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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-03-13 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT) · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

22,208 words·~101 min read·/register/2007/03/13/07-1146

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26284; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-68-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Jetstream Model 3201 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: The Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual
(AMM)applicable to the British Aerospace Jetstream 3200 has been revised. Some lives have been amended and new lives introduced. Compliance with these requirements is necessary to maintain airworthiness. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Safety Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4138; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26284; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-68-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, has issued AD No. G-2004-0024, Issue Date: September 22, 2004, European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)approved on September 16, 2004, under approval number 2004-9648 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: The Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual
(AMM)applicable to the British Aerospace Jetstream 3200 has been revised. Some lives have been amended and new lives introduced. Compliance with these requirements is necessary to maintain airworthiness. The MCAI requires: From the effective date of this Airworthiness Directive (AD), comply with the requirements of BAE Jetstream Series 3200 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Chapter 05-10-05, Airworthiness Limitations Description and Operation Section,* Revision 14 or later EASA approved revision. * Only the structural fatigue tasks are mandated by this AD, the following tasks are not addressed by this AD: All the tasks recorded in Tables 2, 4, 5 and 8. Together with the Table No 3—task 27-70-000 Gust lock system. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information British Aerospace has issued Aircraft Maintenance Manual 05-10-05 001—AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION—BAe Jetstream 32, dated January 11, 2006, for Recurring Mandatory Inspections and Maintenance Actions. The actions described in this AMM are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This version of the above-referenced document is a later EASA-approved version than that referenced in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 20 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the proposed AD (inserting the document into the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness or other FAA-approved maintenance document). The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,600, or $80 per product. We have no way of determining the costs associated with having to replace certain parts at an earlier time due to reduced life limits. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **British Aerospace Regional Aircraft:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26284; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-68-AD Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 12, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 55: Structures. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: “The Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual
(AMM)applicable to the British Aerospace Jetstream 3200 has been revised. Some lives have been amended and new lives introduced. Compliance with these requirements is necessary to maintain airworthiness.” Actions and Compliance
(f)Within the next 60 days after the effective date of this AD do the following, unless already done:
(1)Incorporate the information referenced below from Aircraft Maintenance Manual 05-10-05 001—AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION—BAe Jetstream 32, dated January 11, 2006, for Recurring Mandatory Inspections and Maintenance Actions into the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness or other FAA-approved maintenance document. You may use a later European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)-approved revision that incorporates these same life limits. Table No. in document Affected areas AD applies
(i)Table No. 1 Wing, Fuselage, Fin, Tailplane, Engine mounting, Flap system Yes.
(ii)Table No. 2 Electrical Power (all Items) No.
(iii)Table No. 3 Rudder pedal/brake master cylinder attachment brackets Yes.
(iv)Table No. 3 Gust lock system No.
(v)Table No. 4 and Table No. 5 Ice and rain protection (all items) No.
(vi)Table No. 6 and Table No. 7 Landing gear (all items) Yes.
(vii)Table No. 8 Lighting (all items) No.
(viii)Table No. 9 Doors (all items) Yes.
(ix)Table No. 10 Fuselage (all items) Yes.
(x)Table No. 11 Stabilizers (all items) Yes.
(xi)Table No. 12 Wings (all items) Yes.
(2)The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may do the actions of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:
(1)The MCAI requires you to comply with a version of a maintenance manual that changes life limits. The FAA requires such changes through a change to the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness or other FAA-approved maintenance document, and the FAA is mandating this through this AD.
(2)We added information in paragraph
(f)that allows the owner/operator to insert this information into the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness or other FAA-approved maintenance document. Without this information, a licensed mechanic would be required to do the action. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, ATTN: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4138; fax:
(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* .), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority AD No. G-2004-0024, Issue Date: September 22, 2004, EASA approved on September 16, 2004, under approval number 2004-9648, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 6, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4518 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27361; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-237-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes; and Airbus Model A300-600 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as explosion risks. Chafing of the fuel pump cables could result in short circuits leading to fuel pump failure, intermittent operation, arcing, and possible fuel tank explosion. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27361; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-237-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0284 R1, dated February 13, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that the FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88). In their letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296, dated March 4, 2002, and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3, 2003, the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) recommended the application of a similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA). Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3,402 kilograms) or more, which have received their certification since January 1, 1958, are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. The MCAI design review found that fuel pump cables can possibly become chafed in their metallic conduits. The chafing of the fuel pump cables can result in short circuits leading to fuel pump failure, intermittent operation, arcing, and possible fuel tank explosion. The MCAI, which requires modification of the fuel pump wiring against short circuits, is a consequence of this design review. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design ( *i.e.* , type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. The Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA)has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC)representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A300-24-6094, Revision 01, dated July 18, 2006; and A310-24-2097, Revision 01, dated October 11, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 205 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 72 work-hours per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $7,190 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,654,750, or $12,950 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27361; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-237-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 12, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A310 series airplanes; and Model A300-600 series airplanes; certificated in any category; all certified models, all serial numbers, except for aircraft which have received in production Airbus modification 13118 or Airbus Service Bulletin
(SB)A310-24-2097 or A300-24-6094. Reason
(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states that the FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88). In their letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296, dated March 4th, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3, 2003, the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) recommended the application of a similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA). Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3,402 kilograms) or more, which have received their certification since January 1, 1958, are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. The MCAI design review found that fuel pump cables can possibly become chafed in their metallic conduits. The chafing of the fuel pump cables can result in short circuits leading to fuel pump failure, intermittent operation, arcing, and possible fuel tank explosion. The MCAI, which requires modification of the fuel pump wiring against short circuits, is a consequence of this design review. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 37 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the inner and outer fuel pumps, route 1P and 2P harnesses in the LH (left-hand) wing and in the RH (right-hand) wing in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletins A300-24-6094, dated February 15, 2006; A300-24-6094, Revision 01, dated July 18, 2006; A310-24-2097, dated February 15, 2006; or A310-24-2097, Revision 01, dated October 11, 2006; as applicable. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, Attn: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(g)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0284 R1, dated February 13, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletins A300-24-6094, dated February 15, 2006; A300-24-6094, Revision 01, dated July 18, 2006; A310-24-2097, dated February 15, 2006; and A310-24-2097, Revision 01, dated October 11, 2006; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 7, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4534 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25852; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-29] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Modification to the Norton Sound Low, Woody Island Low, Control 1234L and Control 1487L Offshore Airspace Areas; Alaska AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the following four Offshore Airspace Areas in Alaska: Norton Sound Low, Woody Island Low, Control 1234L and Control 1487L. This action proposes to describe the airspace west of 160° W. longitude as it is currently depicted on aeronautical charts. Some of the existing controlled airspace is described as domestic Class E5 airspace around Kodiak, AK. This airspace instead would be listed within the Woody Island Low Offshore Airspace Area. The FAA is proposing this action to provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft instrument flight rules
(IFR)operations, and to correctly describe the existing offshore airspace areas in FAA Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-25852 and Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-29, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; *telephone:*
(202)267-8783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-25852 and Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-29) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-25852 and Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-29.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* ., or the **Federal Register** 's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue 14, Anchorage, AK 99513. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Norton Sound Low, Woody Island Low, and Control 1487L Offshore Airspace Areas, AK, by lowering the floor to 1,200 feet MSL within a 45-mile radius of Hooper Bay Airport, within a 81.2-mile radius of Perryville Airport, within a 73-mile radius of Homer Airport, and within a 73-mile radius of St. Michael Airport. The proposal would also modify Control 1234L Offshore Airspace Area, AK, by lowering the floor to 1,200 feet above the surface within an 81.2-mile radius of Perryville Airport, AK. Additionally, this proposal would establish controlled airspace to support IFR operations at the Hooper Bay, Perryville, Homer and St. Michael Airports, AK. Additionally, controlled airspace extending upward from the surface, from 700 above the surface, and from 1,200 feet above the surface, would be established in Control 1234L Offshore Airspace Area. While reviewing this action, an error in the Control 1234L Offshore Airspace description in FAAO 7400.9N was discovered. The Offshore Airspace Area Control 1234L begins at and extends west of 160°00′00″ W. longitude. This airspace covers all the land west of this longitude including the Aleutian Island chain and the Pribilof Islands. Control 1234L Offshore Airspace around or near the Alaskan airports of; Adak, Atka, Cold Bay, Dutch Harbor (Unalaska), Nelson Lagoon, Sand Point, Eareckson Air Station, St. George, Port Heiden, Homer, and Chignik, would be lowered from the 2,000 feet AGL floor to incorporate Class E domestic airspace. This action is concurrent with Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-34, proposing revocation of the domestic airspace descriptions for these airports. Additionally, the airspace description in FAA Order 7400.9P for Control 1234L should refer to altitudes from “above the surface”. The current description erroneously uses “MSL” for the airspace associated with the Chignik Airport, AK. The offshore airspace described from 1,200 feet would be amended to describe it from “above the surface”. Additionally, some of the current Class E5 controlled airspace around Kodiak Airport, AK, needs to be listed within Woody Island Offshore Airspace in order to be correctly described. This action addresses this issue and makes the correction. Offshore Airspace Areas are published in paragraph 6007 of FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Offshore Airspace Areas listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation
(DOT)Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. ICAO Considerations As part of this proposal relates to navigable airspace outside the United States, this notice is submitted in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO)International Standards and Recommended Practices. The application of International Standards and Recommended Practices by the FAA, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Airspace & Rules, in areas outside the United States domestic airspace, is governed by the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Specifically, the FAA is governed by Article 12 and Annex 11, which pertain to the establishment of necessary air navigational facilities and services to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of civil air traffic. The purpose of Article 12 and Annex 11 is to ensure that civil aircraft operations on international air routes are performed under uniform conditions. The International Standards and Recommended Practices in Annex 11 apply to airspace under the jurisdiction of a contracting state, derived from ICAO. Annex 11 provisions apply when air traffic services are provided and a contracting state accepts the responsibility of providing air traffic services over high seas or in airspace of undetermined sovereignty. A contracting state accepting this responsibility may apply the International Standards and Recommended Practices that are consistent with standards and practices utilized in its domestic jurisdiction. In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, state-owned aircraft are exempt from the Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 11. The United States is a contracting state to the Convention. Article 3(d) of the Convention provides that participating state aircraft will be operated in international airspace with due regard for the safety of civil aircraft. Since this action involves, in part, the designation of navigable airspace outside the United States, the Administrator is consulting with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 10854. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6007 Offshore Airspace Areas. The Class E airspace areas listed below extend upward from a specified altitude to, but not including 18,000 feet MSL and are designated as offshore airspace areas. These areas typically provide controlled airspace beyond 12 miles from the coast of the United States in those areas where there is a requirement to provide IFR enroute ATC services and within which the United States is applying domestic ATC procedures. In Alaska, Control 1234L also covers the land masses of the Aleutian Island chain, west of 160° West longitude, and the Pribilof Islands. Norton Sound Low, AK [Amended] That airspace extending upward from 14,500 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 56°42′59″ N., long. 160°00′00″ W., thence east and north by a line 12 miles from and parallel to the shoreline to the intersection with a point 12 miles from the U.S. coastline and lat. 68°00′00″ N., to lat. 68°00′00″ N., long. 168°58′23″ W., to lat. 65°00′00″ N., long. 168°58′23″ W., to lat. 62°35′00″ N., long. 175°00′00″ W., to lat. 59°59′57″ N., long. 168°00′08″ W., to lat. 57°45′57″ N., long. 161°46′08″ W., to lat. 58°06′57″ N., long. 160°00′00″ W., to the point of beginning; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet MSL within 13 miles west and 4 miles east of the Port Heiden NDB, AK, 339°(T)/323°(M) bearing extending from the Port Heiden NDB, AK, to 25 miles northwest of the Port Heiden NDB, AK, and within 9 miles north of the Port Heiden NDB, AK, 248°(T)/229°(M) bearing extending from the Port Heiden NDB, AK, to 24 miles west of the Port Heiden NDB, AK, and north of the Alaska Peninsula and east of 160° West longitude within an 81.2-mile radius of Perryville Airport, AK, and north of the Alaska Peninsula and east of 160° West longitude within a 72.8-mile radius of Chignik Airport, AK, and within a 35-mile radius of lat. 60°21′17″ N., long. 165°04′01″ W., and within a 45-mile radius of Hooper Bay Airport, AK, and within a 73-mile radius of St. Michael Airport, AK, and within a 77.4-mile radius of the Nome VORTAC, AK, and within a 30-mile radius of lat. 66°09′58″ N., long. 166°30′03″ W., and within a 30-mile radius of lat. 66°19′55″ N., long. 165°40′32″ W., and within a 45-mile radius of Deering Airport, AK; and that airspace extending upward from 700 feet MSL within 8 miles west and 4 miles east of the 339°(T)/323°(M) bearing from the Port Heiden NDB, AK, extending from the Port Heiden NDB, AK, to 20 miles northwest of the Port Heiden NDB, AK, and within a 25-mile radius of Nome Airport, AK. Woody Island Low, AK [Amended] That airspace extending upward from 14,500 feet MSL within the area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 53°30′00″ N., long. 160°00′00″ W., to lat. 56°00′ 00″ N., long. 153°00′ 00″ W., to lat. 56°45′42″ N., long. 151°45′00″ W., to lat. 58°19′58″ N., long. 148°55′ 07″ W., to lat. 59°08′ 34″ N., long. 147°16′ 06″ W., then clockwise via the 149.5-mile radius from the Anchorage, VOR/DME, AK, to the intersection with a point 12 miles from and parallel to the U.S. coastline, then southwest by a line 12 miles from and parallel to the U.S. coastline to the intersection with long. 160°00′00″ W., to the point of beginning; and that airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 5 miles south and 9 miles north of the 070°(T)/047°(M) radial of the Kodiak VORTAC, AK, extending to 17 miles northeast of the Kodiak VORTAC, AK, and within 8 miles north and 4 miles south of the Kodiak, AK, localizer front course extending to 20.3 miles east of Kodiak Airport, AK; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet MSL, within 27 miles of the Kodiak VORTAC, AK, extending from the 023°(T)/000°(M) radial clockwise to the 088°(T)/065°(M) radial and within 8 miles north and 5 miles south of the Kodiak localizer front course extending to 32 miles east of Kodiak Airport, AK, and that airspace extending south and east of the Alaska Peninsula within a 72.8-mile radius of Chignik Airport, AK, and outside (south) of the 149.5-mile radius of the Anchorage VOR/DME, AK, within a 73-mile radius of Homer Airport, AK, and south and east of the Alaska Peninsula within an 81.2-mile radius of Perryville Airport, AK. Control 1234L [Amended] That airspace extending upward from 2,000 feet above the surface within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 58°06′57″ N., long. 160°00′00″ W., then south along long. 160°00′00″ W. until it intersects the Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) boundary; then southwest, northwest, north, and northeast along the Anchorage ARTCC boundary to lat. 62°35′00″ N., long. 175°00′00″ W., to lat. 59°59′57″ N., long. 168°00′08″ W., to lat. 57°45′57″ N., long. 161°46′08″ W., to the point of beginning; and that airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.6-mile radius of Cold Bay Airport, AK, and within 1.7 miles each side of the 150°(T)/136°(M) bearing from Cold Bay Airport, AK, extending from the 4.6-mile radius to 7.7 miles southeast of Cold Bay Airport, AK, and within 3 miles west and 4 miles east of the 335°(T)/321°(M) bearing from Cold Bay Airport, AK, extending from the 4.6-mile radius to 12.2 miles northwest of Cold Bay Airport, AK and that airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Eareckson Air Station, AK, and within a 7-mile radius of Adak Airport, AK, and within 5.2 miles northwest and 4.2 miles southeast of the 061°(T)/054°(M) bearing from the Mount Moffett NDB, AK, extending from the 7-mile radius of Adak Airport, AK, to 11.5 miles northeast of Adak Airport, AK and within a 6.5-mile radius of King Cove Airport, and that airspace extending 1.2 miles either side of the 103°(T)/162°(M) bearing from King Cove Airport from the 6.5-mile radius out to 8.8 miles; and within a 6.4-mile radius of the Atka Airport, AK, and within a 6.9-mile radius of Eareckson Air Station, AK, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Nelson Lagoon Airport, AK and within a 6.4-mile radius of Sand Point Airport, AK, and within 3 miles each side of the 172°(T)/157°(M) bearing from the Borland NDB/DME, AK, extending from the 6.4-mile radius of Sand Point Airport, AK, to 13.9 miles south of Sand Point Airport, AK, and within 5 miles either side of the 318°(T)/303°(M) bearing from the Borland NDB/DME, AK, extending from the 6.4-mile radius of Sand Point Airport, AK, to 17 miles northwest of Sand Point Airport, AK, and within 5 miles either side of the 324°(T)/309°(M) bearing from the Borland NDB/DME, AK, and within a 6.6-mile radius of St. George Airport, AK, and within an 8-mile radius of St. Paul Island Airport, AK, and 8 miles west and 6 miles east of the 360°(T)/350°(M) bearing from St. Paul Island Airport, AK, to 14 miles north of St. Paul Island Airport, AK, and within 6 miles west and 8 miles east of the 172°(T)/162°(M) bearing from St. Paul Island Airport, AK to 15 miles south of Paul Island Airport, AK, and within a 6.4-mile radius of Unalaska Airport, AK, and within 2.9 miles each side of the 360°(T)/346°(M) bearing from the Dutch Harbor NDB, AK, extending from the 6.4-mile radius of Unalaska Airport, AK, to 9.5 miles north of Unalaska Airport, AK; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 26.2-mile radius of Eareckson Air Station, AK, within an 11-mile radius of Adak Airport, AK, and within 16 miles of Adak Airport, AK, extending clockwise from the 033°(T)/026°(M) bearing to the 081°(T)/074°(M) bearing from the Mount Moffett NDB, AK, and within a 10-mile radius of Atka Airport, AK, and within a 10.6-mile radius from Cold Bay Airport, AK, and within 9 miles east and 4.3 miles west of the 321°(T)/307°(M) bearing from Cold Bay Airport, AK, extending from the 10.6-mile radius to 20 miles northwest of Cold Bay Airport, AK, and 4 miles each side of the 070°(T)/056°(M) bearing from Cold Bay Airport, AK, extending from the 10.6-mile radius to 13.6 miles northeast of Cold Bay Airport, AK, and within a 26.2-mile radius of Eareckson Air Station, AK, and west of 160° west longitude within an 81.2-mile radius of Perryville Airport, AK, and within a 10-mile radius of St. George Airport, AK, and within a 73-mile radius of St. Paul Island Airport, AK, and within a 20-mile radius of Unalaska Airport, AK, extending clockwise from the 305°(T)/291°(M) bearing from the Dutch Harbor NDB, AK, to the 075°(T)/061°(M) bearing from the Dutch Harbor NDB, AK, and west of 160° longitude within a 25-mile radius of the Borland NDB/DME, AK, and west of 160° longitude within a 72.8-mile radius of Chignik Airport, AK. Control 1487L [Amended] That airspace extending upward from 8,000 feet MSL within 149.5 miles of the Anchorage VOR/DME clockwise from the 090°(T)/065°(M) radial to the 185°(T)/160°(M) radial of the Anchorage VOR/DME, AK; and that airspace extending upward from 5,500 feet MSL within the area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 58°19′58″ N., long. 148°55′07″ W.; to lat. 59°08′35″ N., long. 147°16′04″ W.; thence counterclockwise via the 149.5-mile radius of the Anchorage VOR/DME, AK, to the intersection with a point 12 miles from and parallel to the U.S. coastline; thence southeast 12 miles from and parallel to the U.S. coastline to a point 12 miles offshore on the Vancouver FIR boundary; to lat. 54°32′57″ N., long. 133°11′29″ W.; to lat. 54°00′00″ N., long. 136°00′00″ W.; to lat. 52°43′00″ N., long. 135°00′00″ W.; to lat. 56°45′42″ N., long. 151°45′00″ W.; to the point of beginning; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet MSL within the area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 59°33′25″ N., long. 141°03′22″ W.; thence southeast 12 miles from and parallel to the U.S. coastline to lat. 58°56′18″ N., long. 138°45′19″ W.; to lat. 58°40′00″ N., long. 139°30′00″ W.; to lat. 59°00′00″ N., long. 141°10′00″ W.; to the point of beginning, and within an 85-mile radius of the Biorka Island VORTAC, AK, and within a 42-mile radius of the Middleton Island VOR/DME, AK, and within a 30-mile radius of the Glacier River NDB, AK; and within a 149.5-mile radius of the Anchorage VOR/DME, AK, within the 73-mile radius of Homer Airport, AK; and that airspace extending upward from 700 feet MSL within 14 miles of the Biorka Island VORTAC, AK, and within 4 miles west and 8 miles east of the Biorka Island VORTAC 209°(T)/181°(M) radial extending to 16 miles southwest of the Biorka Island VORTAC, AK. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 7, 2007. Paul Gallant, Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules. [FR Doc. E7-4466 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0903; FRL-8286-8] Public Hearings and Submission of Plans AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing changes to EPA's regulations specifying the public hearing requirements for State Implementation Plan
(SIP)submissions, identifying the method for submission of SIPs and preliminary review of plans; and revising the criteria for determining the completeness of plan submissions requirements to reflect the changes to the public hearing and plan submission requirements. EPA is also making administrative changes to update the addresses to several Regional offices. These proposed revisions will modify when state agencies are required to hold public hearings, modify the number of hard copies of SIP submissions required to be submitted to the Regional office and the administrative portion of the completeness criteria for plan submissions. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0903 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *lakeman.sean@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:* 404-562-9019. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0903”, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.5. 5. *Hand Delivery:* Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division 12th floor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0903. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to unit I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning today's rule, please contact Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404)562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at *lakeman.sean@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information II. Background III. Proposed Actions IV. Administrative Changes V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? The proposed revisions will modify the public hearing requirements for SIPs. The proposed revision will also modify the number of hard copies States are required to submit to the Regional office. We are also proposing to revise the administrative portion of the completeness criteria to reflect the changes to the public hearing and plan submission requirements. These actions may affect anyone wanting to participate in the rulemaking process. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this rule to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Expedited Review.* To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the copy you submit to the official docket, to: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404)562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at *lakeman.sean@epa.gov.* 2. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit CBI to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404)562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at *lakeman.sean@epa.gov.* Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0903. 3. *Tips for preparing your comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background Today, EPA is proposing to change the requirements of 40 CFR 51.102, 51.103 and Appendix V to Part 51. In addition, we are making administrative changes to 40 CFR 52.02 and 52.16 to update the addresses for several of the EPA Regional offices. The Clean Air Act
(CAA)provides that each revision to an SIP submitted by a State must be adopted by such State “after reasonable notice and public hearing.” EPA's regulations on public hearings in 40 CFR 51.102(a) state “Except as otherwise provided in paragraph
(c)of this section, States must conduct one or more public hearings on the following prior to adoption and submission to EPA.” The completeness criteria indicate that a complete submission must include “Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice” and “Certification that public hearings(s) were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.” 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (2.1)(f) and (g). Following these public hearing requirements, states hold public hearings on any revision to a SIP, no matter how minor or noncontroversial and these hearings consume both valuable time and resources, whether or not the public participates in these hearings. Forty CFR 51.103(a) and
(b)require states to submit “five copies of the plan to the appropriate Regional Office.” The completeness criteria in Appendix V(2.1)(d) of part 51 provide that a complete submission must include “indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable.” Since the time these regulations were promulgated, electronic access to documents has become readily available and there is no longer the same need for the State to provide multiple printed copies of the submitted plan. We are proposing to revise these regulations to allow the Regions and the States flexibility to determine the number of printed and electronic copies of the plan submission necessary to ensure full public access to the submitted plan (including identification of the changes made) and to allow the agency to review the plan for approvability. Since the promulgation of 40 CFR 52.02 and 52.16, the Region 3, Region 4, Region 7 and Region 8 offices have relocated and EPA is revising these sections to reflect the correct addresses for these Regional offices. III. Proposed Actions
(1)Section 51.102 Public Hearings Section 51.102(a) currently states “Except as otherwise provided in paragraph
(c)of this section, States must conduct one or more public hearings on the following prior to adoption and submission to EPA of:” EPA proposes to revise this section to read “Except as otherwise provided in paragraph
(c)of this section and within the 30 day notification period as required by paragraph
(d)of this section, States must provide notice, provide the opportunity to submit written comments and allow the public the opportunity to request a public hearing. The State must hold a public hearing or provide the public the opportunity to request a public hearing by including the date, place and time of hearing in the notice announcing the 30 day notification period. If the State provides the public the opportunity to request a public hearing and a request is received the State must hold the scheduled hearing. If no request for a public hearing is received during the 30 day notification period and the original notice announcing the 30 day notification period clearly states that *if no request for a public hearing is received the hearing will be cancelled,* then the public hearing may be cancelled. These requirements apply for adoption and submission to EPA of:” The current regulation as written requires states to hold public hearings for any revision to SIPs. States currently hold public hearings whether or not the public attends and participates in these hearings. Many of these plan revisions are minor or noncontroversial in nature and no member of the public or the regulated community attends or participates in the hearing. These hearings consume both valuable time and resources. Rather than requiring a public hearing for all SIP revisions, the proposed revision will allow states to determine those actions for which there may be little or no interest by the public or the regulated community and, for those actions, to provide the public the opportunity to request a public hearing. If no request for public hearing is made, then the State would have fulfilled the requirements of 51.102(a) and no public hearing is required to be held. Whether or not a public hearing is held, the State is required to provide a 30-day period for the written submission of comments from the public. The proposed rule change defines the minimum requirements for satisfying the “after reasonable notice and public hearing” or “after public notice and opportunity for public hearing” requirements of the CAA. With today's multiple means of communication available to the public, EPA believes this rule revision will have no affect on public participation in the rulemaking process, but will help state agencies reduce costs by not needing to pay for facilities for public hearings for which no one is interested in attending and participating. In addition, it will increase efficiency by allowing limited staff resources to be devoted to productive activities rather than staffing a hearing that is not attended. Section 51.102(f) currently states “The State must submit with the plan, revision, or schedule a certification that the hearing required by paragraph
(a)of this section was held in accordance with the notice required by paragraph
(d)of this section.” EPA proposes to revise this section to read “The State must submit with the plan, revision, or schedule, a certification that the requirements in paragraph
(a)and
(d)of this section were met. Such certification will include the date and place of any public hearing
(s)held or that no public hearing was requested during the 30 day notification period.” The purpose of this revision is to eliminate the reference to public hearings in light of the proposed revision to allow the State to provide the opportunity for a public hearing. Thus, we are simplifying the language to provide the State must certify that it has met the public hearing and public notification requirements of section 51.102(a) and (d).
(2)Section 51.103 Submission of Plans, Preliminary Review of Plans Section 51.103(a) currently states “The State makes an official plan submission to EPA only when the submission conforms to the requirements of appendix V to this part, and the State delivers five copies of the plan to the appropriate Regional Office, with a letter giving notice of such action.” And Section 51.103(b) currently states “Upon request of a State, the Administrator will provide preliminary review of a plan or portion thereof submitted in advance of the date such plan is due. Such requests must be made in writing to the appropriate Regional Office and must be accompanied by five copies of the materials to be reviewed. Requests for preliminary review do not relieve a State of the responsibility of adopting and submitting plans in accordance with prescribed due dates.” EPA is proposing to revise section 51.103(a) to read “The State makes an official plan submission to EPA only when the submission conforms to the requirements of appendix V to this part, and the State delivers five hard copies or at least two hard copies with an electronic version of the hard copy (unless otherwise agreed to by the State and Regional Office) of the plan to the appropriate Regional Office, with a letter giving notice of such action. If the State submits an electronic copy, it must be an exact duplicate of the hard copy.” EPA is proposing to revise section 51.103(b) to read “Upon request of a State, the Administrator will provide preliminary review of a plan or portion thereof submitted in advance of the date such plan is due. Such requests must be made in writing to the appropriate Regional Office, must indicate changes (such as, redline/strikethrough) to the existing approved plan, where applicable and must be accompanied by five hard copies or at least two hard copies with an electronic version of the hard copy (unless otherwise agreed to by the State and Regional Office). Requests for preliminary review do not relieve a State of the responsibility of adopting and submitting plans in accordance with prescribed due dates.” These proposed revisions establish the minimum required number of electronic and hard copies to be submitted with all official submittals or preliminary requests for EPA review. With today's use of electronic processing and the use of the internet these revisions align the regulatory requirements with the way States and EPA interact and with the way information is made available to the public. Rulemaking dockets are now available electronically, providing greater access to the public because there are no geographic or time limits on where or when documents may be obtained. Previously, when the dockets were comprised solely of hard copies of documents, the public needed to travel to specified locations to review the docket and the docket was available only during business hours. These revisions will reduce costs for States but will not interfere with the public's access to SIP revisions being reviewed by EPA. Rather, as described above, the availability of electronic files simplifies access for the public.
(3)Appendix V of Part 51—Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions The completeness criteria in Appendix V identify the minimum elements needed for a SIP to be determined complete and thus to be reviewed for approvability. We are proposing to revise the completeness criteria to conform to the revisions above regarding public hearing requirements and official plan submissions. To be complete, paragraph 2.1(d) of the completeness criteria, currently require that the submission include “A copy of the actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/document signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself.” EPA is proposing to revise this paragraph to include the underlined language: “A copy of the actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made (such as, *redline/strikethrough* ) to the existing approved plan, where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/ document signed, stamped and dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. *If the State submits an electronic copy, it must be an exact duplicate of the hard copy with changes indicated, signed documents need to be in portable document format, rules need to be in text format and files need to be submitted in manageable amounts (e.g., a file for each section or chapter, depending on size, and separate files for each distinct document) unless otherwise agreed to by the State and Regional Office.”* Paragraph 2.1(g) currently states that a complete plan must include: “Certification that public hearings(s) were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.” EPA proposes to revise paragraph
(g)to read “Certification that public hearing(s) were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable and consistent with the public hearing requirements in 40 CFR 51.102.” IV. Administrative Changes Since the promulgation of 40 CFR 52.02 and 52.16 EPA Regional Offices 3, 4, 7 and 8 have relocated. EPA is making the following revision to 40 CFR 52.02 and 52.16 to provide the public with the current addresses of Regions 3, 4, 7 and 8 offices. 40 CFR 52.02(d)(2)(iii) currently states “Delaware, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107.” EPA is revising the address for Region 3 to read “Delaware, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.” and 40 CFR 52.16(b)(3) currently states “Delaware, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. EPA Region 3, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107.” EPA is revising the address for Region 3 to read “Delaware, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.” Section 52.02(d)(2)(iv) currently states “Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30365.” EPA is revising the address for Region 4 to read “Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.” and Section 52.16(b)(4) currently states “Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. EPA Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, GA 30365.” EPA is revising the address for Region 4 to read “Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.” 40 CFR 52.02(d)(2)(vii) currently states “Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101.” EPA is revising the address for Region 7 to read “Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.” and 40 CFR 52.16(b)(7) currently states “Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. EPA Region 7, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101.” EPA is revising the address for Region 7 to read “Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. EPA Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.” 40 CFR 52.02(d)(2)(viii) currently states “Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466.” EPA is revising the address for Region 8 to read “Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129.” and 40 CFR 52.16(b)(8) currently states “Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. EPA, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466.” EPA is revising the address for Region 8 to read “Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. EPA, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129.” IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that the proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” because none of the above factors applies. As such, this proposed rule was not formally submitted to OMB for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* This proposed rule only modifies the public hearing requirements for SIPs by clarifying that public hearings need only be held when requested by the public rather than automatically and provides a less costly alternative to the pre-existing requirement to submit five printed copies of each SIP revision. The present proposed rule does not establish any new information collection burden apart from that required by law. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)size standards (See 13 CFR 121.);
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. This proposed rule only modifies the public hearing requirements for SIPs by clarifying that public hearings need only be held when requested by the public rather than automatically and provides a less costly alternative to the pre-existing requirement to submit five printed copies of each SIP revision. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation to why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's proposed rule does not include a Federal mandate within the meaning of UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by either State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector, and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This proposed rule only modifies the public hearing requirements for SIPs by clarifying that public hearings need only be held when requested by the public rather than automatically and provides a less costly alternative to the pre-existing requirement to submit five printed copies of each SIP revision. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule only modifies the public hearing requirements for SIPs by clarifying that public hearings need only be held when requested by the public rather than automatically and provides a less costly alternative to the pre-existing requirement to submit five printed copies of each SIP revision. This proposed rule will not modify the relationship of the States and EPA for purposes of developing programs to implement the NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed rule does not have “Tribal implications” as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule only modifies the public hearing requirements for SIPs by clarifying that public hearings need only be held when requested by the public rather than automatically and provides a less costly alternative to the pre-existing requirement to submit five printed copies of each SIP revision. The Clean Air Act and the Tribal Authority Rule establish the relationship of the Federal Government and Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to modify that relationship. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that
(1)is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule only modifies the public hearing requirements for SIPs by clarifying that public hearings need only be held when requested by the public rather than automatically and provides a less costly alternative to the pre-existing requirement to submit five printed copies of each SIP revision. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to children. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards
(VCS)in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any VCS. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Transportation, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: March 7, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. In consideration of the foregoing, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 as follows: PART 51—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows: Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7641q. 2. Section 51.102 is amended by revising paragraphs
(a)introductory text and
(f)to read as follows: § 51.102 Public hearings.
(a)Except as otherwise provided in paragraph
(c)of this section and within the 30 day notification period as required by paragraph
(d)of this section, States must provide notice, provide the opportunity to submit written comments and allow the public the opportunity to request a public hearing. The State must hold a public hearing or provide the public the opportunity to request a public hearing by including the date, place and time of hearing in the notice announcing the 30 day notification period. If the State provides the public the opportunity to request a public hearing and a request is received the State must hold the scheduled hearing. If no request for a public hearing is received during the 30 day notification period and the original notice announcing the 30 day notification period clearly states that *if no request for a public hearing is received the hearing will be cancelled,* then the public hearing may be cancelled. These requirements apply for adoption and submission to EPA of:
(f)The State must submit with the plan, revision, or schedule, a certification that the requirements in paragraph
(a)and
(d)of this section were met. Such certification will include the date and place of any public hearing(s) held or that no public hearing was requested during the 30 day notification period. 3. Section 51.103 is revised to read as follows: § 51.103 Submission of plans, preliminary review of plans.
(a)The State makes an official plan submission to EPA only when the submission conforms to the requirements of appendix V to this part, and the State delivers five hard copies or at least two hard copies with an electronic version of the hard copy (unless otherwise agreed to by the State and Regional Office) of the plan to the appropriate Regional Office, with a letter giving notice of such action. If the State submits an electronic copy, it must be an exact duplicate of the hard copy.
(b)Upon request of a State, the Administrator will provide preliminary review of a plan or portion thereof submitted in advance of the date such plan is due. Such requests must be made in writing to the appropriate Regional Office, must indicate changes (such as, redline/strikethrough) to the existing approved plan, where applicable and must be accompanied by five hard copies or at least two hard copies with an electronic version of the hard copy (unless otherwise agreed to by the State and Regional Office). Requests for preliminary review do not relieve a State of the responsibility of adopting and submitting plans in accordance with prescribed due dates. 4. Appendix V to Part 51 is amended by revising paragraphs
(d)and
(g)under Section 2.1 to read as follows: Appendix V of Part 51—Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions 2.1. * * *
(d)A copy of the actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made ( *such as, redline/strikethrough* ) to the existing approved plan, where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/document signed, stamped and dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. *If the State submits an electronic copy, it must be an exact duplicate of the hard copy with changes indicated, signed documents need to be in portable document format, rules need to be in text format and files need to be submitted in manageable amounts (e.g., a file for each section or chapter, depending on size, and separate files for each distinct document) unless otherwise agreed to by the State and Regional Office.*
(g)Certification that public hearing(s) were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable and consistent with the public hearing requirements in 40 CFR 51.102. PART 52—[AMENDED] 5. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, *et seq.* 6. Section 52.02 is amended by revising paragraphs “(d)(2)(iii)”, “(d)(2)(iv)”, “(d)(2)(vii)”, and “(d)(2)(viii)” to read as follows: § 52.02 Introduction.
(d)* * *
(2)* * *
(iii)Delaware, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
(iv)Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
(vii)Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.
(viii)Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129. 7. Section 52.16 is amended by revising paragraphs “(b)(3)”, “(b)(4)”, “(b)(7)” and “(b)(8)” to read as follows: § 52.16 Submission to administrator.
(b)* * *
(3)Delaware, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
(4)Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
(7)Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. EPA Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.
(8)Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. EPA, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129. [FR Doc. E7-4563 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-8286-7] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of intent for partial deletion of the Rocky Flats Plant from the National Priorities List; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)Region 8 announces its intent to delete the Peripheral Operable Unit
(OU)and Operable Unit 3 (OU 3), also referred to as the Offsite Areas, encompassing approximately 25,413 acres, of the Department of Energy
(DOE)Rocky Flats Plant from the National Priorities List
(NPL)and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Rocky Flats Plant means the property owned by the United States Government, also known as Rocky Flats, Rocky Flats Site, or Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS), as identified in Figure 1. The Rocky Flats Plant is divided into the Central and Peripheral Operable Units (Figure 2) which contain 1,308 and 4,933 acres, respectively, and OU 3 (Figure 3) which contains approximately 20,480 acres. The 3 referenced figures are available as described below in the section entitled *Docket.* EPA bases its proposal to delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant on the determination by EPA and the State of Colorado, through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), that all appropriate actions under CERCLA have been implemented to protect human health, welfare and the environment and that no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate. This partial deletion pertains to the surface media (soil, surface water, sediment) and subsurface media, including groundwater, within the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant. The Central OU will remain on the NPL and is not being considered for deletion as part of this action. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *henneke.rob@epa.gov.* • *Fax:* 303-312-6961. • *Mail:* Rob Henneke, Community Involvement Coordinator (8OC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. • *Hand delivery:* Rob Henneke, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal business hours from 8 a.m.—4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, not through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents and referenced figures in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials may be accessed at the following locations during specified hours of operation. The U.S. EPA Region 8 Docket Facility, EPA Technical Library, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. by appointment, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket telephone number is 303-312-6734. The DOE Rocky Flats Plant Docket Facility is located at Front Range Community College, 3705 112 Avenue, Westminster, Colorado, 80030. The Rocky Flats Plant Docket Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Thursday and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Friday, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Henneke, Community Involvement Coordinator (8OC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129; telephone number: 1-800-227-8917 or
(303)312-6734; fax number: 303-312-7150; e-mail address: *henneke.rob@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion I. Introduction EPA Region 8 announces its intent to delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant, Jefferson and Boulder Counties, Colorado, from the NPL and requests comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9605. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the NPL (60 FR 55466 (November 1, 1995)). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3), portions of a site deleted from the NPL remain eligible for further remedial actions if warranted by future conditions. EPA will accept comments concerning its intent for partial deletion of the Rocky Flats Plant for 30 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** (FR). Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures that EPA is using for this proposed partial deletion. Section IV discusses the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant and explains how it meets the deletion criteria. II. NPL Deletion Criteria The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate to protect public health or the environment. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met: Section 300.425(e)(1)(i). Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; Section 300.425(e)(1)(ii). All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or Section 300.425(e)(1)(iii). The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. A partial deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect or impede EPA's ability to conduct CERCLA response activities for portions not deleted from the NPL. In addition, deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not affect the liability of responsible parties or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts. DOE will be responsible for all future remedial actions required at the area deleted if future site conditions warrant such actions. III. Deletion Procedures Upon determination that at least one of the criteria described in Section 300.425(e) of the NCP has been met, EPA may formally begin deletion procedures. The following procedures were used for this proposed deletion of the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL:
(1)DOE has requested the partial deletion and has prepared the relevant documents.
(2)The State of Colorado, through CDPHE, has concurred with publication of this notice of intent for partial deletion.
(3)Concurrent with this national Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion, a local notice has been published in a newspaper of record and has been distributed to appropriate federal, State, and local officials, and other interested parties. These notices announce a 30 day public comment period on the deletion package, which ends on April 12, 2007, based upon publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** and a local newspaper of record.
(4)EPA has made all relevant documents available at the information repositories listed previously for public inspection and copying. Upon completion of the 30 calendar day public comment period, EPA Region 8 will evaluate each significant comment and any significant new data received before issuing a final decision concerning the proposed partial deletion. EPA will prepare a responsiveness summary for each significant comment and any significant new data received during the public comment period and will address concerns presented in such comments and data. The responsiveness summary will be made available to the public at the EPA Region 8 office and the information repositories listed above and will be included in the final deletion package. Members of the public are encouraged to contact EPA Region 8 to obtain a copy of the responsiveness summary. If, after review of all such comments and data, EPA determines that the partial deletion from the NPL is appropriate, EPA will publish a final notice of partial deletion in the **Federal Register** . Deletion of the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant does not actually occur until a final notice of partial deletion is published in the **Federal Register** . A copy of the final partial deletion package will be placed at the EPA Region 8 office and the information repositories listed above after a final document has been published in the **Federal Register** . IV. Basis for Intended Partial Deletion The following provides EPA's rationale for deletion from the NPL of the Rocky Flats Plant Peripheral OU and OU 3 and EPA's finding that the criteria in 40 CFR 300.425(e) are satisfied. Site Background and History The Rocky Flats Plant is a DOE facility owned by the United States. Rocky Flats is located in the Denver metropolitan area, approximately sixteen miles northwest of Denver, Colorado, and ten miles south of Boulder, Colorado. Nearby communities include the Cities of Arvada, Broomfield, and Westminster, Colorado. The majority of the Site is located in Jefferson County, with a small portion located in Boulder County, Colorado. Rocky Flats Plant was proposed by EPA for inclusion on the CERCLA NPL in 1984, and was added to the CERCLA NPL on September 21, 1989 (54 FR 41015, October 4, 1989). The EPA Superfund Identification Number for Rocky Flats Plant is CO7890010526. The Site was proposed for listing because activities at Rocky Flats resulted in the release of materials defined by CERCLA as hazardous substances, contaminants, and pollutants, as well as hazardous wastes and hazardous waste constituents as defined by the Resource Conservation Recovery Act
(RCRA)and Colorado Hazardous Waste Act (CHWA). Contaminants released to the environment from the activities at Rocky Flats have included, but were not limited to: Radionuclides (such as plutonium, americium, and various uranium isotopes), organic solvents (such as trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and carbon tetrachloride), metals (such as chromium), and nitrates. Apart from the activities of DOE and its contractors at the Site, there are no other known, significant, human-caused sources of contamination at Rocky Flats. Two Operable Units
(OUs)are present within the boundaries of the Site: the Peripheral OU and the Central OU. The Central OU consolidated all areas of the Site that required remedial actions, while also considering practicalities of future land management. The Central OU is not included within this proposed partial deletion action. The Peripheral OU includes the majority of the Buffer Zone and was left undisturbed. This land provided a security and safety buffer area around the former manufacturing areas of the Site. Portions of the Buffer Zone have been co-managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for ecological resources since 1999. Based upon the RCRA Facility Investigation—Remedial Investigation/Corrective Measures Study—Feasibility Study Report for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RI/FS) Report, which included both a Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, DOE (as the Lead Agency under CERCLA) determined that no action was necessary to protect public health, welfare or the environment for the Peripheral OU. That decision was supported and documented in the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Corrective Action Decision/Record of Decision (CAD/ROD) signed by DOE, CDPHE and EPA, Region 8 on September 29, 2006. OU 3 encompasses an area north, south, and primarily east of the Peripheral and Central OUs. OU 3 was addressed under a separate CAD/ROD, Corrective Action Decision/Record of Decision Operable Unit 3, The Offsite Areas Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site dated April 1997. The OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed by DOE, CDPHE and EPA, Region 8 on June 3, 1997 and determined that no action was necessary to protect public health, welfare or the environment. A. Peripheral Operable Unit The RI/FS Report was prepared in accordance with the Interim Final Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA. Because remedial activities at RFETS were conducted under RCRA and CHWA, this RI/FS Report also met RCRA/CHWA requirements for an RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study (RFI/CMS) Report. References to CERCLA requirements were also intended to encompass RCRA/CHWA requirements. For simplicity, the report is hereinafter referred to as the RI/FS Report. The RI/FS Report, approved by EPA and CDPHE on July 5, 2006, was the basis for development of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Proposed Plan that described the preferred remedy. The Proposed Plan was the basis for the Final CAD/ROD. A.1 Description of the Peripheral OU Remedial Investigation DOE began more than 20 years ago to develop an extensive body of documentation about the use of hazardous substances and the known or suspected release of hazardous substances at Rocky Flats. Information was gathered from an extensive review of Rocky Flats operating records and contemporaneous documents. In addition, interviews were conducted of persons with knowledge of Rocky Flats operations and of events that did release or were suspected of releasing hazardous substances. The information collected is organized in the Rocky Flats Historical Release Report (HRR), originally published in 1992, which has been periodically updated as investigation and cleanup of the Site progressed. The final version of the HRR is provided as Appendix B of the RI/FS report entitled FY2005 FINAL Historical Release Report dated October 2005. Sampling and analysis of surface and subsurface soil, groundwater, and surface water were extensively used to locate and measure hazardous substance contamination at historical release locations and guide the conduct and completion of remediation activities. Environmental monitoring was performed under the auspices of a site-wide integrated monitoring plan. Additional monitoring was conducted pursuant to environmental permits, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and the State of Colorado Air Quality Operating Permit, issued to DOE and its contractors. Environmental data for Rocky Flats were collected in accordance with agency-approved Sampling and Analysis Plans
(SAPs)and standardized contract-required analytical procedures. Approved Work Plans and SAPs specified the use of EPA-approved sampling procedures and analytical methods, data quality requirements, and data management processes, and specified the appropriate data quality objectives. Documented releases of hazardous substances at Rocky Flats include radionuclides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), inorganic compounds, and metals. Known or suspected release locations (primarily soil) were delineated by 183 Individual Hazardous Substance Sites (IHSSs), 146 Potential Areas of Concern (PACs), 31 Under Building Contamination
(UBC)Sites, and 61 Potential Incidents of Concern
(PICs)(totaling 421 areas). The IHSSs, PACs, UBC Sites, and PICs were thoroughly investigated and characterized, as appropriate, and accelerated actions, including non-time critical removals, triggered by contamination levels have been confirmed as completed and met response goals. The nature and extent of contamination evaluations considered the following environmental media: soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and air. These evaluations were conducted to show the types of analytes of interest
(AOIs)remaining in the environmental media and their extent at Rocky Flats following the completion of accelerated actions. The purpose of identifying AOIs was to focus the nature and extent evaluation on constituents that were detected at concentrations that may contribute to the risk to future receptors and to show the overall spatial and temporal trends of those constituents on a sitewide basis. These evaluations identified 14 AOIs for surface soil, 14 AOIs for subsurface soil, 19 AOIs for groundwater, 18 AOIs for surface water, 5 AOIs for sediment, and 5 AOIs for air. The contaminant fate and transport evaluation used information about the Site physical characteristics, contaminant source characteristics, and contaminant distribution across the Site to develop a conceptual understanding of the dominant transport processes that affect the migration of different contaminants in various Rocky Flats environmental media. The primary focus was evaluating the potential for contaminants from any medium to impact surface water quality. Evaluation of a contaminant's fate and transport was based upon two criteria:
(1)Does a complete migration pathway to a potential receptor exist based on an evaluation of contaminant transport in each environmental medium; and
(2)is there a potential impact to surface water quality based on an evaluation of data at representative groundwater and surface water monitoring locations in the creek drainages. The RI included a Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA). The CRA consisted of two parts: Human Health Risk Assessment
(HHRA)and Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). The CRA was designed to provide information to decision makers to help determine the effectiveness of the accelerated actions and select a final remedy that is protective of human health and the environment. The CRA evaluated the risks posed by conditions at the Site to the anticipated future users (wildlife workers and visitors) and anticipated future land use. The CRA did not evaluate an unrestricted use scenario, but did consider an indoor air pathway, if occupied structures were to be present at the Site in the future. The Peripheral OU was determined to be unimpacted by hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants with the exceptions subsequently discussed. A small portion of the Peripheral OU was impacted by Site activities from a radiological perspective. For example, plutonium exists above background in surface soil in small areas within the Peripheral OU. A few sampling locations for plutonium within the Peripheral OU exceed a level of 9.8 picocuries per gram (pCi/g), which corresponds to a 1 × 10 −6 risk level for a wildlife refuge worker. Of these few sampling locations, the highest result is approximately 20 pCi/g. If that highest concentration of 20 pCi/g was considered the average concentration over an appropriate exposure unit, it would correspond to a risk of approximately 1 × 10 −5 for a resident, which would be in the middle of the CERCLA risk range (10 −6 to 10 −4 ). These levels of radioactivity are also far below the 231 pCi/g activity level for an adult rural resident, which equates to the 25-millirem per year dose criterion specified in the Colorado Standards for Protection Against Radiation. A.2 Declaration Statement for the Peripheral OU CAD/ROD Based upon the RI/FS Report, which included both a Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, DOE (as the Lead Agency under CERCLA) determined that no action was necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment for the Peripheral OU. The RI/FS Report concluded that the Peripheral OU was in a state protective of human health and the environment. The NCP provides for the selection of a no action remedy when an OU is in such a protective state and therefore, no remedial action for the Peripheral OU was warranted. The selected remedy for the Peripheral OU was no action. A.3 Peripheral OU Conclusions The selected remedy for the Peripheral OU meets the requirements of CERCLA Section 121, and to the extent practicable, the NCP. The selected remedy for the Peripheral OU is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and State requirements, and is cost-effective. The selected remedy complies with applicable requirements of the CHWA. No accelerated actions were taken in the Peripheral OU, and no remedial action alternatives other than the no action alternative were required to be evaluated for the Peripheral OU. Because no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants occur in the Peripheral OU above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, no five-year review is required for this remedy. B. Operable Unit 3 (Offsite Areas) The OU 3 CAD/ROD was prepared by DOE, Rocky Flats Field Office, Golden, Colorado, in April 1997, and was signed by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA Region 8 on June 3, 1997. The following is the basis for deleting OU3 and is a part of the deletion docket. OU 3 was investigated and a remedy was selected in compliance with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order—Interagency Agreement (IAG), signed by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA on January 22, 1991. The selected remedy is also consistent with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order—Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (RFCA), signed by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA on July 19, 1996. OU 3 is one of sixteen OUs at Rocky Flats identified in the 1991 IAG, and is the only one not located within the RFETS boundaries. The 1996 RFCA consolidated the original sixteen OUs into three OUs, but OU 3 remained separate, owing both to its unique geographic location and to the fact that investigations and administrative activity for OU 3 were nearly completed when the 1996 RFCA was signed. OU 3 is comprised of four Individual Hazardous Substance Sites (IHSSs): Contamination of the Land's Surface (IHSS 199), Great Western Reservoir (IHSS 200), Standley Lake (IHSS 201) and Mower Reservoir (IHSS 202). IHSSs are specific locations where hazardous substances, solid wastes, pollutants, contaminants, hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents may have been disposed of or released to the environment from Rocky Flats at any time in the past. B.1 Description of the OU 3 Remedial Investigation The selected remedy for OU 3 was no action. A Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA), including an HHRA and an ERA, was conducted as part of the OU 3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)Facility Investigation. The RCRA Facility Investigation/CERCLA Remedial Investigation (RFI/RI) Report was completed in accordance with requirements presented in the Interagency Agreement and specifically identified in the OU3 RFI/RI Work Plan and addenda. The RFI/RI Report evaluated human health risks based upon exposure to identified Contaminants of Concern
(COCs)and was reported as the probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to OU 3 contamination under recreational and residential exposure scenarios. Assumptions regarding future land use provided the basis to calculate human health risks for both IHSS 199 and for IHSS 200. No COCs were identified in surface water samples collected from Standley Lake, Great Western Reservoir, and Mower Reservoir. For IHSS 199, risks from both plutonium and americium were calculated and were assumed to be additive. For IHSS 200, only the risks associated with plutonium were calculated, as plutonium was the only COC there. In both IHSSs, the highest contaminant concentration was used in risk calculations. The RFI/RI Report also calculated radiation doses that would be expected as a result of the recreational and residential scenarios described in the OU 3 CAD/ROD. Excess lifetime cancer risk (that is, the incremental additional cancer risk that is incurred through exposure to COCs at OU 3 or any other contaminated site) is calculated by multiplying the average daily chemical intake over a lifetime of exposure by the contaminant's individual slope factor. For radionuclides, slope factors are the average risk per unit intake or exposure for an individual in a stationary population with mortality rates typical of those in the United States in 1970. EPA guidelines indicate that excess lifetime cancer risks which are within or below the one in ten thousand (1 × 10 −4 ) to one in one million (1 × 10 −6 ) range are considered protective of human health. For IHSS 199, the highest calculated excess cancer risk, assuming reasonable maximum exposures
(RME)under a residential exposure was three in one million (3 × 10 −6 ). Using central tendency, the risk under a residential scenario was two in ten million (2 × 10 −7 ). For the recreational exposure, the excess cancer risk was five in one hundred million (5 x 10 −8 ) using the RME, and three in one billion (3 × 10 −9 ) using central tendency. For IHSS 200, the highest calculated excess cancer risk employing RME and the residential exposure was nine in ten million (9 × 10 −7 ); the corresponding risk using central tendency was six in one hundred million (6 × 10 −8 ). Using the recreational scenario, the highest risk using RME was one in one hundred million (1 × 10 −8 ), and the risk using central tendency was eight in ten billion (8 × 10 −10 ). The highest calculated radiation dose for IHSSs 199 and 200 occurred using the RME, assuming a residential exposure scenario. The highest Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE, which incorporates both internal and external radiation dose) for IHSS 199 for an adult was 0.12 millirem per year (mrem/yr); the corresponding TEDE for IHSS 200 is 0.0065 mrem/yr. The average radiation dose in the U.S. is estimated to be about 300 mrem/year, while the average dose in Colorado may be as much as 700 mrem/year, owing to the state's higher altitude and relative abundance of naturally occurring radionuclides. These levels of radioactivity are also far below the 231 pCi/g activity level for an adult rural resident that equates to the 25 mrem/year dose criterion specified in the Colorado Standards for Protection Against Radiation. Based on these results, the Peripheral OU is determined to be acceptable for all uses from a radiological perspective. The RFI/RI Report evaluated health risks and radiation dose from surface water. Surface water was sampled for plutonium and americium. The maximum and mean concentrations of plutonium and americium detected in surface water from the reservoirs were well below the CDPHE standards, the National Drinking Water Standards, and the Rocky Flats Site specific standards for plutonium and americium. DOE submitted the RFI/RI Report to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a part of the federal Center for Disease Control, for the purpose of obtaining a Health Consultation. The purpose of the Health Consultation was to obtain an independent evaluation as to whether COCs had been adequately identified in OU 3, the risks to human health posed by releases of hazardous substances in OU 3 adequately analyzed, and whether the proposal for no remedial action in OU 3 was appropriate considering these risks. The ATSDR concluded that the COC selection process was based on reasonable assumptions, and that none of the constituents present in OU 3 posed public health concerns. Further, the ATSDR Health Consultation stated that no additional activities were needed in OU 3 in order to ensure the public's health. Based upon the BRA and the ERA contained in the RFI/RI Report, DOE, the lead agency under CERCLA for OU 3, concluded that no action was appropriate for OU 3. The RFI/RI Report concluded that all IHSSs within OU 3 are already protective of human health and the environment. Field and laboratory work showed no indications of adverse effects from plutonium or americium on the ecology of OU 3. The NCP provides for the selection of a no action remedy when an OU is in such a protective state. Therefore, no remedial action regarding OU 3 or any of its constituent IHSSs was warranted. B.2 Declaration Statement for Offsite Areas OU CAD/ROD DOE in consultation with CDPHE and EPA, determined that no remedial action was necessary for OU 3 to be protective of human health, welfare and the environment. No hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain within the boundaries of OU3 above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, as these levels have been calculated in the OU 3 RFI/RI Report. B.3 Evaluation of OU3 CAD/ROD Data in First Five-Year Review A five-year review of the OU 3 CAD/ROD was conducted to assess the continued protectiveness of the remedy. The OU 3 CAD/ROD concluded that transport by wind and water was the primary means by which plutonium and americium were carried to OU 3. Therefore, available air and water monitoring data collected after the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed were reviewed to determine if environmental conditions at OU 3 have changed since the BRA was completed. The air monitoring data from the RFETS perimeter air monitoring network were analyzed and the conclusion was that the amounts of plutonium and americium that have been measured at the RFETS perimeter since 1997 have been environmentally insignificant. These amounts of plutonium and americium would not have caused contaminant levels in OU 3 to change significantly since the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed. Water monitoring data from the RFCA Points of Compliance on Woman Creek and Walnut Creek at Indiana Street, and data collected by the City of Broomfield for Great Western Reservoir, were analyzed. Samples of water leaving RFETS showed consistent compliance with RFCA surface water standards, and water samples from Great Western Reservoir were consistently at or below detection limits for plutonium and americium. The report also included a Protectiveness Statement as required by EPA guidance. Pursuant to the Protectiveness Statement, DOE's ongoing custody and control of RFETS, ongoing monitoring programs, and restriction of public access serve to adequately control risks posed by contamination at RFETS. The no action decision for OU 3 was determined to be adequately protective. Review of air monitoring data and water quality data at the Points of Compliance since the first five-year review also indicate there have not been significant amounts of plutonium or americium that have entered OU 3 through the air or water pathways. Therefore, environmental conditions at OU 3 have not changed significantly since the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed. B.4 OU 3 Conclusions Conditions in OU 3 pose no unacceptable or significant risks to human health or the environment; future unacceptable or significant exposures will not occur there as a result of past contamination. DOE concluded that no action was necessary in OU 3 for the protection of human health or the environment. Reviews following the OU 3 CAD/ROD have concluded that environmental conditions at OU 3 have not changed significantly since the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed. Community Involvement Public Participation activities for the cleanup of the Peripheral OU and OU 3 were conducted as required under CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Public review included the following activities: A. Community Involvement for the Peripheral OU The Draft RI/FS Report for the RFETS was released for public review and information in October 2005, and was available at that time in the Rocky Flats public reading rooms and online. Several informational public meetings on the draft RI/FS were held, at which representatives from DOE and its contractor, EPA and CDPHE were present to answer questions. These meetings included a discussion at the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board meeting on November 3, 2005. The final RI/FS report was approved by EPA and CDPHE on July 5, 2006. Copies of the final RI/FS report were placed at seven information centers in the Denver metropolitan area on July 14, 2005. In addition, the RI/FS report was available on line at *http://www.rfets.gov,* and copies on compact disc were available at the public information meetings during the comment period for the Proposed Plan. DOE, EPA and CDPHE held a pre-release informational meeting for the Proposed Plan on May 30, 2006, to explain changes that were made to the draft RI/FS report, and to describe the major components of the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan was released for formal public comment on July 14, 2006. Notice of the public comment period appeared in The Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post from May 22 through May 28, 2006, and was also provided at the informational public meeting. DOE sent out community and media advisories prior to the release of the Proposed Plan, and prior to each informational meeting and the public hearing. The Proposed Plan was placed in seven information centers in the Denver metropolitan area, was available at the informational meetings held during the comment period, and was available on line at *http://www.rfets.gov.* The Proposed Plan included discussions on future land use and use of groundwater at Rocky Flats. The Rocky Flats administrative record file was available for public review at the Front Range Community College reading room in Westminster, Colorado, as well as on line at *http://www.rfets.gov.* DOE held two informational meetings during the public comment period, at which agency representatives presented the scope and purpose of the Proposed Plan, discussed opportunities to provide input on the Proposed Plan, and responded to questions from the public. The first informational meeting was held on July 19, 2006 in Golden, Colorado, and the second informational meeting took place in Westminster, Colorado on August 8, 2006. Prior notice of each meeting was provided through advertisements in the aforementioned newspapers, running from July 13 through July 19, 2006, and again from August 2 through August 8, 2006. A public hearing for the Proposed Plan took place on August 31, 2006 in Arvada, Colorado; separate sessions were held in the afternoon and in the evening on that date to accommodate as many members of the public as possible. Prior notice of the public hearing was accomplished through advertisements in the aforementioned newspapers that ran from August 25 through August 31, 2006, with a display ad posted in both papers on August 29, 2006. Both written and oral public comments were accepted at the public hearing. A transcript of the public hearing has been made available to the public and placed in the Rocky Flats administrative record file. The public comment period for the Proposed Plan extended from July 14 through September 13, 2006. No requests for extension of the public comment period were received. DOE's responses to public comments received during the comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary section of the RFETS CAD/ROD. B. Community Involvement for OU 3 DOE submitted the final RFI/RI Report for OU 3 to EPA on July 11, 1996 following resolution of final comments by EPA, CDPHE, the City of Broomfield, and the City of Westminster. Regulatory approval to release the OU 3 Proposed Plan for public comment was granted on August 7, 1996. The Proposed Plan was released for public comment on August 7, 1996. A public hearing on the OU 3 Proposed Plan was held on September 18, 1996 at the Arvada Center for the Performing Arts and Humanities in Arvada, Colorado. Citizen comments received at the public hearing were recorded and responses to those comments were included in a Responsiveness Summary. The public comment period for the OU 3 Proposed Plan ended on October 11, 1996. Written comments on the Proposed Plan were received from the Cities of Westminster and Broomfield. Responses to those written comments were also included in the Responsiveness Summary. Current Status The RFETS RI/FS Report concluded that the Peripheral OU was already in a state protective of human health and the environment, therefore the selected remedy in the RFETS CAD/ROD for the Peripheral OU was no action. No accelerated actions were taken in the Peripheral OU, and no remedial action alternatives were evaluated for the Peripheral OU. Because no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants occur in the Peripheral OU above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year review was not required for this remedy. This documentation provides the technical justification for deletion of the Peripheral Operable Unit, Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL. For the OU 3 (Offsite Areas) conditions were determined to be protective of human health and the environment at the time the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed in 1997, and again during the first five-year review finalized in September 2002. Since then, summary data for OU 3 has been reviewed and indicate that conditions have not changed to alter conclusions of earlier OU 3 assessments. This documentation provides the technical justification for deletion of OU 3 (Offsite Areas), Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL. EPA, with concurrence from CDPHE, has determined that all appropriate CERCLA response actions have been completed within the Peripheral OU and OU 3 to protect public health and the environment and that no further response action by responsible parties is required. Therefore, EPA proposes to delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL. Dated: March 1, 2007. Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. E7-4449 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 48 Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 8, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Foreign Agricultural Service *Title:* “Certificate for Quota Eligibility”
(CQE)to Enter Sugar into the United States. *OMB Control Number:* 0551-0014. *Summary of Collection:* 5(a)(i) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States authorizes the Secretary to establish a raw-cane sugar tariff-rate quota (TRQ). 5(b)(i) authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to allocate the raw-cane sugar tariff-rate quota among supplying countries. Certificates of Quota Eligibility
(CQE)are issued to the 40 countries that receive TRQ allocations to export sugar to the United States. The CQE is completed by the certifying authority in the foreign country that certifies that the sugar being exported to the United States was produced in the foreign country that has the TRQ allocation. The Foreign Agriculture will collect information using form FSA-961, Certificate for Quota Eligibility. *Need and Use of the Information:* FAS will collect the following information:
(1)Country of origin or area of the eligible raw cane sugar;
(2)quota period;
(3)quantity of raw cane sugar to be exported;
(4)details of the shipment (shipper, vessel, port of loading); and
(5)additional details if available at the time of shipment (consignee, address of consignee, expected date of departure, expected date of arrival in the U.S., expected port of arrival). The information will help determine if the quantity to be imported is eligible to be entered under the TRQ. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 40. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 200. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-4522 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): Income Eligibility Guidelines AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department announces adjusted income eligibility guidelines to be used by State agencies in determining the income eligibility of persons applying to participate in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC). These income eligibility guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the WIC Regulations. DATES: July 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Whitford, Branch Chief, Policy and Program Development Branch, Supplemental Food Programs Division, FNS, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302,
(703)305-2746. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 This notice is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of this Act. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This notice does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). Executive Order 12372 This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under No. 10.557, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983, and 49 FR 22676, May 31, 1984). Description Section 17(d)(2)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786 (d)(2)(A)) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish income criteria to be used with nutritional risk criteria in determining a person's eligibility for participation in the WIC Program. The law provides that persons will be income eligible for the WIC Program only if they are members of families that satisfy the income standard prescribed for reduced-price school meals under section 9(b) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)). Under section 9(b), the income limit for reduced-price school meals is 185 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, as adjusted. Section 9(b) also requires that these guidelines be revised annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. The annual revision for 2007 was published by the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)at 72 FR 3147, January 24, 2007. The guidelines published by HHS are referred to as the poverty guidelines. Section 246.7(d)(1) of the WIC regulations (Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations) specifies that State agencies may prescribe income guidelines either equaling the income guidelines established under section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act for reduced-price school meals or identical to State or local guidelines for free or reduced-price health care. However, in conforming WIC income guidelines to State or local health care guidelines, the State cannot establish WIC guidelines which exceed the guidelines for reduced-price school meals, or which are less than 100 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. Consistent with the method used to compute income eligibility guidelines for reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program, the poverty guidelines were multiplied by 1.85 and the results rounded upward to the next whole dollar. At this time the Department is publishing the maximum and minimum WIC income eligibility guidelines by household size for the period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. Consistent with section 17(f)(17) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(f)(17)), a State agency may implement the revised WIC income eligibility guidelines concurrently with the implementation of income eligibility guidelines under the Medicaid program established under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396, et seq.). State agencies may coordinate implementation with the revised Medicaid guidelines, but in no case may implementation take place later than July 1, 2007. State agencies that do not coordinate implementation with the revised Medicaid guidelines must implement the WIC income eligibility guidelines on July 1, 2007. The first table of this notice contains the income limits by household size for the 48 contiguous States, the District of Columbia and all Territories, including Guam. Because the poverty guidelines for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than for the 48 contiguous States, separate tables for Alaska and Hawaii have been included for the convenience of the State agencies. BILLING CODE 3410-30-P EP13MR07.031 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1786 Dated: March 5, 2007. Roberto Salazar, Administrator. [FR Doc. 07-1146 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 26
Traces to 26 documents
15 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 14 CFR 71
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 51
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 13 CFR 121
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 42 USC 7401-7641q
  • 40 CFR 300
  • 40 CFR 300.425(e)
  • 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3)
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 7 CFR 3015
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 43.7
C.F.R.§ 43.9
C.F.R.§ 39.19
U.S.C.§ 3501
C.F.R.§ 71.1
Fed. Reg.Notices
Cite14 CFR 39
Cite14 CFR 71
Cite40 CFR 2
Cites 41 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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