-7671q
  • 40 CFR 300
  • 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3)
  • 42 USC 9601-9657
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 23 CFR 505
  • Pub. L. 109-59
  • 49 CFR 1.48(b)
  • 32 CFR 199
  • Pub. L. 108-365
  • Pub. L. 108-173
  • Pub. L. 106-398
  • Pub. L. 106-65
  • 42 CFR 423
  • 42 CFR 423.100
  • 42 CFR 423.464
  • 44 USC 55
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 40 CFR 51
  • 40 CFR 81.303
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 7 USC 1621-1627
  • 7 CFR 36
  • 7 CFR 330.400
  • 9 CFR 94.5
+ 10 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final regulations
SCOTUS435 U.S. 519
F. App'x803 F.2d 1016
F. Supp.490 F. Supp. 1334
Cites 95 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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