Rules and Regulations. Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
27,486 words·~125 min read·
/register/2007/02/05/07-475A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR 3001 [Docket No. RM2007-1; Order No. 2] Administrative Practice and Procedure, Postal Service AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: Recent legislation alters the postal ratemaking process, and tasks the Postal Regulatory Commission to develop regulations to implement this process. This notice invites public comment, in advance of formulating substantive rule proposals, to guide this process.
DATES: Initial comments due April 6, 2007; reply comments due May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at *http://www.prc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6820 and *stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Public Law 109-435 (PAEA), directs that the Postal Regulatory Commission (Commission) shall by regulation establish a modern system for regulating rates and classes for market dominant postal products.
The PAEA further directs that the Commission shall promulgate regulations to bound Postal Service discretion in setting rates for competitive postal products. Both of these tasks are to be completed by June 19, 2008. Interested persons are invited to provide written comments and suggestions as to how the Commission can best fulfill these responsibilities to achieve the purposes of the PAEA. Comments are due within 60 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** .
All comments and suggestions received will be available for review on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.prc.gov* . Interested persons are further invited to review these submissions and provide follow-up comments and suggestions within 30 additional days, that is, within 90 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Commenters are requested to specifically explain how suggestions will comport with the specific applicable statutory directions as set out below.
I. Modern Rate Regulation of Market Dominant Products The PAEA reforms the postal laws of the United States. Among other things, it alters the method by which the rates and fees for postal products may be changed. Separate rules are to apply for market dominant, as opposed to competitive, postal services. The Commission is given 18 months to develop and implement this system. In fulfilling this responsibility, the Commission is to effectuate the following specific policies set forth in the PAEA.
A. Requirements The system for regulating rates and classes for market dominant products shall: 1. Establish a schedule whereby rates, when necessary and appropriate, would change at regular intervals by predictable amounts; 2. Include an annual limitation on the percentage changes in rates, to be set by the Commission, that will be equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers unadjusted for seasonal variation over the most recent available 12-month period preceding the date the Postal Service files notice of its intention to increase rates; 3.
Establish procedures whereby the Postal Service may adjust rates not in excess of the annual limitation; 4. Provide that not later than 45 days before the implementation of any adjustment in rates subject to this limitation, including special rates pursuant to factor (10), below:
(a)Require the Postal Service to provide public notice of the adjustment;
(b)Provide an opportunity for review by the Commission;
(c)Provide for the Commission to notify the Postal Service of any noncompliance of the adjustment with this annual limitation;
(d)Require the Postal Service to respond to the notice provided under the previous clause and describe the actions to be taken to comply with this annual limitation; and 5. Establish procedures to allow rate adjustments in excess of the annual limitation on an expedited basis due to either extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, provided:
(a)There is not sufficient unused rate authority as defined in 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(2)(C); and
(b)The Commission determines, after notice and opportunity for a public hearing and comment, and within 90 days after any request by the Postal Service, that such adjustment is reasonable and equitable and necessary to enable the Postal Service, under best practices of honest, efficient, and economical management, to maintain and continue the development of postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United States. B. Objectives The system for regulating rates and classes for market dominant products shall be designed to achieve the following objectives, each of which shall be applied in conjunction with the others: 1. To maximize incentives to reduce costs and increase efficiency; 2. To create predictability and stability in rates; 3. To maintain high quality service standards established under 39 U.S.C. 3691; 4. To allow the Postal Service pricing flexibility; 5. To assure adequate revenues, including retained earnings, to maintain financial stability; 6. To reduce the administrative burden and increase the transparency of the ratemaking process; 7. To enhance mail security and deter terrorism; 8. To establish and maintain a just and reasonable schedule for rates and classifications, however the objective under this paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit the Postal Service from making changes of unequal magnitude within, between, or among classes of mail; and 9. To allocate the total institutional costs of the Postal Service appropriately between market dominant and competitive products. C. Factors In establishing the system for regulating rates and classes for market dominant products, the Commission shall take into account: 1. The value of the mail service actually provided each class or type of mail service to both the sender and the recipient, including but not limited to the collection, mode of transportation, and priority of delivery; 2. The requirement that each class of mail or type of mail service bear the direct and indirect postal costs attributable to each class or type of mail service through reliably identified causal relationships plus that portion of all other costs of the Postal Service reasonably assignable to such class or type; 3. The effect of rate increases upon the general public, business mail users, and enterprises in the private sector of the economy engaged in the delivery of mail matter other than letters; 4. The available alternative means of sending and receiving letters and other mail matter at reasonable costs; 5. The degree of preparation of mail for delivery into the postal system performed by the mailer and its effect upon reducing costs to the Postal Service; 6. Simplicity of structure for the entire schedule and simple, identifiable relationships between the rates or fees charged the various classes of mail for postal services; 7. The importance of pricing flexibility to encourage increased mail volume and operational efficiency; 8. The relative value to the people of the kinds of mail matter entered into the postal system and the desirability and justification for special classifications and services of mail; 9. The importance of providing classifications with extremely high degrees of reliability and speed of delivery and of providing those that do not require high degrees of reliability and speed of delivery; 10. The desirability of special classifications for both postal users and the Postal Service in accordance with the policies of Title 39, including agreements between the Postal Service and postal users, when available on public and reasonable terms to similarly situated mailers, that
(a)Either improve the net financial position of the Postal Service through reducing Postal Service costs or increasing the overall contribution to the institutional costs of the Postal Service; or enhance the performance of mail preparation, processing, transportation, or other functions; and
(b)Do not cause unreasonable harm to the marketplace; 11. The educational, cultural, scientific, and informational value to the recipient of mail matter; 12. The need for the Postal Service to increase its efficiency and reduce its costs, including infrastructure costs, to help maintain high quality, affordable postal services; 13. The value to the Postal Service and postal users of promoting intelligent mail and of secure, sender-identified mail; and 14. The policies of this title as well as such other factors as the Commission determines appropriate. D. Additional Consideration The system for regulating rates and classes for market dominant products must enable the Commission to ensure that workshare discounts, as defined in 39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(1), do not exceed the cost that the Postal Service avoids as a result of workshare activity unless: 1. The discount is
(a)Associated with a new postal service, a change to an existing postal service, or with a new workshare initiative related to an existing postal service; and
(b)Necessary to induce mailer behavior that furthers the economically efficient operation of the Postal Service and the portion of the discount in excess of the cost that the Postal Service avoids as a result of the workshare activity will be phased out over a limited period of time; or 2. The amount of the discount above costs avoided
(a)Is necessary to mitigate rate shock; and
(b)Will be phased out over time; or 3. The discount is provided in connection with subclasses of mail consisting exclusively of mail matter of educational, cultural, scientific, or informational value; or 4. Reduction or elimination of the discount would impede the efficient operation of the Postal Service. Application of these standards shall not require that a workshare discount be reduced or eliminated if the reduction or elimination of the discount would: 1. Lead to a loss of volume in the affected category or subclass of mail and reduce the aggregate contribution to the institutional costs of the Postal Service from the category or subclass subject to the discount below what it otherwise would have been if the discount had not been reduced or eliminated; or 2. Result in a further increase in the rates paid by mailers not able to take advantage of the discount. II. Provisions Applicable to Rates for Competitive Products With regard to competitive products, regulations are to be established that: 1. Prohibit the subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products; 2. Ensure that each competitive product covers its costs attributable; and 3. Ensure that all competitive products collectively cover what the Commission determines to be an appropriate share of the institutional costs of the Postal Service. Ordering Paragraphs *It is ordered:* 1. Docket No. RM2007-1 is established for the purpose of receiving comments in advance of developing regulations effectuating a modern system of ratemaking. 2. Interested persons may submit comments no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . 3. Reply comments also may be filed no later than 90 days from the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . 4. Shelley S. Dreifuss, director of the Office of the Consumer Advocate, is designated to represent the interests of the general public in this docket. 5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Notice in the **Federal Register** . By the Commission. Steven W. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1787 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2006-1013; FRL-8275-8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan; Alaska AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA invites public comment on its proposal to approve numerous revisions to the State of Alaska Implementation Plan. The Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC)submitted two requests to EPA dated May 6, 2005 and June 30, 2006 to revise certain sections of ADEC's air quality regulations. The revisions were submitted in accordance with the requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (hereinafter the Act or CAA). Although EPA proposes to approve most of the submitted revisions, EPA proposes not to approve in this rulemaking a number of submitted rule provisions which are inappropriate for EPA approval. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R10-OAR-2006-1013, by one of the following methods: A. *www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-Mail: cunningham.roylene@epa.gov.* C. *Mail:* Roylene A. Cunningham, EPA, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. D. *Hand Delivery:* EPA, Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Roylene A. Cunningham, Office of Air Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107). Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2006-1013. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Copies of the State submittal are also available at the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, 410 Willoughby Avenue, Ste 303, Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roylene A. Cunningham,
(206)553-0513, or by e-mail at *cunningham.roylene@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever “we”, “us”, or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized as follows: Table of Contents I. Background of Submittal II. Summary of Action A. Provisions Approved by EPA and Incorporated by Reference 1. Documents, Procedures, and Methods Adopted by Reference 2. Opacity Standards 3. Nonroad Engines 4. Ambient Analysis Methods 5. Owner-Requested Limits 6. Preapproved Emission Limits 7. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)Permits 8. Nonattainment Area Major Stationary Source Permits 9. Source-Specific Minor Permits 10. General Minor Permits 11. Conclusion B. Provisions Approved by EPA into the SIP, But Not Incorporated by Reference C. Provisions Not Approved by EPA 1. Provisions Not Related to Section 110 of the CAA 2. Provisions Related to Clean Units and the Pollution Control Projects Exclusion 3. Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods (18 AAC 50.215(a)(3)) 4. Enforceable Test Methods (18 AAC 50.220(c)(2)) 5. Excess Emissions (18 AAC 50.240) 6. Source Test Deadline (18 AAC 50.345(l)) 7. Standard Operating Permit Condition II (18 AAC 50.346(a)) 8. Electronic Applications (18 AAC 50.542(b)(2)) 9. Revisions to Minor Permits (18 AAC 50.546(b)) III. Requested Sections to be Removed from the SIP IV. Geographic Scope of SIP Approval V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background of Submittal On May 6, 2005, the Commissioner of ADEC submitted a request to EPA to revise the Alaska SIP to include a completely revised version of the State of Alaska's Air Quality Regulation in 18 AAC 50. These changes became effective as a matter of State law on January 29, 2005. On June 30, 2006 the Commissioner of ADEC submitted a request to EPA to revise the Alaska SIP to include additional revisions to 18 AAC 50. The revised portions reflected in this submittal include adoption by reference of updated EPA rules and changes to the portable oil and gas drill rig regulations. These changes became effective as a matter of State law on December 3, 2005. Included in the submittal was a request that EPA exclude from consideration for SIP approval the portions of 18 AAC 50 affected by the June 24, 2005, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit decision which vacated portions of EPA's new source review rules pertaining to clean units and pollution control projects. II. Summary of Action A. Provisions Approved by EPA and Incorporated by Reference The following discussion provides an overview of ADEC's revised rules which EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference into the SIP, including a discussion of the key changes from the current SIP and EPA's evaluation of the changes. Note that any specific provisions or subparagraphs of ADEC's submittals which EPA is proposing not to approve are discussed in Section II.C. below. The docket includes a technical support document which describes in more detail the substantive changes to ADEC's rules that have been submitted by Alaska as revisions to the SIP, EPA's evaluation of the changes, and the basis for EPA's action. 1. Documents, Procedures, and Methods Adopted by Reference ADEC revised 18 AAC 50.035(a) and
(b)in order to update the dates of their adoption by reference of Federal law, as well as State and Federal guidance documents. Paragraph
(c)is a new provision which allows ADEC to use a test method other than one listed in 18 AAC 50.035(c) for a source-specific limit imposed in a permit. ADEC has clarified that this provision does not authorize ADEC to change a test method that is established in a SIP limit or a Federal standard. EPA is approving 18 AAC 50.035(c) with that understanding. 2. Opacity Standards ADEC revised the opacity standard for most sources from a three minute aggregate to a six minute average. See 18 AAC 50.050 and 50.055. The numeric value of the standard remains 20%. EPA has previously approved the use of a six minute average opacity standard for several source categories in Alaska in order to coincide with opacity limits in the Federal NSPS. In these latest revisions, ADEC has amended 18 AAC 50.050(2) and 18 AAC 50.055 (1)-(3) to similarly adopt a six minute average for more source categories. As explained in more detail in the justification provided by ADEC, ADEC made this change in the form of the standard to address a defense to enforcement raised by industry with the three minute aggregate exception. ADEC further explained that, although there may be some limited situations in which the revised standard could be less stringent than the previous standard (when there is a plume that is both high in opacity and intermittent), in the large majority of cases, the new standard is more stringent. In the one circumstance where ADEC expects that the three minute aggregate could be more stringent than the six minute average—soot blowing at coal fired power plants—ADEC has retained the opacity limit as an aggregate standard. Based on the information provided by ADEC, EPA concludes that changing the 20% opacity limit from a three minute exception to a six minute average in 18 AAC 50.050(2) and 18 AAC 50.055 (1)-(3) will continue to provide for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and other CAA standards and is thus approvable. 3. Nonroad Engines ADEC added 18 AAC 50.100 in January 1997 to address a change in the 1990 CAA by making clear that actual and potential emissions from nonroad engines are not considered when determining whether a stationary source is subject to construction or operating permit programs in Alaska. 4. Ambient Analysis Methods Section 50.215, renumbered from 18 AAC 50.510(a), sets forth requirements for air quality modeling and analysis. Paragraph
(c)allows substitution or modification of an air quality model, provided the source performs and submits a comparative analysis using a protocol developed using a specified procedure, obtains ADEC approval of the comparative protocol, and, in the case of air quality analysis required by 18 AAC 50.306 (PSD), obtains EPA and ADEC approval of the substituted or modified model. Federal law, however, requires written approval from EPA for any substitution or modification of a model used for minor and major new source review, including major new source review in nonattainment areas (NNSR). See 40 CFR 51.160(f). ADEC has advised EPA that it erred in limiting the cross-reference in 18 AAC 50.215(c)(3) to 18 AAC 50.306
(PSD)and that ADEC fully intended to require and intends to obtain EPA approval of a model substitution or modification for minor NSR (18 AAC 50.502-560) and major NNSR (18 AAC 50.311). ADEC has provided written assurance that ADEC will not allow a model substitution or modification if an ambient air quality analysis is required by minor NSR (18 AAC 50.502-560) or major NNSR (18 AAC 50.311) without prior written approval from EPA and that it will correct this error in their next rulemaking. EPA is approving this provision on that basis. 5. Owner-Requested Limits ADEC proposes to include 18 AAC 50.225 in the SIP as a mechanism to establish source-specific federally-enforceable limitations that restrict a source's allowable emissions or potential to emit air pollutants. EPA has issued criteria for determining when emission limits contained in non-title V operating permits and similar mechanisms are federally enforceable. See 54 FR 27274 (June 28, 1989). The criteria include approval of the State mechanism into the SIP, a legal obligation that the permittee adhere to the limits and other requirements, that the limits and other requirements be at least as stringent as any other applicable SIP or federally enforceable requirements, that the limits and other requirements be permanent, quantifiable, and otherwise enforceable as a practical matter, and that the limits and other requirements be issued subject to public participation. Owner-requested limits issued under 18 AAC 50.225 are issued only after notice and opportunity for public comment and are contained in a letter approval. Each approval issued to a source must include specific monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with the approved limitations and specifically requires a statement that the owner/operator agrees to be bound by the terms of the approval. The owner/operator can request that the limit be revoked but only after the owner/operator obtains any permits that were avoided by virtue of the owner-requested limit. EPA finds that 18 AAC 50.225 is consistent with EPA guidance regarding Federally-enforceable operating limits and proposes to approve this section. 6. Preapproved Emission Limits ADEC proposes to include 18 AAC 50.230 [except subparagraph (d)], an exclusionary rule that sets preapproved limits for NO <sup>X</sup> emissions from diesel engines. EPA has recognized that, for certain classes of sources, such as fuel burning equipment, it is possible for States to establish enforceable emission limits that serve to limit potential to emit through exclusionary rules that apply to certain source categories. *See* Memorandum from JD. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) entitled “Guidance for State Rules for Optional Federally-Enforceable Emissions Limits Based on Volatile Organic Compound Use,” dated October 15, 1993; Memorandum from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS entitled “Approaches to Creating Federally-Enforceable Emission Limits,” dated November 3, 1993; Memorandum from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS, entitled “Potential To Emit Guidance for Specific Source Categories,” dated April 14, 1998. To be approvable, an exclusionary rule must be technically justified, require that the owner or operator specifically apply for coverage under the rule, require the applicant to comply with the limit in the rule, and provide that a violation of the rule is a violation of the SIP. The preapproved limit for NO <sup>X</sup> emissions from diesel engines in ADEC's exclusionary rule is based on the amount of diesel fuel used by a source during the year. ADEC has demonstrated that a facility that limits their diesel fuel consumption to below 330,900 gallons per year limits their potential to emit NO <sup>X</sup> to below 100 tons per year. To operate under the preapproved limit, a source must submit to ADEC a request to operate under a specific limit, and must provide the information required for that limit. After this notification, each source must follow specific monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with the limit. EPA has determined that 18 AAC 50.230 [except subparagraph (d)] is consistent with EPA guidance for exclusionary rules. 7. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)Permits Overview of Major New Source Review Program Parts C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515, set forth preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants regulated under the CAA, known as “major New Source Review” or “major NSR.” The major NSR programs of the CAA include a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control technology program requirements. States adopt major NSR programs as part of their SIP. Part C of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” or “PSD” program, which applies in areas that meet the NAAQS—“attainment” areas—as well as in areas for which there is insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS—“unclassifiable” areas. Part D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7515, is called the “Nonattainment New Source Review” or the “NNSR” program, which applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS—“nonattainment areas.” EPA regulations implementing these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, appendix S. On December 31, 2002, EPA published final rule changes to the PSD and NNSR programs. 67 FR 80186. On November 7, 2003, EPA published a notice of final action on the reconsideration of the December 31, 2002 final rule changes. 68 FR 63021. In that November 7th final action, EPA added the definition of “replacement unit,” and clarified an issue regarding plantwide applicability limitations (PALs). The December 31, 2002 and the November 7, 2003, final actions, are collectively referred to as the “2002 NSR Reform Rules.” The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules:
(1)Provide a new method for determining baseline actual emissions;
(2)adopt an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major modification has occurred;
(3)allow major stationary sources to comply with plant-wide applicability limits to avoid having a significant emissions increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR program;
(4)provide a new applicability provision for emissions units that are designated clean units; and
(5)exclude pollution control projects from the definition of “physical change or change in the method of operation.” After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March 3, 2003), various petitioners challenged numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 5276, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the DC Circuit Court issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. See *New York* v. *United States* , 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). In summary, the DC Circuit Court vacated portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules pertaining to clean units and pollution control projects, remanded a portion of the rules regarding recordkeeping (40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6)), and either upheld or did not comment on the other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. EPA has not yet responded to the Court's remand regarding the recordkeeping provisions. The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that State agencies adopt and submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs implementing the minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules no later than January 2, 2006. Alaska's PSD Submittal Alaska's PSD program was originally approved into the SIP by EPA on July 5, 1983, and has been revised several times. Newly revised 18 AAC 50.040(h) and 18 AAC 50.306 implement ADEC's current PSD program. ADEC revised their PSD rules to essentially incorporate by reference the PSD rules in 40 CFR 52.21, including the applicable provisions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with a few exceptions. In general, ADEC chose to incorporate by reference the Federal PSD rules in 40 CFR 52.21 rather than the comparable provisions in 40 CFR 51.166, which set forth what is required in a State's plan, because 40 CFR 52.21 is written to directly state the requirements of an owner or operator. In some cases, ADEC did adopt provisions of 40 CFR 51.166 rather than the comparable provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 because 40 CFR 51.166 was a better fit for a SIP-approved PSD program. For example, ADEC adopted 51.166(q)(2) to describe the public participation procedures for PSD permits. The comparable provision in 40 CFR 52.21 refers to a large set of Federal administrative procedures in 40 CFR 124, which applies to water and other permits, and would be very cumbersome to try to adopt for Alaska's purpose. ADEC also adopted 40 CFR 51.166(f), Exclusions from Increment Consumption, because these exclusions are not provided by 40 CFR 52.21, but they are allowed in a SIP-approved PSD program. ADEC also made regulatory changes to clarify how certain provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 would be implemented by ADEC. For example, ADEC added text to 18 AAC 50.306 to clarify the term “administrator” should be read to mean the department in certain instances. ADEC also added provisions for permit content with respect to monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements. The language is similar to that in ADEC's existing construction permit program and is intended to allow ADEC to put in conditions when they are necessary so that the applicant and ADEC can know whether operations comply with standards. EPA is approving 18 AAC 50.040(h) and 18 AAC 50.306 as meeting the requirements for SIP-approved PSD programs in 40 CFR 51.166. ADEC's revised rules address baseline actual emissions, actual-to-projected-actual applicability tests, and PALs and other currently applicable provisions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. ADEC has not submitted for SIP approval portions of the PSD rules that were recently vacated by the DC Circuit Court, including the clean unit provisions and the pollution control projects exclusion. As noted earlier, EPA has not yet responded to the DC Circuit Court's remand of the recordkeeping provisions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. Alaska's rule contains recordkeeping requirements that are essentially the same as the remanded Federal rule. While final action by EPA with regard to the remand may require EPA to take further action on this portion of Alaska's rules, at this time, the rules are the same as existing Federal law. 8. Nonattainment Area Major Stationary Source Permits Alaska's major NNSR program was originally approved into the SIP by EPA on July 5, 1983, and has been revised several times. Newly revised 18 AAC 40.040(i) and 18 AAC 50.311 implement the major NNSR program in Alaska. ADEC revised their major NNSR program to essentially incorporate by reference the provisions set forth in 40 CFR 51.165, including the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were not vacated by the Court. Portions of 40 CFR 51.165 simply refers to relevant provisions in sections 172 and 173 of the CAA, including offsetting emissions and lowest achievable emission rates. Rather than adopting the language in the CAA statute by reference, 18 AAC 50.311 includes the text of the relevant statutory language. Similar to the PSD program in 18 AAC 50.306, ADEC also added provisions for permit content with respect to monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements. The language is similar to that in ADEC's existing construction permit program and is intended to allow ADEC to put in conditions when they are necessary so that the applicant and ADEC can know whether operations comply with standards. EPA is approving 18 AAC 40.040(i) and 18 AAC 50.311 as meeting the requirements for SIP-approved major NNSR programs in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR part 51, appendix S. ADEC's revised rules address baseline actual emissions, actual-to-projected-actual applicability tests, and PALs and other currently applicable provisions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. ADEC specifically did not submit portions of the NNSR rules that were recently vacated by the DC Circuit Court, including the clean unit provisions and the pollution control projects exclusion. As noted earlier, EPA has not yet responded to the DC Circuit Court's remand of the recordkeeping provisions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. Alaska's rule contains recordkeeping requirements that are essentially the same as the remanded Federal rule. While final action by EPA with regard to the remand may require EPA to take further action on this portion of Alaska's rules, at this time the rules are the same as existing Federal law. 9. Source-Specific Minor Permits EPA regulations require all SIPs to contain legally enforceable procedures to ensure that construction or modification of a stationary source will not cause a violation of a NAAQS or any applicable portions of the control strategy. 40 CFR 51.160(a). For major stationary sources and major modifications to major stationary sources, the PSD and major NNSR programs satisfy this requirement. States are also required to have new source review programs for minor sources meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. Alaska's minor NSR program was originally approved into the SIP by EPA on July 5, 1983, and has been revised several times. In the SIP submission before EPA, ADEC has substantially revised its minor NSR program. Under ADEC's revised program, ADEC has expanded the categories of minor sources that must obtain a permit prior to construction or modification. Section 50.502 specifies source categories and size thresholds that need a permit. Certain stationary sources—regardless of emission rate—must obtain a minor permit before construction or relocation and, if the source is not required to obtain a title V permit, before operation. In addition, a minor permit is required for construction of a new stationary source with a potential to emit greater than the following size thresholds: 15 TPY PM-10; 40 TPY of nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ); 40 TPY of sulfur dioxides (SO <sup>X</sup> ); 0.6 TPY of lead; 100 TPY of carbon monoxide
(CO)within 10 kilometers of a nonattainment area. Other provisions govern when a source needs a minor permit for construction or relocation of a Portable Oil and Gas Operation or an emission unit with a rated capacity of 10 million BTU or more per hour in a sulfur dioxide special protection area. ADEC has also established thresholds for determining when a source needs a minor permit before a modification. A minor permit is required prior to a modification if
(1)the stationary source already has a potential to emit more than the emission thresholds for construction of new minor sources requiring permits, and
(2)the modification would cause an increase greater than 10 tpy of PM-10, 10 tpy of NO <sup>X</sup> , 10 tpy of SO <sup>X</sup> , or 100 tpy of CO. In applying the modification provisions, the owner or operator may choose either a potential emissions or actual emission test, with certain limitations. Finally, Section 50.508 allows ADEC to issue a minor permit if requested by the owner or operator under certain circumstances. Section 50.542 sets forth the procedures for permit review and issuance. ADEC now has two administrative procedures for issuing source-specific minor permits—a fast track procedure and a procedure that has a full 30-day public comment period. For both procedures, ADEC's revised rules change the method of public notice. Instead of publishing the notice in a newspaper, ADEC now posts the notice on the State “Online Public Notice System” website. ADEC still sends the notice by mail or e-mail to anyone who requests to be on the State's distribution list. EPA regulations require that public notice of minor NSR permits be given by prominent advertisement in the area affected by the source, and do not require that public notice be given in a newspaper. See 40 CFR 51.161(b)(3). Under the fast track procedures of 18 AAC 50.542(b), ADEC gives the public 15 days to request a 30-day public comment period for certain types of permits (i.e., 18 AAC 50.502) that meet specific requirements as defined in the rule. The department issues the permit within 30 days of receiving a complete application unless someone requests a public comment period or ADEC determines the project would be predicted to violate an ambient air quality standard. Other types of permits specified in the rule have a 30-day public comment period, even if no one requests one. Section 50.542 also contains criteria for approval and denial of minor permits. Importantly, ADEC is required to deny an application for a minor permit if ADEC determines construction or operation of the source would violate an emission limit in ADEC's rules or a NAAQS. The rule contains additional criteria for approval and denial of minor permits for sources in certain locations (e.g., Port of Anchorage) and certain types of minor permits (e.g., PAL permit, owner requested limit). Section 50.544 sets forth the content requirements for minor permits, including identifying information, conditions necessary to ensure compliance with any requirement in Alaska's statute or regulations for stationary sources classified under 18 AAC 50.502, and conditions necessary to ensure compliance with the NAAQS and certain other sections for stationary sources requiring minor permits due to the amount of their emissions. This section also requires an owner or operator to provide a periodic affirmation as to whether their original application and minor permit accurately describe their stationary source and whether any changes may have been made that would trigger the requirement for a new permit. EPA has reviewed 18 AAC 50.502 to 50.546, ADEC's provisions for the issuance of minor permits, and finds them to be consistent with the requirements for minor NSR permits in 40 CFR 50.160-50.164. 10. General Minor Permits 18 AAC 50.560 authorizes ADEC to issue general minor permits to allow the construction or operation of a category of stationary sources that involve the same or similar types of operation, involve the same type of emissions, and are subject to similar air quality control requirements. In issuing a general minor permit, ADEC will evaluate what permit conditions are necessary to assure compliance with each ambient standard or control strategy for that category of stationary source. An owner or operator would then have the choice of obtaining a source-specific permit or applying for coverage under the general minor permit. See 18 AAC 50.502(d). A general minor permit is subject to public notice and comment when initially issued by ADEC, but not when an individual source applies for coverage. The rule authorizes ADEC to issue general minor permits that require a source applying for coverage to receive specific approval from ADEC before being authorized to construct or operate under the general permit, as well as general minor permits that authorize a source to construct or operate upon ADEC's receipt of an application for coverage. The general minor permit will specify whether the source must wait for ADEC approval before constructing or operating under the general minor permit. ADEC will issue an application or notification form with each general minor permit, which will specify the information an applicant must provide to be covered under the general minor permit. This information must include identifying information, information necessary to show the stationary source qualifies for coverage under the general permit, identification of all equipment covered by the general minor permit, and a certification by the applicant that the stationary source is capable of complying with all permit requirements. The rule also specifies the content of general minor permits. Importantly, general minor permits must meet the same permit content requirements of minor permits under 18 AAC 50.544, including terms and conditions to ensure that stationary sources constructing and operating under the general minor permit will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. General minor permits can accommodate portable sources, but permittees must notify ADEC of any change to a location not identified in the permit application. EPA has reviewed 18 AAC 50.560, ADEC's provision for the issuance of general minor permits, and finds it to be consistent with the requirements for minor NSR permits in 40 CFR 50.160-50.164. 11. Conclusion As described in more detail above and in the technical support document, EPA has determined that the following sections of Alaska's regulations are consistent with the requirements of title I of the CAA and proposes to approve them as part of the SIP and incorporate them by reference into Federal law: 18 AAC 50.080 Ice Fog Standards; State effective January 18, 1997; 18 AAC 50.025 Visibility and Other Special Protection Areas; 18 AAC 50.070 Marine Vessel Visible Emission Standards, State effective June 21, 1998; 18 AAC 50.050 Incinerator Emission Standards, State effective May 3, 2002; 18 AAC 50.005 Purpose of Chapter; 18 AAC 50.010 Ambient Air Quality Standards [except
(7)and (8)]; 18 AAC 50.015 Air Quality Designations, Classifications, and Control Regions; 18 AAC 50.020 Baseline Dates and Maximum Allowable Increases, 18 AAC 50.045 Prohibitions; 18 AAC 50.055 Industrial Processes and Fuel-Burning Equipment [except (d)(2)(B)]; 18 AAC 50.100 Nonroad Engines; 18 AAC 50.200 Information Requests; 18 AAC 50.201 Ambient Air Quality Investigation; 18 AAC 50.205 Certification; 18 AAC 50.215 Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods [except (a)(3)]; 18 AAC 50.220 Enforceable Test Methods [except (c)(2)]; 18 AAC 50.245 Air Episodes and Advisories; 18 AAC 50.250 Procedures and Criteria for Revising Air Quality Classifications; 18 AAC 50.301 Permit Continuity; 18 AAC 50.302 Construction Permits; 18 AAC 50.306 Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)Permits [except (b)(2) and (b)(3)]; 18 AAC 50.311 Nonattainment Area Major Stationary Source Permits; 18 AAC 50.345 Construction and Operating Permits: Standard Permit Conditions [except (b), (c)(3), and (l)]; 18 AAC 50.508 Minor Permits Requested by the Owner or Operator [except
(1)and (2)]; 18 AAC 50.546 Minor Permits: Revisions [except (b)]; 18 AAC 50.560 General Minor Permits; 18 AAC 50.900 Small Business, State effective October 1, 2004; 18 AAC 50.542 Minor Permit: Review and Issuance [except (b)(2), (f)(4), (f)(5), and (g)(1) but only with respect to clean units and pollution control projects], State effective December 1, 2004; 18 AAC 50.225 Owner-Requested Limits; 18 AAC 50.230 Preapproved Emission Limits [except (d)]; 18 AAC 50.544 Minor Permits: Content [except (e)], State effective January 29, 2005; 18 AAC 50.035 Documents, Procedures, and Methods Adopted By Reference [except (b)(4)]; 18 AAC 50.040 Federal Standards Adopted by Reference [except (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h)(17), (h)(18), (h)(19), (i)(7), (i)(8), (i)(9), and (j)]; 18 AAC 50.502 Minor Permits for Air Quality Protection [except (g)(1) and (g)(2)]; 18 AAC 50.540 Minor Permit: Application [except
(f)and (g)];18 AAC 50.990 Definitions [except (21), and (77)], State effective December 3, 2005. B. Provisions Approved by EPA Into the SIP, But Not Incorporated by Reference EPA is proposing to approve the following section as part of the SIP, but not to incorporate it by reference into Federal law: 18 AAC 50.030 State Air Quality Control Plan, State effective October 1, 2004. This provision does not regulate air emissions, but rather, describes general authorities such as procedural and enforcement authorities. Incorporation by reference of such provisions into Federal law is unnecessary and could potentially conflict with EPA's independent authorities. Therefore, EPA is proposing to not incorporate by reference 18 AAC 50.030 into the SIP and to remove the previous version of this regulation from Alaska's incorporation by reference section of the Alaska SIP, as follows: 18 AAC 50.030 State Air Quality Control Plan, State effective September 21, 2001. C. Provisions Not Approved by EPA EPA is proposing not to approve certain provisions of ADEC's regulations, either because EPA believes such provisions are inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA or because ADEC has requested EPA not to approve such provisions into the SIP. 1. Provisions Not Related to Section 110 of the CAA EPA is not approving the following provisions because they are not related to the criteria pollutants regulated under section 110 of the CAA: 18 AAC 50.010(7) and (8); 18 AAC 50.035(b)(4); 18 AAC 50.040(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (j); 18 AAC 50.055(d)(2)(B); 18 AAC 50.316; and 18 AAC 50.345(b) and (c)(3). 2. Provisions Related to Clean Units and the Pollution Control Projects Exclusion At ADEC's request, we are not incorporating or approving into the SIP portions of the Federal 2002 Major NSR Reform Rules that were recently vacated by the DC Circuit Court relating to the clean unit provisions and the pollution control projects exclusion. These provisions include: 18 AAC 50.040(h)(17), (h)(18), (h)(19), (i)(7), (i)(8), and (i)(9); 18 AAC 50.306 (b)(2) and (b)(3); 18 AAC 50.502(g)(1) and (g)(2); 18 AAC 50.508(1) and (2); 18 AAC 50.509; 18 AAC 50.540(f) and (g); 18 AAC 50.542(f)(4), (f)(5), and, with respect to the reference to clean units and pollution control projects only, (g)(1); and 18 AAC 50.544(e); and 18 AAC 50.990(21) and (77). 3. Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods (18 AAC 50.215(a)(3)) 18 AAC 50.215 sets forth requirements for air quality monitoring and analysis. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) specify the procedures for obtaining air monitoring data, but paragraph (a)(3) authorizes ADEC to approve any alternative method that ADEC determines is “representative, accurate, verifiable, capable of replication.” In essence, this paragraph allows ADEC to modify requirements relied on to attain and maintain the NAAQS without going through a SIP revision. As such, it is not approvable. Section 110(i) of the CAA specifically precludes States from changing the requirements of the SIP except through SIP revisions approved by EPA. SIP revisions will be approved by EPA only if they meet all requirements of section 110 of the CAA and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 51. See CAA section 110(l); 40 CFR 51.104. Section 51.104(d) specifically states that in order for a variance to be considered for approval as a SIP revision, the State must submit it in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.104, which includes the public notice, comment and hearing provisions of 40 CFR 51.102. The SIP revision requirements may be satisfied if the director's discretion is constrained by sufficiently specific, objective, and replicable criteria to determine if the alternative method will, in fact, be at least as effective as the required methods in terms of emission rates and ambient impacts. In this case, although the rule states that the alternative must be “representative, accurate, verifiable, capable of replication,” the rule does not contain procedures for ensuring that is the case. Therefore, it is not appropriate for EPA to approve this provision into the SIP. 4. Enforceable Test Methods (18 AAC 50.220(c)(2)) Paragraph 50.220(c)(1) specifies reference test methods to be used in source tests to determine compliance with applicable requirements. Paragraph (c)(2) authorizes ADEC to approve the use of an alternative method using the procedure specified in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, method 301. In essence, paragraph (c)(2) authorizes ADEC to issue variances from regulatory requirements, including SIP, NSPS, and NESHAP requirements. EPA approved this provision into the SIP on November 18, 1998 [63 FR 63983]. ADEC made minor changes to 18 AAC 50.220 and has submitted the entire provision for inclusion in the SIP. EPA believes that it erred when it approved this subparagraph as part of the SIP. As an initial matter, ADEC does not have authority to approve alternatives to NSPS and NESHAP standards except to the extent EPA has delegated that authority to ADEC. EPA does not delegate to States authority to approve “major changes” to test methods for NSPS and NESHAP standards. In addition, as discussed above, section 110(i) of the CAA specifically precludes States from changing the requirements of the SIP except through SIP revisions approved by EPA, and SIP revisions will be approved by EPA only if they meet all requirements of section 110 of the CAA and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 51. See CAA section 110(l); 40 CFR 51.104. Section 51.104(d) specifically states that in order for a variance to be considered for approval as a SIP revision, the State must submit it in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.104, which includes the public notice, comment and hearing provisions of 40 CFR 51.102. Paragraph (c)(2) does not meet all of the requirements of section 110 of the CAA, such as ensuring attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. As discussed above, SIP revision requirements may be satisfied if the director's discretion is constrained by sufficiently specific, objective, and replicable criteria to determine if the alternative method will, in fact, be at least as effective as the required methods in terms of emission rates and ambient impacts. In this case, although paragraph (c)(2) requires that ADEC use the procedure in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, method 301 in evaluating whether to approve an alternative method, EPA does not believe that the procedures in method 301 are sufficiently replicable so as to adequately constrain ADEC's discretion. In addition, there is nothing in this provision that would require alternatives to test methods required in a permit to be approved through appropriate revision procedures. For these reasons, it is not appropriate for EPA to approve this provision into the SIP. Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA authorizes EPA, upon a determination that EPA's action approving, disapproving or promulgating any State implementation plan or plan revision (or any part thereof) was in error, to revise such action as appropriate in the same manner as the approval, disapproval or promulgation. In making such a correction, EPA must provide such determination and the basis therefore to the State and the public. EPA is by this proposal notifying ADEC and the public that EPA is removing 18 AAC 50.220(c)(2) from the SIP and from incorporation by reference into Federal law. It is important to emphasize that if ADEC approves the use of alternative methods in reliance on 18 AAC 50.220(c)(2) as an alternative to an ADEC regulation or permit that has been approved as part of the SIP, EPA is not precluded from enforcing the Federally-approved SIP limit against the source. The granting of an alternative method of compliance by ADEC to a SIP requirement does not change the Federally-enforceable SIP requirement for that source unless and until the alternative has been approved by EPA. 5. Excess Emissions (18 AAC 50.240) EPA's interpretation of the CAA for State excess emission provisions is set forth in, among other documents, Memorandum from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the Regional Administrators, entitled “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown” (September 20, 1999) (1999 Excess Emissions Policy). That policy indicates that because excess emissions might aggravate air quality so as to prevent attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or jeopardize the PSD increments, all periods of excess emissions are considered violations of applicable emission limitations. However, the 1999 Excess Emission Policy recognizes that in certain circumstances, States and EPA have enforcement discretion to refrain from taking enforcement action for excess emissions. In addition, the policy also indicates that States can include in their SIPs provisions that would, in the context of an enforcement action for excess emissions, excuse a source from penalties (but not injunctive relief) if the source can demonstrate it meets certain objective criteria. This is in essence a limited affirmative defense to a penalty action. Finally, the Policy states that EPA does not intend to approve SIP revisions that would recognize a State director's decision to bar EPA's or citizen's ability to enforce applicable requirements. Although ADEC has made only minor changes to 18 AAC 50.240 since it was approved by EPA in 1998, approval of the minor changes could be interpreted to imply that EPA believed 18 AAC 50.240 was consistent with the requirements of the CAA. EPA has reviewed 18 AAC 50.240, however, and does not believe it is consistent with EPA's interpretation of the CAA regarding the types of affirmative defense provisions we can approve into SIPS for several reasons. First, an affirmative defense to a penalty action is not appropriate where a single source or small group of sources has the potential to cause an exceedance of the NAAQS or PSD increments. See 1999 Excess Emissions Policy, pp. 2-3, Attachment pp. 3 and 5. The Alaska regulation does not contain provisions to address this criterion. Second, an affirmative defense for excess emissions due to certain unavoidable events cannot extend to State law provisions that derive from Federally promulgated performance standards or emission limits, such as NSPS or NESHAP standards and does not extend to PSD permits unless the excess emissions were accounted for in the modeling and in the BACT determination. Alaska's excess emission rule does not appear to be so limited in scope. Third, Alaska's excess emissions rule does not sufficiently address all of the criteria for ensuring that excess emissions due to startup, shutdown, and malfunction are truly unavoidable and limited to the maximum extent possible in duration and impact on air quality. See 1999 Excess Emissions Policy, Attachment pp. 3-6. Although a State need not adopt the precise language of the 1999 Excess Emissions Policy, State excess emission provisions must address the essential elements of the criteria in the policy to be consistent with the CAA. Fourth, 18 AAC 50.240(e) provides an affirmative defense for excess emissions due to scheduled maintenance provided certain criteria are met. This is inappropriate under the CAA because sources should be able to schedule maintenance that might otherwise lead to excess emissions to coincide with maintenance of production equipment or other facility shutdowns. In this regard, it is important to note that the 1999 Excess Emissions Policy does not discuss allowing an affirmative defense for excess emissions during maintenance activities. This omission was intentional and based on EPA's interpretation of the CAA that any excess emissions during maintenance activities should be addressed only through the exercise of enforcement discretion and not through the provision of an affirmative defense to penalties. Finally, 18 AAC 50.240 does not make clear that ADEC's decision that the criteria for obtaining the affirmative defense from penalty are met is not binding on EPA or citizens. See 1999 Excess Emission Policy, p. 3, Attachment p. 2. In summary, although ADEC has made only minor changes to 18 AAC 50.240, EPA is not approving the changes because to do so would imply that EPA believes that 18 AAC 50.240 meets CAA requirements for SIP excess emission provisions. 6. Source Test Deadline (18 AAC 50.345(l)) Paragraph
(l)is a standard permit condition that gives ADEC discretion to approve a request from the permittee to delay a source test deadline established by ADEC. Importantly, this provision does not give ADEC authority to extend source test deadlines established in requirements promulgated by EPA, such as NSPS or NESHAPS. In addition, EPA is not aware of any Alaska SIP provisions that impose a requirement to conduct a source test within a specified period of time so this provision appears to be limited to source test deadlines established in permits issued by ADEC. EPA does not believe it can approve this provision, however, because it would give ADEC unbounded discretion to change the source testing requirements of a federally-enforceable permit without revising the permit 7. Standard Operating Permit Condition II (18 AAC 50.346(a)) This paragraph incorporates Standard Operating Permit Condition II, which contains standard monitoring conditions for 18 AAC 50.110 Air Pollution Prohibited, a rule prohibiting emissions detrimental to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or which would unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property. EPA does not believe it is appropriate to approve 18 AAC 50.346(a) into the SIP because it only requires corrective action after the permittee or ADEC determines a violation has occurred. EPA does not believe requiring corrective action after a violation has occurred can be construed as monitoring that reasonably assures compliance with the underlying applicable requirement. To the extent a SIP requirement includes monitoring, the monitoring must be sufficient to reasonably assure compliance with the requirement. 8. Electronic Applications (18 AAC 50.542(b)(2)) This subparagraph allows ADEC to require the owner/operator to submit their permit applications online. ADEC did not submit the appropriate documentation for us to evaluate the approvability of Alaska's Online System with respect to EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR). See 70 FR 59848 (October 13, 2005). Therefore, EPA is not approving paragraph (b)(2) to allow for electronic submissions. 9. Revisions to Minor Permits (18 AAC 50.546(b)) This subparagraph authorizes ADEC to revise “non-substantive elements of a minor permit without further administrative procedures.” The regulation, however, does not describe what type of changes will be considered “non-substantive.” Although it may be appropriate to allow some class of permit changes to be made administratively, this provision does not adequately describe the class of changes. Therefore, EPA does not believe this provision is sufficiently enforceable to meet the basic enforceability requirements for SIPs. III. Requested Sections to be Removed from the SIP Alaska has requested that EPA remove certain provisions from the SIP because they have been previously repealed by ADEC or because they are not required elements of a SIP under title I of the CAA. The following sections have been repealed by ADEC and the substantive requirements of these sections have been included in new and revised sections, which EPA is proposing to approve: 18 AAC 50.090 Ice Fog Limitations, State effective May 26, 1972; 18 AAC 50.300 Permit to Operate and 18 AAC 50.400 Application Review & Issuance of Permit to Operate, State effective July 21, 1991 and April 23, 1994; 18 AAC 50.520 Emissions and Ambient Monitoring, State effective July 21, 1991; 18 AAC 50.530 Circumvention, State effective June 7, 1987; 18 AAC 50.310 Revocation or Suspension of Permit, State effective May 4, 1980; 18 AAC 50.600 Reclassification Procedures & Criteria, State effective November 1, 1982; 18 AAC 50.620 State Air Quality Control Plan, State effective January 4, 1995; and 18 AAC 50.900 Definitions, State effective July 21, 1991 and January 4, 1995. Removal of these now-repealed sections from the SIP does not make the SIP less stringent because the substantive provisions of these sections are included elsewhere in ADEC's regulations and are being submitted for inclusion into the SIP. Therefore, EPA is approving removal of these sections from the SIP. ADEC has also requested that EPA remove the following fee-related provisions from the SIP: 18 AAC 50.400 Permit Administration Fees, 18 AAC 50.420 Billing Procedures, and 18 AAC 50.430 Appeal Procedures, State effective January 18, 1997. These provisions establish fees for issuance of permits and permit-related actions. State fee provisions that are not economic incentive programs and are not designed to replace or relax a SIP emission limit are generally not appropriate for inclusion into the SIP. While it is appropriate for States to implement fee provisions, for example, to recover costs for issuing permits, it is generally not appropriate to make State fee collection federally enforceable. Therefore, EPA is removing from the SIP 18 AAC 50.400 Permit Administration Fees, 18 AAC 50.420 Billing Procedures, and 18 AAC 50.430 Appeal Procedures. IV. Geographic Scope of SIP Approval EPA's approval of the SIP does not extend to sources or activities located in Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. EPA will continue to implement the CAA in Indian Country in Alaska because ADEC has not adequately demonstrated authority over sources and activities located within the exterior boundaries of the Annette Island Reserve and other areas of Indian Country in Alaska. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). The rule also does not have Tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal Requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve submissions provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: January 26, 2007. Julie Hagensen, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. E7-1802 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7704] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and proposed BFEs modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The comment period is ninety
(90)days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community. ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[Amended] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: State City/town/county Source of flooding Location # Depth in feet above ground. * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)Existing Modified City of Anthon, Iowa Iowa City of Anthon/Woodbury County Little Sioux River At southern corporate limit, approximately 5,000 feet downstream of 220th Street Bridge None *1,100 At northern corporate limit, approximately 5,500 feet upstream of 220th Street Bridge None *1,105 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Anthon Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 301 East Main Street, Anthon, Iowa 51004. Send comments to Mayor Michael Sauser, City Hall, 301 East Main Street, Anthon, Iowa 51004. Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevated in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground. Effective Modified Communities affected Eagle County, Colorado, and Incorporated Areas Eagle River Just upstream of the confluence with the Colorado River None +6,144 Eagle County (Uninc. Areas),Town of Avon, Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum, Town of Minturn. Approximately 1,040 feet downstream of the confluence with Two Elk Creek *7,984 +7,989 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Eagle County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at the Eagle County Building, 500 Broadway Street, Eagle, Colorado 81631. Send comments to Honorable Peter Runyon, Chairman, Eagle County, Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 850, Eagle, CO 81631. Town of Avon Maps are available for inspection at Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmack Road, Avon, CO 81620. Send comments to Honorable Buz Reynolds, Mayor, Town of Avon, P.O. Box 975, Avon, CO 81620. Town of Eagle Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, Town of Eagle, 200 Broadway, Eagle, CO 81631. Send comments to Honorable Jon Stavney, Mayor, 200 Broadway, P.O. Box 609, Eagle, CO 81631. Town of Gypsum Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, Town of Gypsum, 50 Lundgren Boulevard, Gypsum, CO 81637. Send comments to Honorable Stephen M. Carver, Mayor, Town of Gypsum, P.O. Box 130, Gypsum, CO 81637. Town of Minturn Map are available for inspection at Town Office, Town of Minturn, 302 Pine Street, Minturn, CO 81645. Send comments to Honorable Gordon Flaherty, Mayor, Town of Minturn, P.O. Box 309, Minturn, CO 81645. Hancock County, Indiana and Incorporated Areas Bills Branch At East 96th Street None +790 Town of McCordsville. Approximately 400 feet upstream of North Wind River Run None +838 Brandywine Creek Approximately 6,000 feet downstream of County Road 500 South None +831 City of Greenfield, Hancock County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 790 feet upstream of County Road 400 North None +887 Briney Ditch At the confluence with Little Brandywine Creek None +859 Hancock County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,170 feet upstream of Interstate Highway 40 None +895 Dry Branch At County Road 700 West None +831 Town of McCordsville. Approximately 1,580 feet upstream of County Road 500 West None +858 Hancock County (Unincorporated Areas). Jackson Ditch Approximately 1,190 feet downstream of West Staat Street None +845 Town of Fortville. Approximately 600 feet upstream of County Road 200 West None +857 Hancock County (Unincorporated Areas). Jackson Arm Ditch At the confluence with Jackson Ditch None +856 Hancock County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,010 feet upstream of West 850 North None +865 Little Brandywine Creek At Steel Ford Road +857 +856 City of Greenfield. Approximately 230 feet upstream of County Road 300 North None +911 Hancock County (Unincorporated Areas). North Fork At County Road 700 West None +820 Town of McCordsville Approximately 1,170 feet upstream of County Road 900 North None +853 Hancock County (Unincorporated Areas). Putter Ditch At the confluence with Brandywine Creek +862 +861 City of Greenfield. Approximately 695 feet upstream of the confluence with Brandywine Creek +862 +861 Rash Ditch At the confluence with Jackson Ditch None +855 Hancock County (Unincorporated Areas). Just upstream of Meridian Road None +866 Stansbury Ditch At the confluence with Dry Branch None +843 Town of McCordsville. Approximately 4,610 feet upstream of County Road 700 North None +861 Hancock County (Unincorporated Areas). West Fork Bills Branch At the confluence with Bills Branch None +796 Town of McCordsville. Approximately 2,005 feet upstream of Cardinal Drive None +821 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Fortville Maps are available for inspection at Courthouse Annex, 111 South American Legion Place, Greenfield, Indiana 46140. Send comments to Mr. Joe Renner, Town Manager, Town of Fortville, 714 East Broadway, Fortville, Indiana 46040. Town of Greenfield Maps are available for inspection at 10 South State Street, Greenfield, Indiana 46140. Send comments to The Honorable Rodney Fleming, Mayor, City of Greenfield, Keith J. McClarnon Government Center, 10 South State Street, Greenfield, Indiana 46140. Hancock County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Courthouse Annex, 111 South American Legion Place, Greenfield, Indiana 46140. Send comments to Mr. Brian Kleiman, President, Hancock County Board of Commissioners, 111 South American Legion Place, Greenfield, Indiana 46140. Town of McCordsville Maps are available for inspection at 9175 Stormy Port, McCordsville, Indiana 46055. Send comments to Ms. Tonya Galbraith, Town Manager, Town of McCordsville, 5759 West Broadway, McCordsville, Indiana 46055. Dodge County, Nebraska and Incorporated Areas Platte River (levee failure) At Downing Street, south of Union Pacific Railroad #2 +1188 City of Fremont. City of Inglewood. At U.S. Highway 77 None +1197 City of North Bend. Approximately 1 mile downstream of State Highway 79 #2 #2 +1268 +1279 Unincorporated Areas of Dodge County. South of U.S. Highway 30 at County Road 5 #2 +1287 Platte River (levee) Approximately 1/2 mile downstream of Burlington Northern Railroad *1191 +1195 City of Fremont. City of Inglewood. At U.S. Highway 77 *1196 +1201 City of North Bend. At County Road 19, south of Union Pacific Railroad *1214 +1216 Dodge County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1 mile downstream of State Highway 79 *1267 +1272 Approximately 1 mile upstream of State Highway 79 *1280 +1285 South of Union Pacific Railroad, just upstream of County Road 3 *1298 +1300 Platte River Overflow Just north of 23rd Street, west of Burlington Northern Railroad None #2 City of Fremont. At the intersection of County Road 5 and County Road S None #2 City of Inglewood. Between U.S. Highway 275 and Old Highway 8 #1 #2 City of North Bend. East of Burlington Northern Railroad and north of U.S. Highway 30/Highway 275 #1 #2 Dodge County (Unincorporated Areas). Between U.S. Highway 30 and Burlington Northern Railroad, north of Rawhide Creek #1 #2 U.S. Highway 77, north of U.S. Highway 30/Highway 275 #2 +1197 At County Road 19, north of U.S. Highway 30 #2 +1212 At the intersection of County Road 17 and County Road T #2 +1222 At County Road 11, north of U.S. Highway 30 #2 +1255 At Cottonwood Street, north of U.S. Highway 30 #2 +1276 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Inglewood Maps are available for inspection at Inglewood Village Office, 445 Boulevard Street, Fremont, NE 68025. Send comments to The Honorable Jerry Abrahamson, Chairman, Inglewood Village Board, 140 Boulevard Street, Inglewood, NE 68025. City of North Bend Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, North Bend, NE 68649. Send comments to The Honorable Karan Legler, Mayor, City of North Bend, P.O. Box 491, North Bend, NE 68649. Dodge County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Dodge County Zoning Office, 435 N. Park, Fremont, NE 68025. Send comments to The Honorable Bob Missel, Chairman, Dodge County Board, 427 N. Birchwood, Fremont, NE 68025. Rockwall County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Berry Creek Approximately 3000 feet downstream from State Highway 205 None +487 City of Mclendon-Chisholm. Approximately 1250 feet upstream from the confluence with Berry Creek Tributary 1 None +499 Bois d'Arc Confluence with Sabine Creek *530 +527 City of Royse City. Intersection with Highway 66 (County Boundary) *534 +535 Brushy Creek Approximately 200 feet downstream from Klutts Drive None +485 City of Mclendon-Chisholm. Approximately 4200 feet upstream from Highway 276 (WS SCS Site 1a Dam Spillway) None +565 City of Rockwall. Buffalo Creek Approximately 2000 feet downstream from King Street (County Boundary) *431 +432 City of Heath. Approximately 1500 feet upstream from T.L. Townsend Drive *540 +541 City of Rockwall. Buffalo Creek Tributary 1 Approximately 1000 feet upstream from Highway 276 *530 +531 City of Rockwall. At railroad tracks None +564 Buffalo Creek Tributary 1.1 Confluence with Buffalo Creek Tributary 1 *538 +548 City of Rockwall. Intersection with Alpha Drive *552 +553 Buffalo Creek Tributary 1.2 Confluence with Buffalo Creek Tributary 1 *547 +551 City of Rockwall. Intersection with Industrial Blvd. *552 +558 Camp Creek Approximately 150 feet downstream from the confluence with Camp Creek Tributary 1 *431 +432 City of Fate. Rockwall County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1500 feet downstream from Riding Club Road None +565 Camp Creek Tributary 1 Confluence with Camp Creek *513 +514 City of Fate. Approximately 3000 feet upstream from WS SCS Site 3f Dam None +541 Rockwall County (Unincorporated Areas). Lake Ray Hubbard Lake Ray Hubbard None +437 City of Heath. City of Rockwall. Rockwall County (Unincorporated Areas). Long Branch Approximately 300 feet downstream from the confluence with Long Branch Tributary 15 None +439 City of Heath. City of Mclendon-Chisholm. Approximately 1000 feet upstream from McDonald Road None +457 Parker Creek Approximately 250 feet upstream from the confluence with Klutts Branch None +498 City of Fate. City of Royse City. Approximately 2000 feet downstream from the confluence with Parker Creek Tributary 10 None +559 Unincorporated Areas of Rockwall County. Parker Creek Tributary 1 Confluence with Parker Creek None +528 City of Fate. Approximately 1000 feet upstream from Highway 66 None +577 City of Royse City. Parker Creek Tributary 2 Confluence with Parker Creek Tributary 1 None +551 City of Fate. Approximately 1500 feet upstream from Highway 66 None +580 Pond Branch Approximately 3500 feet upstream from the confluence with Sabine Creek *518 +517 City of Royse City. Approximately 100 feet upstream from Church Street *537 +536 Rush Creek Approximately 750 feet upstream from Hubbard Drive None +437 City of Heath. Approximately 500 feet upstream from FM 740 Road None +507 Sabine Creek Confluence with Pond Creek *513 +514 City of Royse City. County Line Road *530 +528 Squabble Creek Golf Course Dam 1 *441 +439 City of Rockwall. Approximately 2000 feet upstream from Highway 205 *468 +473 Yankee Creek Approximately 1750 feet downstream from Terry Lane None +441 City of Heath. Approximately 1250 feet downstream from the confluence with Yankee Creek Tributary 1 None +496 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Fate: Maps are available for inspection at 105 Fate Main Place, Fate, TX 75132. Send comments to The Honorable David Hill, Mayor, City of Fate, P.O. Box 31, Fate, TX 75132. City of Heath Maps are available for inspection at Heath City Hall, 200 Laurence Drive, Heath, TX 75032. Send comments to The Honorable John Ratcliffe, Mayor, City of Heath, 200 Laurence Drive, Heath, TX 75032. City of Mclendon-Chisholm Maps are available for inspection at 1248 South Hwy 205, Rockwall, TX 75032. Send comments to The Honorable Michael Donegan, Mayor, City of Mclendon-Chisholm, 1248 State Hwy 205, Rockwall, TX 75032. City of Rockwall Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 205 East Rusk, Rockwall, TX 75087. Send comments to The Honorable William Cecil, Mayor, City of Rockwall, 385 S. Goliad, Rockwall, TX 75087. City of Royse City Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 205 East Rusk, Rockwall, TX 75087. Send comments to The Honorable William Cecil, Mayor, City of Royse City, 385 S. Goliad, Rockwall, TX 75087. Rockwall County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Rockwall Government Building, 1101 Ridge Road, Rockwall, TX 75087. Send comments to The Honorable Bill Bell, Judge, Rockwall County, 101 East Rusk, Rockwall, TX 75087. Columbia County, Wisconsin and Incorporated Areas Baraboo River At confluence with the Wisconsin River *788 790 Columbia County. Downstream side of Interstate 90 *797 *796 (Unincorporated Areas). Big Slough At confluence with Neenah Creek *791 *790 Columbia County. Downstream side of State Highway 16 *792 *796 (Unincorporated Areas). Duck Creek Upstream side of U.S. Highway 51 *789 *791 Columbia County. Upstream side of Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul and Pacific Railroad *791 *791 (Unincorporated Areas). Fox River At downstream county boundary between Columbia and Marquette counties *782 *779 City of Portage, Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas.) Downstream side of Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul and Pacific Railroad *789 *785 Neenah Creek Downstream side of County Highway CM *783 *781 Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas). At confluence with Big Slough *791 *790 Spring Creek Approximately 1/2 mile downstream of Fair Street *806 *805 City of Lodi. Upstream side of Riddle Road *833 *834 Spring Creek Tributary A At confluence with Spring Creek *821 *821 City of Lodi. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Spring Street *821 *821 Wisconsin River Downstream side of State Highway 60 *748 *748 City of portage, City of Wisconsin Dells, Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas). Upstream side of Interstate 39 *795 *798 At upstream county boundary between Columbia and Adams counties *848 *848 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Columbia County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at: Columbia County Planning and Zoning Department, 400 DeWitt St., Portage, WI 53901. Send comments to: John Bluemke, Director of Planning and Zoning, 400 DeWitt St., Portage, WI 53901. City of Lodi Maps are available for inspection at: City Clerk's Office, 130 S. Main St., Lodi, WI 53555. Send comments to: Zoning Administrator, 130 S. Main St., Lodi, WI 53555. City of Portage Maps are available for inspection at: City Hall, 115 W. Pleasant St., Portage, WI 53901. Send comments to: City Administrator, 115 W. Pleasant St., Portage, WI 53901. City of Wisconsin Dells Maps are available for inspection at: City Hall, 300 La Crosse St., Wisconsin Dells, WI 53965. Send comments to: Michael Horkan, Director of Public Works, 300 La Crosse St., Wisconsin Dells, WI 53965. Spokane County, Washington (Unincorporated Areas). Chester Creek Approximately 3520 feet downstream of the downstream intersection of Chester Creek and Nina Circle *1984 + 1986 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). The downstream intersection of Chester Creek and Nina Circle 40 feet *1988 + 1993 Upstream of the intersection between Chester Creek and Dishman Mica Road None + 2229 Chester Creek (without levee) downstream of Bowdish Road Approximately 2240 feet downstream of the intersection with Bowdish Road None + 2006 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 25 feet downstream of the intersection with Bowdish Road None + 2008 Chester Creek (without levee) upstream of Bowdish Road Approximately 70 feet upstream of Bowdish Road None + 2008 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1040 feet upstream of Bowdish Road None + 2010 Chester Creek Golf Course Overflow Approximately 1900 feet downstream of Thorpe Road None + 2010 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 70 feet downstream from the divergence from Chester Creek None + 2026 Chester Creek West of Borrow Pit Just upstream of the confluence with Chester Creek None + 1998 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Just downstream of South Shafer Road None + 2006 Dredge Channel Just upstream of the confluence with Chester Creek None + 2005 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1330 feet upstream of the confluence with Chester Creek None + 2006 Left Bank Overflow Channel Just upstream of the confluence with the Unamed Tributary to Chester Creek None + 2009 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3000 feet upstream of the confluence with the Unamed Tributary to Chester Creek None + 2016 Right Bank Overflow Channel Approximately 2650 feet downstream of East 46th Avenue None + 2020 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 60 feet downstream of East 46th Avenue None + 2038 Storage Area 1 Southwest of the Pines Road and East 40th Avenue intersection None + 2008 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Storage Area 2 South of 28th Avenue and east of South Dishman Mica Road None + 2001 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Storage Area 3 East of Dishman Mica Road at South Raymond Road and 28th Avenue intersection None + 2001 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Storage Area 4 Southeast of the U.S. Highway 27 and East Belle Terre Avenue intersection None + 2019 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Storage Area 5 North of East 28th Avenue and east of Dishman Mica Road None + 2001 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Unamed Tributary to Chester Creek Approximately 3415 feet downstream of intersection with Pines Road None + 2008 Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 440 feet upstream of the intersection with South Tolbert Lane None + 2092 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Spokane County (Unincorporated Areas). Maps are available for inspection at 1026 West Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260. Send comments to The Honorable Marshall Farnell, Chairman, Spokane County Board of Commissioners, 1116 West Broadway Courthouse, Spokane, WA 99260. Whatcom County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas Birch Bay Intersection of Birch Bay Drive and Lora Lane *8 *8 Whatcom County (Unincorporated Areas). Intersection of Birch Bay Drive and Harborview Road None *12 500 feet southwest of the intersection of Comox Road and Nakat Place None *14 Lummi Bay 2000 feet south of the intersection of Sicia Drive and Germaine Road, 100 feet west of Sucia Drive *11 *10 Tribe of Lummi Indian Reservation 1500 feet north of the intersection of Sucia Drive and Thetis Street, 100 feet west of Sucia Drive #3 *11 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Tribe of Lummi Indian Reservation Maps are available for inspection at Lummi Land Development Office, 2616 Kwina Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226. Send comments to The Honorable Darrel Hillaire, Chairman, Lummi Indian Business Council, 2616 Kwina Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226. Whatcom County (Unincorporated Areas). Maps are available for inspection at Whatcom County Public Works, River and Flood Division, 322 North Commercial Street, Suite 1200, Bellingham, WA 98225. Send comments to The Honorable Pete Kremen, County Executive, Whatcom County, 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 108, Bellingham, WA 98225. Burnett County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas Austin Lake Austin Lake None +966 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Big Doctor Lake Big Doctor Lake None +987 Village of Siren, Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Big McKenzie Lake Big McKenzie Lake None +990 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Birch Island Lake Birch Island Lake None +995 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Clam Lake Flowage Clam Lake Flowage None +905 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Danbury Flowage Danbury Flowage *930 +932 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Devils Lake Devils Lake None +965 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Dunham Lake Dunham Lake None +978 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Lily Lake Lily Lake None +996 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Little Yellow Lake Little Yellow Lake *931 +933 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Long Lake (T38NR16WS16) Long Lake (T38NR16WS16) None +962 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Lower Clam Lake Lower Clam Lake None +956 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Lost Lake #1 Lost Lake #1 None +993 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Lost Lakes #2, 3, 4 Lost Lakes #2, 3, 4 None +992 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Middle McKenzie Lake Middle McKenzie Lake None +989 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Mud Lake Mud Lake None +965 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Nickaboyne Lake Nickaboyne Lake None +994 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Tabor Lake Tabor Lake None +942 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Webb Lake Webb Lake None +941 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Wood River Approximately 950 feet downstream of Cross Town Road None +915 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Downstream of County Highway Y None +918 Yellow Lake Yellow Lake *931 +933 Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Yellow River At confluence with the St. Croix River None +873 Village of Webster, Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 820 feet upstream of Yellow River Road None +999 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Burnett County (Unincorporated Areas). Maps are available for inspection at: Burnett County Department of Planning and Zoning, 7410 Co Rd K, Siren, WI 54872. Send comments to: James P. Flanigan, Zoning Administrator, 7410 Co Rd K, Siren, WI 54872. Village of Siren Maps are available for inspection at: Village Hall, 24049—1st Ave., N., Siren, WI 54872. Send comments to: Richard Engstrom, Village President, 24049—1st Ave., N., Siren, WI 54872. Village of Webster Maps are available for inspection at: Village Hall, 7505 Main St., Webster, WI 54893. Send comments to: Paul Cyms, Village President, 7505 Main St., Webster, WI 54893. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 23, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7-1770 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7705] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and proposed BFEs modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The comment period is ninety
(90)days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community. ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Grand County, Colorado, and Incorporated Areas Fraser River Approximately 1700 ft upstream of the intersection with State Highway 8 None +8550 Town of Fraser Grand County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2445 ft downstream of the confluence with Leland Creek *8623 +8628 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Fraser Maps are available for inspection at 153 Fraser Avenue, Fraser, CO 80442. Send comments to The Honorable Fran Cook, Mayor, Town of Fraser, P.O. Box 120, Fraser, CO 80442. Grand County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 308 Byers Avenue, Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451. Send comments to Mr. James Newberry, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners, P.O. Box 264, Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451. Edwards County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas Arkansas River At U.S. Highway 50 None +2160 Edwards County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2 miles upstream of Old U.S. Highway 183 None +2187 Big Coon Creek At U.S. Highway 50 None +2164 Edwards County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Kinsley. At Colony Avenue *2171 +2172 Approximately 1 mile upstream of Winchester Avenue None +2179 Little Coon Creek At Winchester Avenue None +2169 Edwards County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2 miles upstream of County Road 13 None +2183 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Edwards County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at the County Clerk's Office, 312 Massachusetts Avenue, Kinsley, KS 67547. Send comments to The Honorable Duane Mathes, Commissioner, Edwards County, 312 Massachusetts Avenue, Kinsley, KS 67547. City of Kinsley Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 721 Marsh, Kinsley, KS 67547. Send comments to The Honorable Michael Hermann, Mayor, City of Kinsley, 721 Marsh, Kinsley, KS 67547. Hillsborough County, New Hampshire and Incorporated Areas Baboosic Brook At confluence with Souhegan River *119 +118 Town of Bedford, Town of Merrimack. Approximately 1,150 feet downstream of Stowell Road *222 +221 Chase Brook Just upstream of State Route 3A *135 +136 Town of Litchfield. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Pilgrim Road None +174 Contoocook River Approximately 1.52 miles upstream of Boston and Maine Railroad *595 +594 Town of Hillsborough, Town of Peterborough. Approximately 1.37 miles upstream of Drury Road *851 +854 Gumpas Road Brook Just upstream of Marsh Road *136 +137 Town of Pelham. Just upstream of Debbie Drive None +167 Naticook Brook At U.S. Route 3 *122 +117 Town of Merrimack. Approximately 70 feet downstream of Naticook Lake Outlet None +204 Nesenkeag Brook Approximately 100 feet downstream of State Route 3A *121 +120 Town of Litchfield. Approximately 1 mile upstream of Albuquerque Boulevard *173 +182 Nubanusit Brook At confluence with Contoocook River *721 +722 Town of Peterborough. Approximately 30 feet upstream of Wilder Street *861 +863 Otter Brook Approximately 450 feet downstream of State Route 136 *702 +703 Town of Peterborough, Town of Greenfield. Approximately 2,300 feet upstream of the confluence of Otter Lake Brook *800 +801 Pennichuck Brook Just upstream of Harris Pond Dam *139 +142 City of Nashua. Just downstream of Pennichuck Pond Outlet *191 +189 Salmon Brook At confluence with Merrimack River *113 +112 City of Nashua. Approximately 2,800 feet upstream of Ridge Road Bridge *160 +156 Second Brook Approximately 400 feet upstream of Radcliffe Road *115 +112 Town of Hudson. Approximately 40 feet upstream of Wason Road None +177 Pointer Club Brook Approximately 480 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 3 None +146 Town of Merrimack. Just downstream of F.E. Everett Turnpike None +155 Stony Brook Just downstream of Small Dam None +820 Town of Lyndeborough. Approximately 2,600 feet downstream of School House Road None +825 Tributary B No. 1 At confluence with Chase Brook *169 +170 Town of Litchfield. Just upstream of State Route 102 None +193 Tributary B No. 2 Approximately 400 feet upstream of Forest Road None +820 Town of Greenfield. Approximately 2,600 feet upstream of Forest Road None +835 Naticook Lake For the entire Lake None +208 Town of Merrimack. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Bedford Maps are available for inspection at Bedford Town Planning Department, 24 North Amherst Road, Bedford, New Hampshire. Send comments to Mr. Keith Hickey, Bedford Town Manager, Bedford Town Offices Building, 24 North Amherst Road, Bedford, New Hampshire 03000. Town of Greenfield Maps are available for inspection at Greenfield Town Hall, 7 Sawmill Road, Greenfield, New Hampshire. Send comments to Mr. William Brooks, Chairman, Town of Greenfield Board of Selectmen, Greenfield Town Office, Post Office Box 256, Greenfield, New Hampshire 03047. Town of Hillsborough Maps are available for inspection at Hillsborough Town Planning Department, 29 School Street, Hillsborough, New Hampshire. Send comments to Mr. Robert Bucker, Chairman, Town of Hillsborough Board of Selectmen, Post Office Box 7, Hillsborough, New Hampshire 03244. Town of Hudson Maps are available for inspection at Hudson Town Planning Department, 12 School Street, Hudson, New Hampshire. Send comments to Mr. William Cole, Chairman, Town of Hudson Board of Selectmen, 12 School Street, Hudson, New Hampshire 03051. Town of Litchfield Maps are available for inspection at Litchfield Town Hall, 2 Liberty Way, Suite 1, Litchfield, New Hampshire. Send comments to Mr. Jack Pinciaro, Town of Litchfield Board of Selectmen, Litchfield Town Hall, 2 Liberty Way, Litchfield, New Hampshire 03052. Town of Lyndeborough Maps are available for inspection at Lyndeborough Town Hall, 9 Citizens Hall Road, Lyndeborough, New Hampshire. Send comments to Ms. Lorraine Strube, Chairman, Town of Lyndeborough Board of Selectmen, Post Office Box 6, Lyndeborough, New Hampshire 03082. Town of Merrimack Maps are available for inspection at Merrimack Town Hall, 6 Baboosic Lake Road, Merrimack, New Hampshire. Send comments to Mr. William Mulligan, Merrimack Town Manager, Post Office Box 940, Merrimack, New Hampshire 03054. City of Nashua Maps are available for inspection at City of Nashua Planning Department, 229 Main Street, Nashua, New Hampshire. Send comments to The Honorable Bernard Streeter, Mayor, City of Nashua, 229 Main Street, Nashua, New Hampshire 03061. Town of Pelham Maps are available for inspection at Town of Pelham Planning Department, 6 Village Green, Pelham, New Hampshire. Send comments to Mr. William McDevitt, Chairman, Town of Pelham Board of Selectmen, 6 Village Green, Pelham, New Hampshire 03076. Town of Peterborough Maps are available for inspection at Town of Peterborough Planning Department, One Grove Street, Peterborough, New Hampshire. Send comments to Ms. Pam Brenner, Peterborough Town Administrator, Peterborough Town House, One Grove Street, Peterborough, New Hampshire 03458. Barnes County, North Dakota, and Incorporated Areas Sheyenne River Approximately 3200 feet downstream from 117th Ave, SE. (Barnes County Highway 21) *1214 +1214 City of Valley City. Just upstream from Interstate 94 *1218 +1219 Approximately 3350 feet upstream from 65th Street NE *1225 +1224 Approximately 5600 feet upstream from Maryvale Bridge None +1228 Sheyenne River Approximately 700 feet upstream from ND Highway 46 None +1162 Barnes County (Unincorporated Areas). Just downstream from 43rd St., SE. (Barnes County Highway 21) *1199 +1198 Just downstream from Baldhill Dam None +1239 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Valley City Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 220 3rd St. NE., Valley City, ND 58072. Send comments to The Honorable Mary Lee Nielson, Mayor, P.O. Box 390, Valley City, ND 58072. Barnes County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Barnes County Courthouse, 230 4th Street NW., Valley City, ND 58072. Send comments to The Honorable Harlan Opdahl, Chairman, 230 4th Street NW., Valley City, ND 58072. Washington County, Oklahoma, and Incorporated Areas Caney River Approximately 2000 feet upstream from West 2350 Drive *663 +664 City of Bartlesville Washington County (Unincorporated Areas). At intersection with West 1400 Road *683 +684 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Bartlesville Maps are available for inspection at 420 S. Johnstone, Bartlesville, OK 74004. Send comments to The Honorable Julie Daniels, Mayor, City of Bartlesville, 401 S. Johnstone, Bartlesville, OK 74003. Washington County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 420 S. Johnstone, Bartlesville, OK 74004. Send comments to The Honorable, Linda D. Herdon, Chairman of the Board, County Commissioners, 400 S. Johnstone, Bartlesville, OK 74003. Morrow County, Oregon, and Incorporated Areas Blackhorse Canyon Approximately 480 feet downstream from Arcade Street Bridge *1439 +1442 City of Lexington. Approximately 0.4 miles upstream from SR 74 *1478 +1479 Hinton Creek Downstream side of Main Street Bridge *1933 +1930 City of Heppner Morrow County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 560 feet upstream from SR 74 *2044 +2045 Little Blackhorse Canyon Approximately 350 feet downstream from SR 74 Culvert *1870 +1872 Morrow County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.0 miles upstream from SR 74 *2109 +2120 Lorraine Canyon Approximately 130 feet downstream from SR 74 None +1093 City of Ione. Approximately 720 feet upstream from SR 74 *1139 +1159 Rietmann Canyon Approximately 250 feet downstream of SR 74 Bridge *1095 +1099 City of Ione. Approximately 500 ft. upstream of SR 74 Bridge *1109 +1115 Shobe Creek Approximately 400 feet downstream from Chase Street Bridge *1957 +1960 City of Heppner Morrow County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 miles upstream from SR 207 *2150 +2162 Willow Creek Approximately 2.1 miles downstream from Fuller Canyon Road *1789 +1793 City of Heppner Morrow County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 625 feet upstream of Alfalfa Street Bridge *1979 +1977 Willow Creek Approximately 1400 feet downstream from Gooseberry Road *1071 +1069 City of Ione Morrow County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.8 miles upstream from Gooseberry Road *1099 +1100 Willow Creek Approximately 0.9 miles downstream of B Street Bridge *1405 +1408 City of Lexington Morrow County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 800 feet upstream of B Street Bridge *1456 +1458 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Heppner Maps are available for inspection at 111 N. Main Street, Heppner, OR 97836. Send comments to The Honorable David Demayo, City Manager, City of Heppner, P.O. Box 756, Heppner, OR 97836. City of Ione Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 385 West 2nd, Ione, OR 97843. Send comments to The Honorable Marc Bruno, Mayor, City of Ione, P.O. Box 361, Ione, OR 97843. City of Lexington Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 150 Main Street, Lexington, OR 97839. Send comments to The Honorable Valerie Doherty, Mayor, City of Lexington, P.O. Box 416, Lexington, OR 97839. Morrow County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Morrow County Planning Department, 205 NE. 3rd Street, Irrigon, OR 97844. Send comments to The Honorable Terry Tallman, Commissioner, Morrow County, P.O. Box 788, Heppner, OR 97836. Coffee County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Duck River Approximately 740 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 41 *999 +1001 City of Manchester. Approximately 263 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 41 *999 +1001 Duck River Approximately 263 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 41 *999 +1001 Coffee County (Unincorporated Areas). Just upstream of Interstate 24 *1013 +1012 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Manchester Maps are available for inspection at Planning and Use Department, 1329 McArthur Street, Manchester, TN 37355. Send comments to The Honorable Johnnie W. Brown, Mayor, City of Manchester, 301 Oakdale Street, Manchester, TN 37355. Coffee County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Manchester City Hall, 200 West Fort Street, Manchester, TN 37355. Send comments to The Honorable David Pennington, Mayor, Coffee County, County Courthouse, 300 Hillsboro Boulevard, Manchester, TN 37355. Cooke County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Indian Creek East Lower Reach At confluence with Lake Ray Roberts None +645 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). At Lake Kiowa Dam None +705 Indian Creek East Tributary 1 At the confluence with Indian Creek East None +645 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream from FM 217 None +693 Indian Creek East Tributary 2 At the confluence with Indian Creek East Lower Reach None +663 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet downstream from FM Road 3496 None +724 Indian Creek Upper Reach At confluence with Lake Kiowa None +705 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2500 feet upstream from confluence with Lake Kiowa None +718 Lake Kiowa Lake Kiowa None +705 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Lake Ray Roberts Lake Ray Roberts None +645 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Pecan Creek North Approximately 4,000 feet downstream from FM Road 2071 None +703 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet upstream from I-35 None +783 Pecan Creek South At the Confluence with Lake Ray Roberts None +645 City of Valley View Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 750 feet upstream from FM Road 922 None +712 Pecan Creek South Tributary 1 At the Confluence with Pecan Creek South None +646 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). At intersection with FM Road 922 None +687 Persimmon Creek At confluence with Elm Fork Trinity River None +645 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet upstream from North Shore Drive None +700 Persimmon Creek Tributary 1 At confluence with Persimmon Creek (Pioneer Valley Lake) None +664 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet upstream from confluence with Persimmon Creek (Pioneer Valley Lake) None +689 Persimmon Creek Tributary 2 Confluence with Persimmon Creek (Pioneer Valley Lake) None +664 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,500 feet upstream from confluence with Persimmon Creek (Pioneer Valley Lake) None +667 Persimmon Creek Tributary 3 At confluence with Persimmon Creek None +678 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,500 feet upstream from the confluence with Persimmon Creek None +697 Pond Creek Approximately 1,000 feet downstream from confluence with Pond Creek Tributary 2 (County Border) None +646 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet downstream from Rail Road (County Border) None +674 Pond Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Pond Creek None +646 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,200 feet upstream from I-35 None +705 Pond Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Pond Creek Tributary None +675 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream from I-35 None +702 Tributary Kiowa 1 Confluence with Lake Kiowa None +705 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,200 feet upstream from confluence with Lake Kiowa None +713 Tributary Kiowa 2 At confluence with Lake Kiowa None +705 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,500 feet upstream from confluence with Lake Kiowa None +723 Wolf Creek At the confluence with Lake Ray Roberts None +645 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream from FM 295 None +746 Wolf Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Wolf Creek None +681 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,700 feet upstream from confluence with Wolf Creek None +709 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Valley View Maps are available for inspection at 100 South Dixon, Gainesville, TX 76240. Send comments to The Honorable Carl Kemplin, Mayor, City of Valley View, P.O. Box 268, Valley View, TX 76272. Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 100 South Dixon, Gainesville, TX 76240. Send comments to The Honorable Bill Freeman, County Judge, 100 South Dixon, Room 110, Gainesville, TX 76240. Clarke County, Virginia, and Incorporated Areas Shenandoah River Approximately 2.47 miles downstream of Harry Byrd Highway/State Highway 7, at the Clarke County/ West Virginia State line None +379 Clarke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3.91 miles upstream of John Mosby Highway/U.S. Highway 17/50, at the Clarke/ Fauquier County line None +456 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Clarke County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at the County Administration Building, 102 North Church Street, Berryville, VA 22611. Send comments to Mr. David Ash, County Administrator, Clarke County, 102 North Church Street, Berryville, VA 22611. Warren County, Virginia, and Incorporated Areas North Fork Shenandoah River Confluence with South Fork Shenandoah River None +498 Warren County (Unincorporated Areas). Town of Front Royal Corporate Limits (approximately 1.46 miles upstream of confluence with Shenandoah River) None +498 South Fork Shenandoah River Confluence of Punches Run None +500 Warren County (Unincorporated Areas). Town of Front Royal Corporate Limits (just upstream of Catlett Mountain Road and Luray Avenue) *499 +506 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Warren County (Unincorporated Areas). Maps are available for inspection at 220 North Commerce Avenue, Suite 400, Front Royal, VA 22630. Send comments to Mr. Douglas P. Stanley, County Administrator, 220 North Commerce Avenue, Suite 100, Front Royal, VA 22630. Kitsap County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas Clear Creek Downstream side of NW. Bucklin Hill Road *10 +13 Kitsap County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 60 feet downstream of NW. Mountain View Road None +180 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Kitsap County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Department of Public Works 614 Division Street, Administrative Building, Port Orchard, WA 98366. Send comments to Dave Tucker, Surface/Stormwater Supervisor, Department of Public Works 614 Division Street, Administrative Building, Port Orchard, WA. Rock County, Wisconsin and Incorporated Areas Allen Creek 170 feet downstream of Highway 213/59 None *871 City of Evansville, Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). At Lake Leota Dam *902 *903 Bass Creek At Highway 11 *802 *801 Village of Footville, Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). At W. Dorner Road None *814 Blackhawk Creek Upstream face of Highway 14 bridge None *838 Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). 500 feet upstream of S. Milton Shopiere Rd None *877 East Fork Raccoon Creek 1 mile downstream from W. Saint Lawrence Ave *746 *746 Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). W. Spring Creek Rd *770 *770 Fisher Creek At mouth at Rock River *760 *761 City of Janesville, Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). 2100 feet upstream of N. Little Rd None *969 Greenbelt Tributary 1 At mouth at Blackhawk Creek *808 *808 City of Janesville. Just downstream of Sandhill Dr None *878 Greenbelt Tributary 2 At mouth at Greenbelt Tributary 4 None *851 City of Janesville, Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). 470 feet upstream of E. Milwaukee St None *873 Greenbelt Tributary 3 At mouth at Greenbelt Tributary 1 None *834 City of Janesville, Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). 1/2 mile upstream of Saratoga Dr None *877 Greenbelt Tributary 4 At mouth at Greenbelt Tributary 1 None *828 City of Janesville, Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). 350 feet upstream of County Highway A None *880 Greenbelt Tributary 5 At mouth at Greenbelt Tributary 4 None *829 City of Janesville, Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). 600 feet upstream of Highway 14 None *882 Markham Creek At mouth at Rock River *759 *760 City of Janesville, Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). 2100 feet upstream of W. Hanover Rd None *819 Morningside Tributary At mouth at Spring Brook-Janesville *808 *808 City of Janesville. Just downstream of Humes Rd None *877 Raccoon Creek 1 mile downstream from W. Saint Lawrence Ave *741 *742 Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). Just upstream of Highway 81 None *773 Rock River State line 70 feet downstream of Shirland Ave *737 *738 City of Janesville, City of Beloit, Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). At Lake Koshkonong *784 *785 Saunders Creek At mouth at Rock River *782 *783 City of Edgerton, Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). At County Boundary approx. 1 3/4 miles upstream of pedestrian bridge at Chamberlain and Blaine St *822 *822 Spring Brook-Beloit At mouth at Turtle Creek *764 *764 City of Beloit, Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). 60 feet upstream of Clinton Corners Rd None *917 Unnamed Tributary 1 to Raccoon Creek At mouth at Raccoon Creek *761 *761 Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). W. Beloit Newark Rd *804 *804 Unnamed Tributary 2 to Raccoon Creek Mouth at Unnamed Tributary 1 to Raccoon Creek *763 *763 Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). W. Beloit Newark Rd *826 *827 Unnamed Tributary 1 to Rock River At mouth at Rock River *753 *754 Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). At County Highway G None *780 Unnamed Tributary to Blackhawk Creek At mouth at Blackhawk Creek None *860 Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). Just downstream of N. Tarrant Rd None *887 Unnamed Tributary to E. Fork Raccoon Creek At mouth at East Fork Raccoon Creek *755 *754 Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). 300 feet upstream of County Highway Q None *818 Unnamed Tributary in Turtle Township 1.4 miles downstream from Highway 67 bridge None *791 Rock County (Unincorporated Areas). 400 feet downstream from Clinton Corners Rd None *920 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Rock County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at: Rock County Department of Planning Development, 51 South Main Street, Janesville, WI 53545. Send comments to: James Forrestal, Zoning Administrator, 51 South Main Street, Janesville, WI 53545. City of Beloit Maps are available for inspection at: Engineering Department, 100 State St., Beloit, WI 53511. Send comments to: Mike Flesch, City Engineer, 100 State St., Beloit, WI 53511. City of Edgerton Maps are available for inspection at: City Hall, 12 Albion St., Edgerton, WI 53534. Send comments to: Ramona Flanigan, City Administrator, 12 Albion St., Edgerton, WI 53534. City of Evansville Maps are available for inspection at: City Hall, 31 South Madison St., Evansville, WI 53536. Send comments to: Willam Connors, City Administrator, 31 South Madison St., Evansville, WI 53536. City of Janesville Maps are available for inspection at: City Hall, 18 N. Jackson St., Janesville, WI 53547-5005. Send comments to: Brad Cantrell, Community Development Director, 18 N. Jackson St., Janesville, WI 53547-5005. Village of Footville Maps are available for inspection at: Village Hall, 156 Depot St., Footville, WI 53537. Send comments to: Gary Selck, Village President, 156 Depot St., Footville, WI 53537. Snohomish County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas Skykomish River Approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the intersection of 183rd Avenue SE and 176th Street SE *47 +50 City of Monroe. Approximately 0.7 miles southwest of the intersection of Highway 2 and 227th Avenue *66 +69 Skykomish River Approximately 0.9 miles upstream of State Route 522 *42 +47 Snohomish County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 miles southeast of the intersection of Highway 2 and Fern Bluff Road *85 +89 Snohomish River Just upstream of State Route 522 *41 +43 Snohomish County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.9 miles upstream of State Route 522 *42 +47 Snoqualmie River Approximately 0.9 miles upstream of State Route 522 *42 +47 Snohomish County (Unincorporated Areas). At the boundary with King County *46 +50 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Monroe Maps are available for inspection at Engineering Department, 806 West Main Street, Monroe, WA 98272. Send comments to The Honorable Donnetta Walser, Mayor, City of Monroe, City Hall, 806 West Main Street, Monroe, WA 98272. Snohomish County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Snohomish County Planning and Development Services, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue M/S 604, Everett, WA 98201. Send comments to The Honorable Kirke Sievers, Chairman, Snohomish County Council, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue M/S 609, Everett, WA 98201. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 25, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7-1771 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 680 [I.D. 012607D] RIN 0648-AV19 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Crab Rationalization Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments. SUMMARY: On January 12, 2007, the President signed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, which requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of that Act, to amend the Fishery Management Plan for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs
(FMP)to authorize conversion of catcher vessel owner quota shares and processor quota shares to newly created North Region catcher/processor owner quota shares. Proposed Amendment 25 to the FMP would satisfy this requirement. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws. DATES: Comments on the amendment must be submitted on or before April 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by: • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802; • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK; • Fax: 907-586-7557; or • E-mail: *0648-AV19-NOA-KTC25@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: KTC 25 NOA. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes. • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments. Copies of Amendment 25 and the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)for the Crab Rationalization Program may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/crab/eis/default.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228 or *gretchen.harrington@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing that the FMP amendment is available for public review and comment during the 60-day period beginning on the date the notice is published. On January 12, 2007, the President signed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-479), which added a new requirement in section 122(a) for the Secretary, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of that Act, to amend the FMP to authorize conversion of catcher vessel owner quota shares (CVO QS) and processor quota shares
(PQS)to catcher/processor owner quota shares (CPO QS). Proposed Amendment 25 to the FMP, if approved, would satisfy this requirement. The Secretary must approve this FMP amendment by April 12, 2007, to comply with Public Law 109-479. Crab Rationalization Program (Program) In implementing the Program in 2005, NMFS initially issued PQS, CVO QS, and CPO QS to eligible applicants. In 2006, NMFS initially issued PQS to the Blue Dutch, LLC, under the requirements of section 417(a) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Coast Guard Act, Public Law 109-241). NMFS may initially issue additional quota share pursuant to ongoing appeal adjudications. CVO QS represents an exclusive but revocable privilege that provides the holder with an annual allocation to harvest a specific percentage of the total allowable catch
(TAC)from a fishery. The annual allocations of TACs, in pounds, are referred to as individual fishing quotas (IFQs). Under the regional requirement, CVO QS is designated by landing region and harvests are required to be delivered either in the North or South region. PQS represents an exclusive but revocable privilege to receive deliveries of a specific portion of the annual TAC from a fishery. An annual allocation of PQS is referred to as IPQ and expressed in pounds of crab. PQS is regionally designated for processing in the North or South region. CPO QS represents an exclusive but revocable privilege to harvest a percentage of the TAC and process that crab onboard. Under the Program, CPO QSs do not have regional designations. The regional designation of CVO QS and PQS preserves the historic geographic distribution of landings in the fisheries. Two regional designations were created for the snow crab ( *Chionoecetes opilio* ) and Bristol Bay red king crab ( *Paralithodes camtschaticus* ) fisheries. The North Region consists of all areas in the Bering Sea north of 56°20′ N latitude. The South Region is all other areas. Crab harvested with regionally designated CVO QS is required to be delivered to a processor in the designated region. Likewise, a processor with regionally designated PQS is required to accept delivery of and process crab in the designated region. Amendment 25 Proposed Amendment 25 to the FMP would comply with Public Law 109-479 by amending the FMP to include an additional provision to the Program. Amendment 25 would authorize an eligible entity and its commonly owned affiliates to combine North PQS and North CVO QS and exchange these shares for newly created North Region CPO QS (North CPO QS). Allowing entities to convert PQS and CVO QS to North CPO QS would allow them to harvest and process crab onboard a catcher processor. Amendment 25 would reduce each eligible entity's operating costs associated with purchasing crab, processing crab on land or in a stationary floater processor, and complying with the Program's arbitration system. Amendment 25 would authorize, on an annual basis, two types of quota share conversions and defines the entities eligible to make those conversions. First, an eligible entity holding PQS, along with its commonly owned affiliates, could combine any North CVO QS with its North PQS and exchange them for North CPO QS on an annual basis. Entities could do this under the following two conditions:
(1)if NMFS initially issued the entity both CPO QS and PQS under the Program, and that PQS, in combination with the PQS of its commonly owned affiliates, is less than 7 percent of the total PQS pool for that year; and
(2)if NMFS initially issued the entity CPO QS under the Program and PQS under the Coast Guard Act. An eligible entity would be limited to converting only the PQS that it, along with its commonly owned affiliates, was initially issued by NMFS. Second, an eligible entity holding CVO QS, along with its commonly owned affiliates, could combine any North PQS with its North CVO QS and exchange them for North CPO QS on an annual basis. The only entity that could do this would be an entity to which NMFS initially issued CPO QS and PQS under the Program, and that PQS, in combination with the PQS of its commonly owned affiliates, is more than 7 percent of the total PQS pool for that year. This eligible entity would be limited to converting only the CVO QS that it, along with its commonly owned affiliates, was initially issued by NMFS. Eligible entities would receive one unit of North CPO QS in exchange for one unit of North CVO QS and 0.9 units of North PQS. The amount of North CPO QS issued to each entity could not exceed 1 million pounds during any calendar year. According to the NMFS Official Record, three individual entities are eligible for these new provisions. Yardarm Knot, LLC, and its commonly owned affiliates, and Blue Dutch, LLC, and its commonly owned affiliates, would be eligible for the first type of conversion. Trident Seafoods, and its commonly owned affiliates, would be eligible for the second type of conversion. NMFS can not predict the annual amount of North CPO QS that would be annually issued because the participants would annually elect to exercise this provision and need not request conversion of all CVO QS and PQS held. While the statutory language does not specifically define which fisheries are subject to this provision, North CPO QS would only be created for the snow crab and Bristol Bay red king crab fisheries, because these were the only fisheries for which the eligible entities were initially issued North PQS and North CVO QS. Sections 122(b) and
(c)of Public Law 109-479 include additional requirements for fees and off-loading for the newly created North CPO QS; however, the statute does not require these requirements to be part of this FMP amendment. Public Law 109-479 requires the holder of North CPO QS to pay a fee of 5 percent of the ex-vessel value of the crab harvested with those shares to any local governmental entities in the North Region, if the PQS used to produce the North CPO QS were originally derived from the processing activities that occurred in a community under the jurisdiction of those local governmental entities. The State of Alaska may collect from the holder of the North CPO QS a fee of 1 percent of the ex-vessel value of the crab harvested with those shares. Additionally, crab harvested with North CPO QS shall be off-loaded in those communities receiving the local governmental entities fee revenue. Section 122(d) also provides that, as part of its periodic review of the Program, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council may review the effects of allowing the conversion to North CPO QS on communities in the North Region. Under this section, if the Council determines that Amendment 25 adversely affects the communities, the Council may recommend to the Secretary, and the Secretary may approve, changes to the Program necessary to mitigate those adverse effects. Section 122(e) requires an additional FMP amendment and rule making to modify the use caps for processing North Region snow crab. Under this section, custom processing arrangements do not count against any use cap for the processing of snow crab in the North Region by a shore-based crab processor's. NMFS issued an enforcement policy on January 19, 2007, that provides guidance to the industry on NMFS' enforcement and interpretation of this section, which is effective until superseded by rule making. An EIS was prepared for the Program that describes the management background, the purpose and need for the Program, the management alternatives, and the environmental, social, and economic impacts (see ADDRESSES ). The EIS contains as appendices the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Social Impact Assessment prepared for the Program. With Amendment 25, NMFS is continuing to implement the Program. Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 25 through the end of the comment period (see DATES ). All comments on the amendment received by that date will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered. To be considered, comments must be received—not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted—by the close of business on the last day of the comment period. NMFS is developing a separate proposed rule notice to implement Amendment 25. NMFS anticipates implementing Amendment 25 and Public Law 109-479 for the 2007/2008 crab fisheries. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ; Pub. L. 109-479, 120 Stat. 3575. Dated: January 30, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-1804 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 23 Monday, February 5, 2007 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Notice of Meeting Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid (ACVFA). *Date:* Wednesday, February 21, 2007 (9 a.m. to 3 p.m.). *Location:* National Press Club Ballroom, 529 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20045. Please note that this is the anticipated agenda and is subject to change. *U.S. Foreign Assistance and the FY 08 Budget:* USAID's Administrator Randall L. Tobias has been invited to speak on the U.S. foreign assistance program. Dirk Dijkerman, Chief Operating Officer, and James Painter, Senior Coordinator for Operational Management, in the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance in the U.S. Department of State have been invited to provide an overview of the President's fiscal year 2008 foreign assistance budget. *Afghanistan:* James Kunder, USAID's Acting Deputy Administrator has been invited to speak on USAID's programs in Afghanistan. *Global Development Alliance:* Daniel Runde, Director of USAID's Global Development Alliance
(GDA)initiative has been invited to provide an overview of the GDA since its establishment in 2001. A panel discussion will follow on lessons learned with representatives from private voluntary organizations and the private sector. The meeting is free and open to the public. Persons wishing to attend the meeting can register online at *http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/acvfa* or contact Kristin Holland at * * * or 202-237-0090 extension 10 or Jocelyn Rowe at *jrowe@usaid.gov* or 202-712-4002. Dated: January 30, 2007. Jocelyn M. Rowe, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid (ACVFA), U.S. Agency for International Development. [FR Doc. E7-1764 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-06-0216; FV07-375] Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's
(AMS)intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for an extension of a currently approved information collection for the Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under Regulations Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, as amended. DATES: Comments received by April 6, 2007 will be considered. ADDRESSES: You may submit written or electronic comments to:
(1)PACA Recordkeeping and Reporting Comments, AMS, F&V Programs, PACA Branch, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 2095-S, Stop 0242, Washington, DC 20250-0242.
(2)Fax: 202-690-4413
(3)E-mail comments to *Dexter.Thomas@usda.gov.*
(4)Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Instructions:* All comments will become a matter of public record and should be identified as PACA Recordkeeping and Reporting Comments. Comments will be available for public inspection from AMS at the above address or over the AMS Web site at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/paca.htm.* Web site questions can be addressed to the PACA Web master, *Dexter.Thomas@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under Regulations (Other than Rules of Practice) Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930. *OMB Number:* 0581-0031. *Expiration Date of Approval:* October 31, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The PACA was enacted by Congress in 1930 to establish a code of fair trading practices covering the marketing of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables in interstate or foreign commerce. It protects growers, shippers, and distributors dealing in those commodities by prohibiting unfair and fraudulent trade practices. The law provides a forum for resolving contract disputes, and a mechanism for the collection of damages from anyone who fails to meet contractual obligations. In addition, the PACA provides for prompt payment to fruit and vegetable sellers and for revocation of licenses and sanctions against firms or principals found to have violated the law's standards for fair business practices. The PACA also imposes a statutory trust that attaches to perishable agricultural commodities received by regulated entities, products derived from the commodities, and any receivables or proceeds from the sale of the commodities. The trust exists for the benefit of produce suppliers, sellers, or agents that have not been paid, and continues until they have been paid in full. The PACA is enforced through a licensing system. All commission merchants, dealers, and brokers engaged in business subject to the PACA must be licensed. Retailers and grocery wholesalers must renew their licenses every three years. All other licensees have the option of a one, two, or three-year license term. Those who engage in practices prohibited by the PACA may have their licenses suspended or revoked. The information collected pursuant to OMB Number 0581-0031 is used to administer licensing provisions under the PACA, to adjudicate contract disputes, and for the purpose of enforcing the PACA and the regulations. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public concerning our information collection. We estimate the paperwork and time burden of the above referenced information collection to be as follows: Form FV-211, Application for License: average of .25 hours per application per response. Form FV-231-1 (or 231-1A, or 231-2, or 231-2A), Application for Renewal or Reinstatement of License: Average of .05 hours per application per response. Regulations Section 46.13—Letters to Notify USDA of Changes in Business Operations: Average of .05 hours per notice per response. Regulations Section 46.4—Limited Liability Company Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement: Average of .083 hours with approximately 220 recordkeepers. Regulations Section 46.18—Record of Produce Received: Average of 5 hours with approximately 18,400 recordkeepers. Regulations Section 46.20—Records Reflecting Lot Numbers: Average of 8.25 hours with approximately 1,000 recordkeepers. Regulations Section 46.46(d)(2)—Waiver of Rights to Trust Protection: Average of .25 hours per notice with approximately 100 principals. Regulations Sections 46.46(f) and 46.2(aa)(11)—Copy of Written Agreement Reflecting Times for Payment: Average of 20 hours with approximately 2,670 recordkeepers. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3.9704 hours per response. *Respondents:* Commission merchants, dealers, and brokers engaged in the business of buying, selling, or negotiating the purchase or sale of commercial quantities of fresh and/or frozen fruits and vegetables in interstate or foreign commerce are required to be licensed under the PACA (7 U.S.C. 499(c)(a)). *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 14,686. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 38,984. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 2.6545. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 153,650. Comments are invited on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Dexter Thomas, Senior Marketing Specialist, PACA Branch, F & V Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 2095-So. Bldg., Mail Stop 0242, Washington, DC 20250-0242. E-mail— *dexter.thomas@usda.gov.* All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: January 30, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-1758 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-2006-0199; FV-07-301] United States Standards for Grades of Mangos AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)is soliciting comments on a proposed revision to the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Mangos. USDA received a request from a member of the industry to revise the definition of “well trimmed.” The change could benefit the fresh mango industry by improving fruit appearance and extending shelf life. DATES: Comments must be received by April 6, 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, or Internet: *http://www.regulations.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 Mangos are available either through the address cited above or by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fvstand.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri L. Emery, at the above address, telephone number
(202)720-2185, or e-mail address *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 and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables that are not requirements of 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 proposed to revise the voluntary United States Standards for Mangos using the procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). The standards were developed February 2006. Background AMS received a petition from a grower/packer/importer requesting a revision to the United States Standards for Grades of Mangos. The petitioner requested a revision to the definition of “well trimmed.” The standards currently define “well trimmed” as: “the stem is neatly clipped or broken off at a point not more than 1/2 inch beyond the point of attachment”. The petitioner requested an increase to the allowable length of the attached stem to 1 inch from the point of attachment. The petitioner stated a change is warranted because a longer stem, up to 1 inch in length, would permit healing of the stem end and reduce the amount of latex that leaks out of the fruit. The petitioner further stated incidences of “sunken stem end” would be reduced significantly by allowing a longer stem. A revision to the definition would read as follows: “Well trimmed” means the stem is neatly clipped or broken off at a point not more than 1 inch beyond the point of attachment. The official grade of a lot of mangos covered by these standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (7 CFR 51.1 to 51.61). AMS is soliciting comments on the proposed revision to the United States Standards for Grades of Mangos. This notice provides for a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on the requested change to the standards. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: January 30, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-1760 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-2007-0003; FV-06-307] United States Standards for Grades of Mushrooms AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; withdrawal. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)is withdrawing the notice soliciting comments on its proposal to amend the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Mushrooms. After reviewing and considering the comments received, the Agency has decided not to proceed with this action. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent J. Fusaro, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
(202)720-2185. Background At a meeting with the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, AMS was asked to review all the fresh fruit and vegetable grade standards for their usefulness in serving the industry. AMS had identified the United States Standards for Grades of Mushrooms for a possible revision. The United States Standards for Grades of Mushrooms were last amended July 15, 1966. On May 26, 2006, a notice requesting comments on the possible revision of the standards to allow the standards to be used for open veil types of mushrooms; include small, medium, and large size classifications for open veil types of mushrooms; revise the current size classifications (small to medium and large) as well as an addition of a button and jumbo size for the closed veil types of mushrooms; and eliminate the unclassified category was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 30366) with the comment period ending July 25, 2006. Two comments were received during the official period for comment. One comment from a consumer raised a number of concerns, including establishing new standards for fungi for consumption. Another comment from a national trade association representing domestic growers, buyer/shippers and processors of mushrooms, and those who provide services to the mushroom industry did not support revising the standard, stating that there was no consensus among growers, shippers, or customers as to industry-wide terms such as button, small, medium, large, or jumbo. This comment also questioned the use of the term “open veiled” and whether all such varieties would be covered by the proposed standards. Developing new standards for fungi for consumption is beyond the scope of what AMS proposed. Further, given the comment concerning the lack of consensus among the industry concerning the size terminology, we believe that the standards should not be changed at this time. After reviewing and considering the comments received, the Agency has decided not to proceed with the action. Therefore, the notice published May 26, 2006, (71 FR 30366) is withdrawn. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: January 30, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-1761 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-2006-0204; FV-06-316] United States Standards for Grades of Oranges (California and Arizona) and/or United States Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (California and Arizona) AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; withdrawal. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)is withdrawing the notice soliciting comments on its proposal to amend the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Oranges (California and Arizona) and/or United States Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (California and Arizona). After reviewing and considering the comment received, the Agency has decided not to proceed with this action. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2007 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri L. Emery, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1661 South Building, STOP 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240, Fax
(202)720-8871 or call
(202)720-2185; E-mail *Cheri.Emery@usda.gov.* The United States Standards for Grades of Oranges and/or United States Standards for Grades of Grapefruit are available either through the address cited above or by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm.* Background AMS had identified the United States Standards for Grades of Oranges (California and Arizona) and/or United States Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (California and Arizona) for possible revisions to reflect current marketing trends. The standards were last revised in 1999. On August 25, 2006, AMS published a notice in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 50383) soliciting comments on any possible revisions to the United States Standards for Grades of Oranges (California and Arizona) and/or United States Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (California and Arizona). The comment period ended October 24, 2006. During that sixty-day comment period, one comment was received. A California growers' association asked AMS not to proceed with any changes to the orange standards at this time because it was engaged in a consumer research project specific to grades and standards that will continue to run an additional two years. There were no comments concerning any revisions to the grapefruit standards. The comment is available by accessing AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fpbdocketlist.htm.* After reviewing and considering the comment received, the Agency has decided not to proceed with the action. Therefore, the notice published August 25, 2006, (71 FR 50383) is withdrawn. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: January 30, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-1759 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-2006-0203; FV-06-306] United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers) AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)of the Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is establishing voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers). The standards will provide industry with a common language and uniform basis for trading, thus promoting the orderly and efficient marketing of peppers that are not sweet peppers. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri L. Emery, 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,
(202)720-2185, fax
(202)720-8871, or e-mail *Cheri.Emery@usda.gov.* The United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers) are available either from the above address or by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm.* 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 and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables that are not requirements of 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 establishing voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers) using the procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). Background AMS published a notice in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 9514), on February 24, 2006, soliciting comments on the possible development of United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers). In response to the request for comments, AMS received two comments, one comment was from an industry group and the other from a shipper. Both comments were in support of developing the standards. The comments are available by accessing AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fpbdocketlist.htm.* On July 24, 2006, AMS published a second notice in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 41755-41756), soliciting comments on the proposed voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers). The proposed standards contained U.S. Fancy, U.S. No. 1, and U.S. No. 2 grades and tolerances for each grade. In addition, there were “Application of Tolerances” and “Size” sections. AMS also defined “Injury,” “Damage,” and “Serious Damage,” along with specific basic requirements and definitions for defects, definitions for color, diameter, and length. Comments were not received in connection with the second notice. The adoption of the U.S. grade standards will provide the pepper (other than sweet peppers) industry with U.S. grade standards similar to those extensively in use by the fresh produce industry to assist in orderly marketing of other commodities. Accordingly, AMS is adopting the United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers) as proposed in the July 24, 2006, **Federal Register** notice. The official grades of a lot or shipment of fresh vegetables covered by U.S. standards is determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (7 CFR 51.1 to 51.61). The United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers) will become effective 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: January 30, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-1762 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0195] Monsanto Company; Availability of Petition and Environmental Assessment for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Soybean Genetically Engineered for Glyphosate Herbicide Tolerance AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition from Monsanto Company seeking a determination of nonregulated status for soybean designated as MON 89788, which has been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. The petition has been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. In accordance with those regulations, we are soliciting comments on whether this soybean presents a plant pest risk. We are also making available for public comment an environmental assessment for the proposed determination of nonregulated status. DATES: We will consider all comments we receive on or before April 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0195 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0195, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0195. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Virgil Meier, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-3363, *virgil.d.meier@aphis.usda.gov.* To obtain copies of the petition or environmental assessment (EA), contact Ms. Cynthia Eck at
(301)734-0667; *cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov.* The petition and EA may be viewed on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_17801p.pdf* and *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_17801p_ea.pdf* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs
(b)and
(c)of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition. On June 27, 2006, APHIS received a petition seeking a determination of nonregulated status (APHIS Petition Number 06-178-01p) from Monsanto Company of St. Louis, MO (Monsanto), for soybean ( *Glycine max* L.) designated as transformation event MON 89788, which has been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, stating that soybean line MON 89788 does not present a plant pest risk and, therefore, should not be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340. As described in the petition, MON 89788 soybean plants have been genetically engineered to express a 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase protein from *Agrobacterium* sp. strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS), which confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. Expression of the added gene is controlled, in part, by gene sequences derived from Arabidopsis thaliana and the plant pathogen figwort mosaic virus. The *Agrobacterium tumefaciens* transformation method was used to transfer the added genetic material into the recipient parental soybean line A3244. MON 89788 soybean plants have been considered regulated articles under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because they contain gene sequences from plant pathogens. MON 89788 soybean plants have been field tested in the United States since 2001 under notifications authorized by APHIS. In the process of reviewing the notifications for field trials of the subject soybean plants, APHIS determined that the vectors and other elements were disarmed and that trials, which were conducted under conditions of reproductive and physical confinement or isolation, would not present a risk of plant pest introduction or dissemination. APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment
(EA)in which it presents three alternatives based on its analyses of data submitted by Monsanto, a review of other scientific data, and field tests conducted under APHIS oversight. APHIS may:
(1)Take no action,
(2)deregulate MON 89788 soybeans, or
(3)deregulate MON 89788 soybeans in part. In section 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 *et seq.* ), “plant pest” is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of the foregoing. APHIS views this definition broadly to cover direct or indirect injury, disease, or damage not just to agricultural crops, but also to other plants, for example, native species, as well as organisms that may be beneficial to plants, such as honeybees. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)is responsible for the regulation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 136 *et seq.* ). FIFRA requires that all pesticides, including herbicides, be registered prior to distribution or sale, unless exempt from EPA regulation. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended (21 U.S.C. 301 *et seq.* ), pesticides added to (or contained in) raw agricultural commodities generally are considered to be unsafe unless a tolerance or exemption from tolerance has been established. Residue tolerances for pesticides are established by the EPA under the FFDCA, and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)enforces tolerances set by the EPA. Because of the similarity in tolerance to glyphosate for MON 89788 and the previously deregulated event MON-04032-6, Monsanto has not requested a label change for the application of glyphosate to MON 89788 soybeans. The FDA's policy statement concerning regulation of products derived from new plant varieties, including those genetically engineered, was published in the **Federal Register** on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984-23005). Under this policy, FDA uses what is termed a consultation process to ensure that human and animal feed safety issues or other regulatory issues ( *e.g.* , labeling) are resolved prior to commercial distribution of a bioengineered food. Monsanto submitted a food and feed safety and nutritional assessment summary to the FDA for the MON 89788 soybean. A final FDA decision is pending. National Environmental Policy Act To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed determination of nonregulated status for MON 89788, an EA has been prepared. The EA was 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 1b), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). In accordance with § 340.6(d) of the regulations, we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding the petition for a determination of nonregulated status from interested or affected persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. We are also soliciting written comments from interested or affected persons on the EA prepared to examine any environmental impacts of the proposed determination for the subject soybean event. The petition and the EA and any comments we receive are available for public review, and copies of the petitions and the EA are available as indicated in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. After the comment period closes, APHIS will review the data submitted by the petitioner, all written comments received during the comment period, and any other relevant information. After reviewing and evaluating the comments on the petition and the EA and other data and information, APHIS will furnish a response to the petitioner, either approving the petition in whole or in part, or denying the petition. APHIS will then publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing the regulatory status of Monsanto's glyphosate-tolerant soybean and the availability of APHIS' written decision. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.8, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 30th day of January 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-1793 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0190] Availability of an Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Field Release of Genetically Engineered Safflower AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that an environmental assessment has been prepared for a proposed field release involving a transgenic safflower line that has been genetically engineered to express, within the seeds, a carp growth hormone fused to an *Arabidopsis oleosin* . The purpose of this field release is to obtain a seed increase of material harvested in Chile for future use as a supplement in aquaculture meal. We are making the environmental assessment available to the public for review and comment. DATES: We will consider all comments received on or before March 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0190 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using *Regulations.gov* , including instruction for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0190, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0190. *Reading Room:* You may read the environmental assessment
(EA)and any comments we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. The EA is also available on the Internet at *http://aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_25001r_ea.pdf* . *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Patricia Beetham, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-0664. To obtain copies of the environmental assessment, contact Ms. Cynthia Eck at
(301)734-0667; e-mail: *cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” A permit must be obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may be introduced. The regulations set forth the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, or release in the environment of a regulated article. On September 5, 2006, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a permit application (APHIS No. 06-250-02r) from SemBioSys Genetics, Inc. of West Sacramento, CA, for a field trial using a line of transgenic safflower. Permit application 06-250-02r describes a transgenic safflower ( *Carthamus tinctorius* ) cultivar that has been genetically engineered to express a fusion protein consisting of oleosin from *Arabidopsis thaliana* and carp growth hormone (somatotropin) from *Cyprinus carpio* exclusively within its seeds. Expression of the fusion protein is controlled by the phaseolin promoter and terminator sequences from *Phaseolus vulgaris* L. (common bean). Constructs were inserted into the recipient organisms via a disarmed *Agrobacterium tumefaciens* vector system. The seed from these safflower plants will be ground and incorporated into aquaculture feed to be used in experimental fish feeding studies by SemBioSys and is not for commercial production. The subject safflower is considered a regulated article under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it has been genetically engineered using the recombinant DNA technique using a vector derived from the plant pest *Agrobacterium tumefaciens.* To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts and plant pest risks associated with the proposed release of these transgenic safflowers, an environmental assessment
(EA)has been prepared. The EA was 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 1b), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Copies of the EA are available from the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 30th day of January 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-1790 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Revised Land and Resource Management Plan; Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe, CA ACTION: Notice of initiation to revise the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land and Resource Management Plan. SUMMARY: The Forest Service will revise the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the Forest Plan). This notice describes the documents available for review and how to obtain them; summarizes the need to change the Forest Plan and the initial scope of revision based upon management review and determination; provides information concerning public participation and collaboration; and includes the names and addresses of agency officials who can provide additional information. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Forest Plan Revision—LTBMU, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. E-mail: *comments-pacificsouthwest-ltbmu@fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Chaponot at
(530)543-2742 or Robert King at
(530)543-2619; or e-mail the revision team at : *comments-pacificsouthwest-ltbmu@fs.fed.us.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Documents Available for Review The Comprehensive Evaluation Report is the Forest Plan revision analysis document that provides an evaluation of current ecological, economic, and social conditions and trends; these contribute to sustainability within the Forest Service lands managed by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). Publication and review of the Comprehensive Evaluation Report
(CER)formally launches LTBMU's Forest Plan Revision process. The information detailed in the CER analysis, and further distilled within the forest supervisor's management review and revision theme areas are provided for public and agency review and comment. This document is now available for review (see Public Participation and Collaboration subtopic). Components of the Forest Plan As required under the National Forest Management Act, Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor, LTBMU has made a determination that conditions exist that warrant a revision of the existing 1988 Forest Plan (see Forest Supervisor's Determination—Preliminary Need for Change Topics). The Management Review is the preamble to the Comprehensive Evaluation Report document; it describes the scope of the plan revision, rationale, and formal determination to proceed with revision of the LTBMU Forest Plan. The information contained in the CER, in concert with information acquired from substantive comments, will be used to structure a revised plan. The revised Forest Plan will include the following components: Desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas and special areas (Reference: CFR 219.7). Forest Supervisor's Determination—Preliminary Need for Change Topics Much of the direction contained in the 1988 Forest Plan is still valid. The parts of the plan that are working well will be carried forward into the revised Plan, limiting the revision to areas where new regulations and policy, new science, resource information, and changing social, economic, and ecologic conditions and trends have created a need for updated guidance. Through the public participation and collaboration process the Forest Supervisor has determined that the Forest Plan Revision will focus on four preliminary themes: • Ecosystem restoration, • Recreation management, • Land use, • Planning and adaptive management. (Reference: CER Management Review; and CER Chapter 2) Comment Requested The Forest Service is seeking public comments about the appropriateness of the specific preliminary Need for Change topics identified in the CER document. Public comments should fall within two specific areas:
(1)Whether the scope and appropriate representation of the four major theme areas identified in the CER is addressed adequately, and with the appropriate science; and
(2)Specific issue areas of importance to the public that were not addressed adequately in the information presented in the full CER document. Substantive comments received by 19 March 2007 will be of the most value in evaluating public response to the adequacy of the need for change themes outlined in the Comprehensive Evaluation Report. Planning Process Schedule The revision process for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit officially begins in January 2007 with the publication of this Notice of Initiation in the **Federal Register** . The final revised Forest Plan is scheduled to be issued for pre-decisional review in July 2008. Final approval of the revised LTBMU Forest Plan is scheduled to occur October 2008. As of the publication date of this notice, it is the intent of the Forest Supervisor, Terri Marceron, consistent with national Forest Service policy, that the revised forest plan will be published as a Categorical Exclusion (Reference: Forest Service Handbook FSH 1909.12, Ch. 30, Jan. 31, 2006). Responsible Official Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Public Participation and Collaboration The revision process is designed to provide continued opportunities for public collaboration in the management of public land in the Lake Tahoe Basin and provide open participation in the development of the revised Forest Plan. Pursuant to 36 CFR 219.13(a), only parties that participate in the planning process through the submission of written comments can submit an objection upon publication of the revised Forest Plan decision (see Planning Process Schedule). For additional information on the Forest Plan revision processes, access the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Web site at: *http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ltbmu/projects/* . Likewise, interested members of the public can request to receive LTBMU Forest Plan revision information updates via U.S. Mail delivery, by mailing a request to: Forest Plan Revision—LTBMU, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, e-mailing: *comments-pacificsouthwest-ltbmu@fs.fed.us* , or phoning the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit:
(530)543-2600. Dated: January 29, 2007. Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. [FR Doc. 07-475 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 27
Traces to 27 documents
U.S. Code
- Modern rate regulation§ 3622
- Establishment of modern service standards§ 3691
- Indian country defined§ 1151
- Definitions§ 601
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Purposes§ 3501
- Flood elevation determinations§ 4104
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 4001
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
- Findings§ 7701
- Definitions§ 136
- Short title§ 301
- Congressional declaration of purpose§ 4321
- SHORT TITLE.§ 9701
CFR
- Legally enforceable procedures.§ 51.160
- Permit requirements.§ 51.165
- Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.§ 52.21
- Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.§ 51.166
- Public availability of information.§ 51.161
- Revisions.§ 51.104
- Public hearings.§ 51.102
- Plan amendment and administrative changes.§ 219.13
31 references not yet in our index
- 39 CFR 3001
- Pub. L. 109-435
- 40 CFR 52
- 42 USC 7470-7515
- 42 USC 7470-7492
- 42 USC 7501-7515
- 413 F.3d 3
- 40 CFR 124
- 40 CFR 51
- 40 CFR 51.160-51
- 40 CFR 50.160-50
- 40 CFR 63
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 44 CFR 67
- 44 CFR 67.4(a)
- 44 CFR 60.3
- 44 CFR 10
- 5 USC 601-612
- 50 CFR 680
- Pub. L. 109-479
- Pub. L. 109-241
- 120 Stat. 3575
- 7 USC 499(c)(a)
- 7 USC 1621-1627
- 7 CFR 36
- 7 CFR 51.1
- 7 CFR 340
- 7 CFR 1
- 7 CFR 372
- 7 USC 7701-7772
- 7 CFR 2.22
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
F. App'x413 F.3d 3
Cite39 CFR 3001
Pub. L.Pub. L. 109-435
Cites 58 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources