Proposed Rules. Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period

56,003 words·~255 min read·/register/2007/03/29/07-1533

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

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-22918; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-172-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A319-100 and A320-200 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to certain Airbus Model A319-100 and A320-200 series airplanes. The original NPRM would have required repetitive inspections of the wing-tank fuel pumps, canisters, and wing fuel tanks for detached identification labels, and corrective action if necessary. The original NPRM resulted from several incidents of detached plastic identification labels found floating in the wing fuel tanks. This action revises the original NPRM by expanding the applicability and mandating modification of the fuel strainers at the fuel pump and suction bypass intakes. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent plastic identification labels being ingested into the fuel pumps and consequently entering the engine fuel feed system, which could result in an engine shutdown. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by April 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this supplemental NPRM. • *DOT Docket web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2141; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2005-22918; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-172-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this supplemental NPRM. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level in the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for an airworthiness directive

(AD)(the “original NPRM”). The original NPRM applies to certain Airbus Model A319-100 and A320-200 series airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 10, 2005 (70 FR 68379). The original NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the wing-tank fuel pumps, canisters, and wing fuel tanks for detached identification labels, and corrective action if necessary. Since the original NPRM was issued, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, superseded French airworthiness directive F-2005-121, dated July 20, 2005, and issued EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0236, dated August 10, 2006. The French airworthiness directive was referred to in the original NPRM. The EASA airworthiness directive expands the applicability and mandates the modification of the fuel strainers at the fuel pump and suction bypass intakes, which terminates the repetitive inspections. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-28-1102, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated July 10, 2006 (Revision 01, dated February 11, 2005, was referred to in the original NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the repetitive detailed visual inspections for detached identification labels in the four wing-tank fuel pumps and canisters). The procedures in Revision 02 are essentially the same as those in Revision 01; however, Revision 02 revises the accomplishment timescales, updates the effectivity, and contains editorial changes. Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1117, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated March 13, 2006. We referred to the original issue in the original NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the repetitive detailed visual inspections for detached identification labels in the collector cells between ribs 1 and 2, the surge tank between ribs 22 and 26, and the wing fuel tank and vent box. Additional work is necessary for airplanes on which the original issue of the service bulletin was accomplished. The procedures specified in subsequent revisions of the service bulletin include removing the labels, marking the fastener data on the wing structure with black ink on a white background, and restoring the primer before marking the fastener data on the wing structure. An additional inspection of work accomplished in accordance with previous issues of the service bulletin is also necessary. The inspection involves an adhesion test of the paint applied. In addition, Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-28-1149, dated June 14, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the fuel strainers at the fuel pump and suction bypass intakes. The modification includes, among other things, installing support brackets for the fuel pump strainers; installing new, improved fuel pump strainer assemblies; and installing new, improved fuel pump suction valve strainer assemblies. Accomplishing this modification eliminates the need for the repetitive inspections specified in Service Bulletin A320-28-1102. Service Bulletin A320-28-1149 also recommends prior or concurrent accomplishment of the inspections specified in Service Bulletin A320-57-1117. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive 2006-0236, dated August 10, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Request To Change Applicability/Add Revised Service Information Airbus states that the EASA airworthiness directive corrects the applicability specified therein (and identified in the original NPRM). Airbus adds that the service bulletins have also been revised to list new manufacturer serial numbers

(MSNs)in the applicability, including two U.S. MSNs. We infer that Airbus wants us to change the applicability in the original NPRM and add the revised service information. We agree to change the applicability in this supplemental NPRM to correspond with the EASA airworthiness directive specified in the Discussion section above, and to add the revised Airbus service bulletins specified in the Relevant Service Information section above. Therefore, we have changed paragraphs (c), (f), (g), and

(i)of this supplemental NPRM accordingly. Requests To Extend Repetitive Inspection Interval or Remove Repetitive Inspections Specified in Paragraph

(f)of the Original NPRM The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of two of its members, Northwest Airlines and America West Airlines, states that the intent of the 600-flight-hour repetitive inspections for detached identification labels in the four wing-tank fuel pumps and canisters is already being addressed per the current master minimum equipment list

(MMEL)requirements, and would be superfluous and ineffective. America West asks that the one-pump restriction per MMEL 28-21-01 be removed on airplanes identified in Service Bulletin A320-28-1102. America West states that the pumps will be inspected at sufficient intervals to provide an acceptable level of assurance that the remaining pump is not clogged with labels. Northwest Airlines states that accomplishing the noted service bulletins and the current MMEL makes the inspection requirement unnecessary. Northwest Airlines adds that this is for two main reasons: First, the only remaining labels will be located in the vent box, and thus not normally immersed in fuel; therefore, it would be improbable that the labels would detach; second, per the MMEL, a wing tank fuel pump cannot be placed on the MEL if a “Fuel Tank LO PR” warning is displayed on the electronic centralized aircraft monitor. If this warning is displayed, the airplane is grounded pending a full inspection of the affected fuel system components. America West states that the 600-flight-hour repeat interval is not warranted due to the actions taken. America West previously accomplished the inspection of the fuel pumps and canisters specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1102, Revision 01. America West adds that it also previously accomplished the inspection of the fuel tank and vent box specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1117. America West finds that these actions adequately removed all the labels and it has been over two years since the inspection was accomplished and no labels have been found in the fuel tanks or pumps during that timeframe. America West is concerned that repeating the inspection every 600 flight hours would result in excessive removals of the pumps, which could lead to additional maintenance issues and possible safety issues, such as damage to the pump and/or fuel leaks. America West asks that the repetitive interval be extended to a C-check. America West also notes that it does not agree with the definition of a detailed inspection specified in the original NPRM. America West explains that the definition would be interpreted as a requirement to have the component torn down in a shop environment, and adds that experience has shown that the pump can have an adequate inspection at the airplane and the canisters can be inspected without removal from the airplane. We partially agree. We do not agree to remove the repetitive inspections required by paragraph

(f)of this supplemental NPRM; however, we do agree to extend the repetitive interval for certain airplanes. We have changed paragraph

(g)of this supplemental NPRM to require repeating the inspection at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours for airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1117, Revision 02, dated March 13, 2006, have not been done; or at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight hours for airplanes on which those actions have been done. This supplemental NPRM would also require repeating the inspection before the next flight following any wing-tank fuel pump failure. This change coincides with the repetitive inspection interval required by the EASA airworthiness directive. In addition, we do not agree to remove the one-pump restriction per MMEL 28-21-01, as this reinforces maintaining safe flight of the airplane following any wing-tank fuel pump failure. Request To Use Alternate Marking Procedure ATA, on behalf of its member U.S. Airways, states that the repair procedure in Appendix 01 of Service Bulletin A320-57-1117 requests operators to apply varnish over the white painted area on which panel fastener information is written using indelible ink. U.S. Airways adds that it found that if a marker is used to re-identify the fastener information, as soon as the recommended varnish is applied, the information gets smudged and smeared and is no longer legible. U.S. Airways used black paint MPN 8000B00701CAQBTX instead of the recommended marker, and after the varnish is applied there is no smudging or smearing. U.S. Airways asks that the supplemental NPRM include approval to use this black paint (or equivalent) in lieu of Eddings 8404. We do not agree to change the supplemental NPRM to specify alternative marking methods. Revision 02 of Service Bulletin A320-57-1117 includes a note specifying that the varnish be applied with a single brush stroke, as subsequent brush strokes may cause damage to the lettering. However, if operators continue to have problems with the marking they may request an alternative method of compliance to obtain approval for using the black paint, in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(l)of this supplemental NPRM. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request To Change Work Hours US Airways states that the Costs of Compliance section in the original NPRM specifies 3 work hours (including an operational test) per airplane for the inspection specified in Service Bulletin A320-28-1102, and 6 work hours (including an operational test) for the inspection specified in Service Bulletin A320-57-1117. U.S. Airways notes that the service bulletins referred to in the Costs of Compliance section actually specify 10 and 47 hours respectively. U.S. Airways asks that the work hours be changed to specify between 24 and 30 work hours for accomplishing the inspections. We do not agree to change the work hours as specified by U.S. Airways. The cost information describes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by this AD. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer provided the number of work hours necessary to do the required actions. These numbers represent the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by this supplemental NPRM. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by a supplemental NPRM, operators might incur incidental costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs such as the time required to gain access and close up, time necessary for planning, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which might vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate. However, the work hours specified in Revision 02 of Service Bulletin A320-57-1117 were revised to include time necessary for additional procedures. Therefore, we have changed the work hours specified for the inspections in that service bulletin to 20 work hours. We have made no further change to this supplemental NPRM regarding this issue. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM The changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Difference Between the Supplemental NPRM and EASA Airworthiness Directive The EASA airworthiness directive mandates changes to the MMEL. This supplemental NPRM will not mandate those MMEL changes because the limits imposed by the FAA-approved MMEL meet or exceed those mandated by the EASA airworthiness directive. We have coordinated this issue with the EASA. Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance Section After the original NPRM was issued, we reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $65 per work hour to $80 per work hour. The costs of compliance, below, reflect this increase in the specified hourly labor rate. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this supplemental NPRM. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection specified in Service Bulletin A320-28-1102 3 $80 $0 $240, per inspection cycle 70 $16,800, per inspection cycle. Inspection specified in Service Bulletin A320-57-1117 20 80 0 $1,600, per inspection cycle 70 $112,000, per inspection cycle. Modification specified in Service Bulletin A320-28-1149 20 80 0 $1,600 70 $112,000. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2005-22918; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-172-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 23, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A319-100 and Model A320-200 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Airbus Service Bulletins A320-28-1102, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2006, and A320-57-1117, Revision 02, dated March 13, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from several incidents of detached plastic identification labels found floating in the wing fuel tanks. We are issuing this AD to prevent plastic identification labels being ingested into the fuel pumps and consequently entering the engine fuel feed system, which could result in an engine shutdown. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Actions of Four Wing-Tank Fuel Pumps and Canisters

(f)Perform a detailed inspection for detached identification labels in the four wing-tank fuel pumps and canisters, and do all applicable corrective actions, by doing all the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1102, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2006; except as provided by paragraph

(j)of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Inspect at the earlier of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.

(1)Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.

(2)Before the next flight following any wing-tank fuel pump failure.

(g)Repeat the inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, until accomplishment of paragraph

(j)of this AD.

(1)For airplanes on which the inspections required by paragraph

(i)of this AD have not been done: Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.

(i)600 flight hours.

(ii)Before the next flight following any wing-tank fuel pump failure.

(2)For airplanes on which the inspections required by paragraph

(i)of this AD have been done: Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i)3,000 flight hours.

(ii)Before the next flight following any wing-tank fuel pump failure. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Credit for Actions Accomplished Using Previous Service Information

(h)Inspections and corrective actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1102, dated August 20, 2002; or Revision 01, dated February 11, 2005; are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD. Inspection/Corrective Actions of the Collector Cells, Surge Tank, Wing Fuel Tank and Vent Box

(i)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection for detached identification labels in the collector cells between ribs 1 and 2, the surge tank between ribs 22 and 26, and the wing fuel tank and vent box, and do any applicable corrective actions, by doing all the applicable actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1117, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated March 13, 2006. Do any applicable corrective action before further flight. Modification

(j)Before the accumulation of 162 months since first flight of the airplane, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later: Modify the fuel strainers at the fuel pump and suction bypass intakes by doing all the actions in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1149, dated June 14, 2006. Accomplishment of the modification in this paragraph ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph

(g)of this AD. No Reporting Required

(k)Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1102, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2006, specifies submitting an inspection report to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(m)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2006-0236, dated August 10, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 20, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-5666 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27712; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-233-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. The existing AD requires a one-time inspection of the potable water and drain lines in the cargo compartments for indications of overheating of the heater tape, exposed foam insulation, missing or damaged protective tape, or debris around the potable water fill and drain lines; and corrective action, if necessary. This proposed AD would require that the inspection of the water and drain lines be repetitively performed, using new service information, until new ribbon heaters are installed, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. This AD would also remove certain airplanes from the applicability. This proposed AD results from a report of a fire in the aft cargo compartment started by a potable water line heater tape. We are proposing this AD to prevent overheating of the heater tape on potable water fill and drain lines, which could ignite accumulated debris or contaminants on or near the potable water fill and drain lines, resulting in a fire in the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Eiford, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6465; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-27712; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-233-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), you can visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On April 20, 2004, we issued AD 2004-09-10, amendment 39-13599 (69 FR 23647, April 30, 2004), for certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. That AD requires a one-time inspection of the potable water and drain lines in the forward and aft cargo compartments for indications of overheating of the heater tape, exposed foam insulation, missing or damaged protective tape, or debris around the potable water fill and drain lines; and corrective action, if necessary. That AD resulted from a report of a fire in the aft cargo compartment of a Boeing Model 767 series airplane due to heater tape on a water fill line overheating and igniting debris accumulated on or near the heater tape. Model 747 series airplanes have a configuration similar to that of the Model 767 and, under similar conditions, are subject to the same unsafe condition. We issued that AD to prevent overheating of the heater tape on potable water fill and drain lines, which could ignite accumulated debris or contaminants on or near the potable water fill and drain lines, and result in a fire in the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued The preamble to AD 2004-09-10 explains that we considered the requirements “interim action” and were considering further rulemaking. We now have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-30A2080, Revision 2, dated September 14, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for the following actions: • Repetitive inspections of the potable water supply and gray water drain lines for foreign object debris

(FOD)and contamination; • Removal of FOD and contamination on, near, or around the potable water supply and gray water drain lines; • Repetitive inspections of the heater tape on the potable water supply and gray water drain lines for heat damage, exposed foam insulation, and missing/damaged protective tape; • Replacement of all damaged heater tape; • Covering of the exposed foam insulation with protective tape; • Replacement of all missing or damaged protective tape; and • Eventual replacement of the potable water supply and gray water drain line heater tape with new ribbon heaters, which eliminates the need for the repetitive inspections. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2004-09-10. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-30A2080, Revision 2, dated September 14, 2006, described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,114 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per hour. The cost of parts is minimal. Estimated Costs Action Group Work hours Cost per airplane Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost by group Inspection (cost per inspection cycle) 1 3 $240 113 $27,120 2 (Config. 1) 2 160 18 2,880 2 (Config. 2) 2 160 17 2,720 3 3 240 2 480 4 3 240 0 0 5 2 160 0 0 Modification 1 48 3,840 113 433,920 2 (Config. 1) 7 560 18 10,080 2 (Config. 2) 15 1,200 17 20,400 2 (Config. 3) 8 640 17 10,880 3 60 4,800 2 9,600 4 61 4,880 0 0 5 27 2,160 0 0 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13599 (69 FR 23647, April 30, 2004) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2007-27712;** Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-233-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 14, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2004-09-10. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-30A2080, Revision 2, dated September 14, 2006. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a cargo area that is not fully enclosed or not enclosed, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-30A2080, Revision 2, dated September 14, 2006, is a floor without panels installed between all roller trays in the cargo compartment. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of a fire in the aft cargo compartment started by a potable water line heater tape. We are issuing this AD to prevent overheating of the heater tape on potable water fill and drain lines, which could ignite accumulated debris or contaminants on or near the potable water fill and drain lines, resulting in a fire in the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspections

(f)At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD: Do the initial inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-30A2080, Revision 2, dated September 14, 2006. Correct any discrepancy before further flight in accordance with the service bulletin. Repeat the inspections at the applicable time specified in Table 1 of this AD.

(1)Within 18 calendar months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or within 18 calendar months since the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.

(2)Within 90 calendar days after the effective date of this AD. Table 1.—Inspections Do a general visual inspection of the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable, for— And repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed— Until— Foreign object debris

(FOD)or contamination on, near, or around the potable water supply and gray water drain lines 600 flight hours The heater tape replacement required by paragraph

(g)of this AD is done. Indications of heat damage, exposed foam insulation, or missing or damaged protective tape of all heater tape on the potable water supply and gray water drain lines 1,800 flight hours The heater tape replacement required by paragraph

(g)of this AD is done. Terminating Action

(g)At the applicable time specified in Table 2 of this AD: Replace the heater tape on the potable water supply and gray water drain lines of the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable, with Adel Wiggins ribbon heaters. Do the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-30A2080, Revision 2, dated September 14, 2006. This replacement terminates the requirements of paragraph

(f)of this AD. Table 2.—Compliance Time for Terminating Action For airplanes on which the heater tape has— Replace the heater tape at the later of—

(1)Not been replaced before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-30A2079, dated December 12, 2002; Revision 1, dated October 16, 2003; or Revision 2, dated December 16, 2004 Within 42 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

(2)Been replaced before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-30A2079, dated December 12, 2002; Revision 1, dated October 16, 2003; or Revision 2, dated December 16, 2004 Within 42 months after the heater tape was replaced 24 months after the effective date of this AD. Provisions for Previous Accomplished Work

(h)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-30A2080—either the original version dated December 16, 2004, or Revision 1, dated August 18, 2005—are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD; except, for Group 2, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3 airplanes, as defined in Revision 2 of the service bulletin, additional work is required in the forward cargo compartment, as specified in Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the service bulletin and required by this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 20, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-5667 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27713; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-240-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, DHC-8-200, and DHC-8-300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, DHC-8-200, and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require, for certain airplanes, modification of the upper bearing of the main landing gear

(MLG)shock strut. This proposed AD would also require, for certain airplanes, revising the DHC-8 Maintenance Program Manual to include the MLG shock strut servicing task. This proposed AD results from reports of over-extension of the MLG shock strut piston, which allows the torque links to go over-center and rest on the piston. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss in shock absorption during touchdown and failure of the shock strut housing, which could result in a subsequent loss of directional control. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7330; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27713; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-240-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, DHC-8-200, and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. TCCA advises that there have been six cases reported in which the main landing gear

(MLG)shock strut piston over-extended, allowing the torque links to go over-center and rest on the piston. Investigation has revealed that over-extension of the shock strut resulted from damage to the upper bearing and seal carrier, caused by a loss of internal damping. Over-extension of the MLG shock strut piston, if not corrected, could result in loss in shock absorption during touchdown and failure of the shock strut housing, which could result in a subsequent loss of directional control. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-32-144, Revision ‘A,' dated April 29, 2002, including Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin M-DT SBDHC8-32-82, Revision 1, dated July 5, 2001 (for Model DHC-8-311, -314, and -315 airplanes). The service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the upper bearing in each MLG. The modification includes an inspection of the two halves of the upper bearing for wear and damage, the removal of the needle roller from the upper bearing, an inspection of the cylinder bore for damage and wear, and corrective action if necessary. The corrective action includes replacing the upper bearing with a new bearing and contacting the parts manufacturer if damage or wear that exceeds the maximum diameter is found on the cylinder bore. Bombardier has issued the following de Havilland Dash 8 maintenance task cards to the applicable Bombardier DHC-8 Maintenance Program Manual (Program Support Manuals 1-8-7, 1-82-7, and 1-83-7). These tasks describe procedures for servicing the MLG shock struts: • Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Task Card 3210/15, dated June 22, 2005; • Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Task Card 3210/15, dated June 22, 2005; and • Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Task Card 3210/15, dated November 29, 2005. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. TCCA mandated the service information and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-14, effective July 21, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require, for certain airplanes, accomplishing the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, and, for certain airplanes, revising the applicable DCH-8 Maintenance Program Manual to include the MLG shock strut servicing Task 3210/15, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions using a method that we or TCCA (or its delegated agent) approve. In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair we or TCCA approve would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Modification 4 $80 $274 $594 Up to 135 Up to $80,190. Manual Revision 1 80 0 80 135 $10,800. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Docket No. FAA-2007-27713; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-240-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 30, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-101, -102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, -314, and -315 airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers 003 through 618 inclusive. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of over-extension of the main landing gear

(MLG)shock strut piston, which allows the torque links to go over-center and rest on the piston. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss in shock absorption during touchdown and failure of the shock strut housing, which could result in a subsequent loss of directional control. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Modification of the Upper Bearing

(f)For Model DHC-8-311, -314, and -315 airplanes, serial numbers 202 through 516 inclusive, with MLG shock struts having any serial number DCL3501/90 through DCL3768/97 inclusive installed: Within 3,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, modify the upper bearing in each MLG (including doing inspections of the upper bearing and cylinder bore for wear and damage, and doing all applicable corrective actions) in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-144, Revision ‘A,’ dated April 29, 2002, including Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin M-DT SBDHC8-32-82, Revision 1, dated July 5, 2001, except if wear exceeds the maximum diameter specified in the service bulletin for the cylinder bore or if damage is found on the cylinder bore, before further flight, repair using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation

(TCCA)(or its delegated agent). Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Revision of the Maintenance Program Manual

(g)For Model DHC-8-101, -102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, -314, and -315 airplanes, serial numbers 003 through 614 inclusive: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise Part 1 of the applicable DHC-8 Maintenance Program Manual by incorporating the applicable MLG shock strut servicing Task 3210/15 specified in Table 1 of this AD. Note 1: This may be done by inserting copies of the applicable task into the applicable maintenance program manual. When these tasks have been included in the general revisions of the applicable maintenance program manual, the general revisions may be inserted in the applicable maintenance program manual and the copy of the task may be removed from the maintenance program manual. Table 1.—Tasks Task— Dated— To the program support manual (PSM)— For model— Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Task Card 3210/15 June 22, 2005 1-8-7 DHC-8-100 Series Airplanes. Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Task Card 3210/15 June 22, 2005 1-82-7 DHC-8-200 Series Airplanes. Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Task Card 3210/15 November 29, 2005 1-83-7 DHC-8-300 Series Airplanes. Parts Installation

(h)After the effective date of this AD, no person may install a part identified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, as a replacement during the repair or overhaul of any shock strut assembly, on any airplane.

(1)Upper bearing, part number 10130-3 or 10130-551.

(2)Damper ring, part number 10129-3 or 10129-551.

(i)After the effective date of this AD, only the parts identified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD may be installed on any airplane as replacement upper bearings and damper rings during the repair or overhaul of any shock strut assembly, except as provided by paragraph

(j)of this AD.

(1)Upper bearing, part number 10130-5.

(2)Damper ring, part number 10129-5 or 10129-533.

(j)After the effective date of this AD, only MLGs with a reworked, oversize cylinder bore (part number identified in the applicable component maintenance manual (CMM)) that have parts identified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD used in accordance with the applicable CMM may be installed on any airplane.

(1)Upper bearing, part number CRS85-167-11.

(2)Damper ring, part number CRS85-167-31 or CRS85-167-33.

(3)Seal carrier, part number CRS85-167-21. Credit for Actions Done Using Previous Service Information

(k)Modifications accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-144, dated August 10, 1998, including Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin M-DT SBDCH8-32-82, dated March 9, 1998, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(m)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-14, effective July 21, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 20, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-5668 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-26966; Directorate Identifier 99-NE-01-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Corporation AE 3007A and AE 3007C Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)for Rolls-Royce Corporation

(RRC)AE 3007A and AE 3007C series turbofan engines. That AD currently prohibits any flight following a ground engine start where the engine oil temperature is below 32 °F (0 °C), unless certain preflight operational procedures are followed. This proposed AD would also require those actions, and would also require a terminating action. This proposed AD would supersede the compliance requirements of AD 99-02-51 and all related alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). This proposed AD results from design improvements to components in the accessory gearbox air turbine starter mounting pad. We are proposing this AD to prevent an in-flight engine shutdown due to loss of engine oil from the starter shaft seal. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by May 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Fax:*

(317)230-3774; fax

(317)230-8084; e-mail: *indy.pubs.services@rolls-royce.com* , to get the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyri Zaroyiannis, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone

(847)294-7836; fax

(847)294-7834. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA- 2007-26966; Directorate Identifier 99-NE-01-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the DMS Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Docket Number Change We are transferring the docket for this proposed AD to the Docket Management System as part of our on-going docket management consolidation efforts. The new Docket No. is FAA-2007-26966. The old Docket No. became the Directorate Identifier, which is 99-NE-01-AD. Discussion On March 29, 1999, we issued AD 99-02-51, Amendment 39-11108 (64 FR 16339, April 5, 1999), applicable to RRC AE 3007A and AE 3007C series turbofan engines. That AD prohibits any flight following a ground engine start where the engine oil temperature is below 32 °F (0 °C), unless certain preflight operational procedures are followed to ensure that there is no excessive loss of oil from leakage at the air turbine starter shaft. That action resulted from reports of in-flight engine shutdowns attributed to loss of engine oil from the starter shaft seal. Since we issued AD 99-02-51, RRC, Cessna Aircraft Company, and Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) issued Service Bulletins

(SBs)that describe a procedure to install a cap on the accessory gearbox starter pad drain fitting to prevent rapid engine oil loss during flight. These SBs were approved in 1999 as AMOCs to the requirements of AD 99-02-51. In September 2001, RRC developed single- and multi-orifice restrictors that were approved for use also as an AMOC that replaced the drain fitting cap in the previous AMOCs. RRC has since improved the design for the multi-orifice restrictor which is also approved as an AMOC. Since we approved these AMOCs, RRC released an improved seal for the accessory gearbox air turbine starter mounting pad. On January 19, 2006, we approved a terminating action AMOC incorporating the improved seal. That AMOC requires no cap or restrictor on the starter drain, but does not require removal of those components either. This proposed AD would mandate the removal of the AMOC configurations incorporating caps or restrictors and the installation of an open drain adapter. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of the following RRC SBs: • SB No. AE 3007A-72-321 AE 3007C-72-250, Revision 2, which describes procedures for installing an improved starter shaft seal. • SB No. AE 3007C-72-223, Revision 1, and SB No. AE 3007A-72-330, Revision 1, which describe procedures for installing an open starter drain adapter. • SB No. AE 3007A-72-274, Revision 1, which describes procedures for removing the drain cap or starter drain adapter on AE 3007A series engines. The SB issue dates do not appear in this proposed AD because we agreed to allow RRC to assign the final rule AD issue date to them, as they want to reference the AD number in the SBs. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would: • Prohibit before further flight, any flight following a ground engine start where the engine oil temperature is below 32 °F (0 °C), unless certain preflight operational procedures are followed to ensure that there is no excessive loss of oil from leakage at the air turbine starter shaft; and • Require terminating action to the prohibition requirements of the existing AD, by removing from service certain seal P/Ns from the accessory gearbox air turbine starter mounting pad and installing an improved seal; and • Require removing certain P/N drain caps, drain adapters, and orifice inserts, and installing an open adapter on the starter pad drain. The proposed AD would require that you do these actions using the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,868 RRC AE 3007A and AE 3007C series turbofan engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed terminating action, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,917 per engine. Based on these figures, if all engines incorporated the terminating action, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $6,046,100. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed AD: 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. Would 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. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration 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 removing Amendment 39-11108 (64 FR 16339, April 5, 1999) and by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **Rolls-Royce Corporation (formerly Allison Engine Company, Inc.):** Docket No. FAA-2007-26966; Directorate Identifier 99-NE-01-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by May 29, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 99-02-51, Amendment 39-11108. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Corporation

(RRC)(formerly Allison Engine Company, Inc.) AE 3007A and AE 3007C series turbofan engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Cessna Aircraft Company 750 series, and Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S. A. (EMBRAER) EMB-135 and EMB-145 series airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from design improvements to components in the accessory gearbox air turbine starter mounting pad. We are issuing this AD to prevent an in-flight engine shutdown due to loss of engine oil from the starter shaft seal. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. Prohibited Flights

(f)All flights after ground engine starts at engine oil temperatures below 32 °F (0 °C), are prohibited except as follows:

(1)If the engine oil temperature has dropped below 32 °F (0 °C), before flight, perform a high-power leak check on each engine (at least three minutes at takeoff power).

(2)Oil consumption greater than 0.32 quart per hour (303 cc per hour) is not permitted. Instructions for performing the high-power leak check for the AE 3007A series engines can be found in the Rolls-Royce AE 3007A Series Maintenance Manual, TASK 72-00-00-700-801, SUBTASK 72-00-00-790-002. Leak check limits for the AE 3007A series engines can be found in the Rolls-Royce AE 3007A Series Maintenance Manual, TASK 71-00-00-200-801.

(3)Instructions for performing the high-power leak check for the AE 3007C series engines (including leak check limits) can be found in the Rolls-Royce AE 3007C Series Maintenance Manual, TASK 72-00-00-700-801, SUBTASK 72-00-00-790-002. Terminating Action

(g)No later than September 30, 2009, as terminating action to the requirements in paragraph

(f)through (f)(3) of this AD, do the following, as applicable to your engine model and configuration:

(1)Remove seal part number (P/N) 42520-71, 42520-196-X, 99004-1-6, 42520-75, or 42520-167, from the accessory gearbox

(AGB)air turbine starter mounting pad.

(2)Install a new seal, P/N AS3209-026, or other serviceable part, to the shaft of the starter mounting pad.

(3)Install a new bearing locknut, P/N 42520-170, or other serviceable part, and an AGB air turbine starter mounting pad mechanical seal, P/N 42520-192, or other serviceable part.

(4)Use paragraphs 2. through 2.G. of the Accomplishment Instructions of RRC Service Bulletin

(SB)No. AE 3007A-72-321 / AE 3007C-72-250, Revision 2, to do the removals and installations.

(5)For AE 3007A series engines, remove the drain cap or starter drain adapter. Use paragraphs 2. through 2.C.(4)(c) of the Accomplishment Instructions of RRC SB No. AE 3007A-72-274, Revision 1, to do the removal.

(6)For AE 3007A series engines, install an open starter drain adapter. Use paragraphs 2. through 2.C.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of RRC SB No. AE 3007A-72-330, Revision 1, to do the installation.

(7)For AE 3007C series engines, install an open starter drain adapter. Use paragraphs 2. through 2.E.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of RRC SB No. AE 3007C-72-223, Revision 1, to do the installation. Definition

(h)A serviceable part is any FAA-approved part not being removed from service, or not otherwise specifically addressed by this AD action. Serviceable parts may be available from the original equipment manufacturer or through Part Manufacturer Approval sources. Prohibition of Seals

(i)Once the terminating action in this AD is performed on an engine, seal P/Ns 42520-71, 42520-196-X, 99004-1-6, 42520-75, and 42520-167, are prohibited from being installed on the air starter mounting pad. Previous Credit

(j)Previous credit is allowed for the terminating action in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(7) of this AD, that was done using the Accomplishment Instructions of the SBs listed in the following Table 1, before the effective date of this AD: Table 1.—SBs Allowing Previous Credit For AE 3007A Series Engines

(1)Engine—Accessory Drive Gearbox Assembly—New Starter Shaft Seal; RRC SB No. AE 3007A-72-321/AE 3007C-72-250, Revision 1, dated November 7, 2005; and

(2)Engine—Accessory Gearbox Starter Pad Drain—Remove The Drain Cap or Starter Drain Adapter; RRC SB No. AE 3007A-72-274, dated January 19, 2006; and

(3)Engine—Accessory Gearbox Starter Pad Drain—Install the Open Starter Drain Adapter (23083402 or 23077526); RRC SB No. AE 3007A-72-330, dated January 19, 2006. For AE 3007C Series Engines

(4)Engine—Accessory Drive Gearbox Assembly—New Starter Shaft Seal; RRC SB No. AE 3007A-72-321/AE 3007C-72-250, Revision 1, dated November 7, 2005; and

(5)Engine—Accessory Gearbox Starter Pad Drain—Install the Open Starter Drain Adapter (23077526 or 23083403); RRC SB No. AE 3007C-72-223, dated January 19, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(k)The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(l)AMOCs approved for AD 99-02-51 are not approved as AMOCs for this AD. Related Information

(m)Contact Kyri Zaroyiannis, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; e-mail: *kyri.zaroyiannis@faa.gov;* telephone

(847)294-7836; fax

(847)294-7834, for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 23, 2007. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-5775 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1926 [New Docket No. OSHA—2007-0012, Old Docket No. S-204A] RIN 1218-AC02 Notice of Availability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Review of the Occupational Safety Standard for Excavations AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA)has completed a review of its Excavations Standard pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. In 1989, OSHA issued a final, revised Excavations Standard to reduce deaths and injuries from excavation and trenching activities in the construction industry. This regulatory review concludes that the 1989 Excavations Standard has reduced deaths from approximately 90 to 70 per year while real construction activity has increased by 20%. The review also concludes that the Standard has not had a negative impact on small business, that the cost of control technology has been reduced, that the Standard is understandable and does not conflict with other rules, and that commenters agree that the Standard should be retained. Based on this review, OSHA concludes that the Excavations Standard should remain in effect, but OSHA will issue some improved guidance and training materials, based on commenters suggestions. ADDRESSES: Copies of the entire report may be obtained from the OSHA Publication Office, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-1888; Fax

(202)693-2498. The full report, comments, and referenced documents are available for review at the OSHA Docket Office, New Docket No. OSHA-2007-0012, Old Docket No. S-204A, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is

(877)889-5627). OSHA's Docket Office hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t. The main text of the report, this **Federal Register** Notice and any news releases will become available at the OSHA Webpage at *http://www.OSHA.gov.* Electronic copies of this **Federal Register** Document, the full text of the report, comments and referenced documents are or will become available at *http://www.regulations.gov* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information: Joanna Dizikes Friedrich, OSHA Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, Room N-3641, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-1939. Technical inquiries about the Excavations Standard: Garvin Branch, OSHA, Directorate of Construction, Room N-3468, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2020. Press inquiries: Elaine Fraser, OSHA Office of Communications, N-3637, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-1999. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA)has completed a “lookback” review of its Excavations Standard, 29 CFR part 1926, Subpart P, §§ 1926.650 to 1926.652 and Appendices A to F, titled “Regulatory Review of 29 CFR part 1926, Subpart P: Excavations, March 2007” (“Regulatory Review”). This **Federal Register** document announces the availability of the Regulatory Review and briefly summarizes it. The Regulatory Review was undertaken pursuant to and meets the requirements of section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) and section 5 of Executive Order 12866 (59 FR 51739, Oct 4, 1993). The purpose of a review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is to determine whether a rule should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes to minimize any significant impact of the rule on a substantial number of small entities. In making this determination, the Agency considers the following factors:

(1)The continued need for the rule;

(2)The nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public;

(3)The complexity of the rule;

(4)The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules; and to the extent feasible, with state and local governmental rules; and

(5)The length of time since the rule has been evaluated and the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the areas affected by the rule. Under section 5 of Executive Order 12866, agencies examine whether rules have become unjustified or unnecessary as a result of changed circumstances, whether they are both compatible with other rules and not duplicative or inappropriately burdensome in the aggregate, whether they are consistent with the President's priorities and the principles set forth in the Executive Order, within applicable law, and whether their effectiveness can be improved. On October 31, 1989, OSHA issued a final, revised Standard for excavation and trenching, at 54 FR 45894. The revision updated the previous standard by simplifying many of the existing provisions, adding and clarifying definitions, eliminating duplicate provisions and ambiguous language, and giving employers added flexibility in providing protection for employees. In addition, the Standard provided several new appendices. One appendix provided a consistent method of soil classification. Others provided sloping and benching requirements, pictorial examples of shoring and shielding devices, timber tables, hydraulic shoring tables and section charts that provide a graphic summary of the requirements contained in the Standard. On August 21, 2002, OSHA published a **Federal Register** document requesting public comments on the Excavations Standard and, specifically, on all issues raised by section 610 of the RFA and section 5 of Executive Order 12866 (67 FR 54103). The Regulatory Review summarizes the public comments and responds to them, and makes the following major findings: • There is a continued need for the Standard. The annual number of trenching and excavation fatalities has declined from an estimated 90 fatalities per year prior to the enactment of the 1989 Standard, to approximately 70 per year since 1990. This 22% reduction is even more impressive given the 20% real increase in construction activity over this period. Therefore, in relation to increased construction activity, fatalities have been reduced by more than 40%. Although the Standard has improved safety, it remains needed in light of the ongoing occurrence of related fatalities, most of which result from violations of the Standard. OSHA intends to expand outreach and maintain enforcement to further reduce fatalities. • The Standard does not impose an unnecessary or disproportionate burden on small business or on industry in general. The cost of protective systems has decreased by 10 percent in real dollars between 1990 and 2001. The number of small businesses engaged in excavation activity has increased, and the percentage of excavation work done by small business has increased. Real construction activity has increased. • There is no indication that employers are unable to comply due to the complexity of the revised Standard. Nonetheless, public comments suggested some ways in which the Standard might be simplified or clarified (although some argued that any changes would only serve to confuse and discourage those who now understand and follow the Standard). The expanded outreach will address these matters. • In general, the Standard does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other state or Federal rules. Several commenters, however, identified a possible conflict between the Excavations Standard and OSHA's standard for confined spaces. OSHA will address this issue in its future rulemaking for confined spaces in construction. • Economic and technological trends have not reduced the need for the Standard. However, the development of so-called “trenchless” technologies (e.g., directional boring machines) has added a new dimension to excavation work (including additional hazards) that OSHA will monitor. • Public comments contained some specific suggestions for how the Standard could be made more effective, although the comments were divided as to whether or not the Standard should be modified. In light of the effectiveness of the Standard, the certainty it has created, and limited regulatory resources, major modifications are not of high priority. • The National Transportation Safety Board

(NSTB)recommended that OSHA amend the Excavations Standard to require employers to notify appropriate authorities after excavation activities create a gas leak or leak of other hazardous substances. Since then, the “Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act (PIPES) of 2006” has been enacted. Section 2 of PIPES requires all persons (including employers) engaged in demolition, excavation, tunneling, or construction to immediately call 911 if:

(1)They damage a pipeline that may endanger life or cause serious bodily harm or damage to property; and

(2)such damage results in the escape of flammable, toxic, or corrosive gas or liquid. OSHA will monitor the implementation of PIPES and consider whether amending the Excavations Standard as suggested by NTSB is necessary and appropriate. • The Standard remains consistent with the President's priorities to the extent that it has produced the intended benefits, a reduction in trenching and excavation fatalities and injuries, while not causing negative economic effects. Based on the findings of this review, OSHA finds that the Excavations Standard should be continued. OSHA also believes that further increases in safety might be achieved through increased outreach and training. Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of March, 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor. [FR Doc. E7-5609 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0774; FRL-8284-6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Indiana's State Implementation Plan

(SIP)submitted on August 25, 2006, revising its existing emission reporting rule to be consistent with the emission statement program requirements for stationary sources in the Clean Air Act (CAA). Indiana held public hearings on the submittal on December 7, 2005, and March 1, 2006. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0774, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:* (312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6031, *Hatten.Charles@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this ** Federal Register ** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: February 27, 2007. Steve Rothblatt, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-5654 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0976; FRL-8292-9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Control of Gasoline Volatility AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Ohio on February 14, 2006 and October 6, 2006, establishing a lower Reid Vapor Pressure

(RVP)fuel requirement for gasoline distributed in the Cincinnati and Dayton 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. Ohio has developed these fuel requirements to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds

(VOC)in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's fuel requirements into the Ohio SIP because EPA has found that the requirements are necessary for the Cincinnati and Dayton areas to achieve the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0976, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *mooney.john@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*

(312)886-5824. • *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 a.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0976. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental Protection Specialist, at

(312)886-6061 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental Protection Specialist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6061, *acevedo.francisco@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. Description of the SIP Revision and EPA's Action. A. What Is the Background for This Action? B. What Is Reid Vapor Pressure? C. What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements? D. How Has the State Met the Test Under Section 211(c)(4)(C)? E. What Are the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements? F. How Has the State Met the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements? G. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? H. What Other Relevant Materials Has the State Submitted? III. Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through * http:// www.regulations.gov * or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: 1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). 2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Description of the SIP Revision and EPA's Action A. What Is the Background for This Action? On April 15, 2004, the EPA designated 5 counties in Cincinnati, Ohio (Hamilton, Butler, Clinton, Warren and Clermont counties—Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN) and 4 counties in Dayton, Ohio (Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery counties—Dayton-Springfield, OH) as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Both areas have been designated Basic nonattainment with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard and they are required to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than June 2009. As part of the State of Ohio's

(Ohio)efforts to bring these areas into attainment, the State is adopting and implementing a broad range of ozone control measures including control of emissions from auto refinishing operations, the reduction of VOC emission from portable fuel containers, the adoption of industrial solvent degreasing rules, and the implementation of a 7.8 pound per square inch

(psi)RVP fuel program. Ohio originally proposed to replace the State's vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in Cincinnati and Dayton, which was discontinued by the State on December 31, 2005, with the requirement to supply 7.8 psi RVP gasoline to these areas starting in 2006. However, the State has since modified its original request and has asked that EPA act on the state's fuel waiver request to allow the use of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in both areas. On February 14, 2006, Ohio submitted the fuel waiver request as a SIP revision and the submittal included adopted amended rules under Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-72 “Low Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel Requirements” to require the use of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas beginning on June 1, 2006. Soon after the State's February 14, 2006 submittal, the American Petroleum Institute

(API)appealed the State's 7.8 psi RVP rule on the basis that there was insufficient time to implement the rule and that EPA had not yet issued a waiver under section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA, as amended. EPA conducted an informal survey of gasoline suppliers and determined that there was not enough 7.8 psi RVP gasoline to supply the Cincinnati and Dayton nonattainment areas during the 2006 ozone season. As part of the State's settlement with API on its appeal, Ohio agreed to revise the rule to delay the effectiveness of the rule until twelve months following the approval of a fuel waiver by EPA in order to ensure that there is sufficient time for the regulated community to prepare for the change. On July 10, 2006, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

(OEPA)adopted amended rules under the Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-72 “Low Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel Requirements” to modify the implementation date for the required use of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas to be one year after the approval of a fuel waiver under CAA amendments section 211(c)(4)(C). Public hearings on the amended rules were held on June 2, 2006, in Columbus, Ohio and the rules became effective on July 17, 2006. The OEPA submitted these amended low-RVP rules to EPA as a revision to the SIP on October 6, 2006. As part of the October 6, 2006 submittal, OEPA included additional technical support for the SIP revision, including documentation supporting the State's request to waive the CAA preemption of State fuel controls pursuant to section 211(c)(4) of the CAA. The documentation demonstrates that a low-RVP fuel is critical to the Cincinnati and Dayton ozone nonattainment areas attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. B. What Is Reid Vapor Pressure? Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP, is a measure of a gasoline's volatility at a certain temperature and is a measurement of the rate at which gasoline evaporates and emits VOCs; the lower the RVP, the lower the rate of evaporation. The RVP of gasoline can be lowered by reducing the amount of its more volatile components, such as butane. Lowering RVP in the summer months can offset the effect of high summer temperatures upon the volatility of gasoline, which, in turn, lowers emissions of VOC. Because VOC is a necessary component in the production of ground level ozone in hot summer months, reduction of RVP will help areas achieve the NAAQS for ozone and thereby produce benefits for human health and the environment. The primary emission reduction benefit from low-RVP gasoline used in motor vehicles comes from reductions in VOC evaporative emissions; exhaust emission reductions are much smaller. Because oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) are a product of combustion from motor vehicles, they will not be found in evaporative emissions, and low-RVP gasoline will have little or no effect on NO X . C. What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements? In determining the approvability of a SIP revision, EPA must evaluate the proposed revision for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans). For SIP revisions approving certain state fuel measures, an additional statutory requirement applies. CAA section 211(c)(4)(A) prohibits state regulations respecting a fuel characteristic or component for which EPA has adopted a control or prohibition under section 211(c)(1), unless the state control is identical to the federal control. Section 211(c)(4)(C) provides an exception to this preemption if EPA approves the state requirements in a SIP. Section 211(c)(4)(C) states that the Administrator may approve an otherwise preempted state fuel standard in a SIP: Only if he finds that the State control or prohibition is necessary to achieve the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard which the plan implements. The Administrator may find that a State control or prohibition is necessary to achieve that standard if no other measures that would bring about timely attainment exist, or if other measures exist and are technically possible to implement, but are unreasonable or impracticable. EPA's August, 1997 “Guidance on Use of Opt-in to RFG and Low RVP Requirements in Ozone SIPs” gives further guidance on what EPA is likely to consider in making a finding of necessity. Specifically, the guidance recommends breaking down the necessity demonstration into four steps:

(1)Identifying the quantity of reductions needed to reach attainment;

(2)identifying other possible control measures and the quantity of reductions each measure would achieve;

(3)explaining in detail which of those identified control measures are considered unreasonable or impracticable; and,

(4)showing that, even with the implementation of all reasonable and practicable measures, the state would need additional emission reductions for timely attainment, and that the state fuel measure would supply some or all of such additional reductions. EPA has evaluated the submitted SIP revision and has determined that it is consistent with the requirements of the CAA, EPA regulations, and conforms to EPA's completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. Further, EPA has looked at Ohio's demonstration that the low-RVP fuel control is necessary in accordance with Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA and agrees with the State's conclusion that a fuel measure is needed to achieve the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. *The SIP submittal contains:*

(1)7.8 low vapor pressure gasoline waiver request for Cincinnati and Dayton;

(2)Amendments to Ohio Administrative Code, Chapter 3745-72 “Low Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel Requirements”, effective January 16, 2006 and July 17, 2006;

(3)Additional support for 7.8 Reid Vapor Pressure fuel waiver dated October 6, 2006; and,

(4)the public hearing records dated December 7, 2005 and June 2, 2006. D. How Has the State Met the Test Under Section 211(c)(4)(C)? CAA section 211(c)(4)(A) preempts certain state fuel regulations by prohibiting a State from prescribing or attempting to enforce any control or prohibition respecting any characteristic or component of a fuel or fuel additive for the purposes of motor vehicle emission control if the Administrator has prescribed under section 211(c)(1) a control or prohibition applicable to such characteristic or component of the fuel or fuel additive, unless the state prohibition is identical to the prohibition or control prescribed by the Administrator. EPA has adopted federal RVP controls under CAA sections 211(c) and 211(h). See 56 FR 64704 (December 12, 1991). These regulations are found in 40 CFR 80.27. The State of Ohio is currently required under the federal rule to meet a 9.0 psi RVP standard. See 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). As stated previously, a State may prescribe and enforce an otherwise preempted low-RVP requirement only if the EPA approves the control into the State's SIP. In order to approve a preempted state fuel control into a SIP, EPA must find that the state control is necessary to achieve a NAAQS because no other measures that would bring about timely attainment exist or that such measures exist but are either not reasonable or practicable. Thus, to determine whether Ohio's low-RVP rule is necessary to meet the ozone NAAQS, EPA must consider whether there are other reasonable and practicable measures available to produce the emission reductions needed to achieve the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. To estimate the emission reductions needed in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas to achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS, EPA used modeling information developed by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). This analysis used the CAMx (Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions) photochemical dispersion model to simulate expected concentrations throughout much of the Eastern United States. Using procedures recommended by EPA, LADCO used modeling results for 2002 and 2009 to estimate the reduction in ozone concentrations expected to occur by 2009. These results project that the emission reductions expected to occur by 2009 in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas will bring the areas into attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. This modeling reflects emission reductions as if the vehicle inspection and maintenance program were still operating but with no reductions from low RVP gasoline. LADCO also modeled conditions for 2008 and then projected concentrations to continue to exceed the standard. Therefore, EPA finds the level of emission reductions achieved by 2009 to represent the reductions necessary to attain the standard. Interpretation of the quantity of emission reductions needed to attain the ozone standard is complicated by the fact that ozone results from chemical reactions involving both VOC and NO X . A given air quality improvement (e.g., attaining the standard) can result from a variety of combinations of reductions of the emissions of these two precursors. That is, the quantity of VOC emission reduction needed to attain the standard is in part a function of the quantity of NO X emission reduction expected to occur. While other combinations of VOC and NO X emission reduction would also be expected to provide for attainment, EPA is using the combination of VOC and NO X emissions modeled by LADCO to define the emission reductions needed to attain the standard in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas. By this means, EPA determined that the necessary emission reductions for VOC in the Cincinnati area is 47 tons per day and in the Dayton area is 21 tons per day, for a total of 68 tons per day. EPA considers these amounts as the necessary VOC emissions reductions based on an expectation that NO X emissions will simultaneously be reduced by 202 tons per day in the Cincinnati area and by 39 tons per day in the Dayton area, for a total of 241 tons per day. Some of these emission reductions will be achieved by programs that have already been adopted, most notably including the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program. In order to assess the need for low RVP fuel, EPA sought to estimate the quantity of emission reduction needed for attainment by 2008 beyond the reductions provided by these programs. Because the modeling suggests attainment by 2009, one year after the date by which attainment must begin, the one year's emission reduction (from 2008 to 2009) is an approximation of the additional emission reduction needed for the area to begin attaining by 2008. EPA estimated this one year's emission reduction as 1/7 of the emission reduction expected between 2002 and 2009. Thus, EPA estimated that the additional emission reduction needed will be approximately 7 tons per day in the Cincinnati area and approximately 3 tons per day in the Dayton area, for a total of approximately 10 tons per day in the Cincinnati/Dayton area. Some features of these estimates warrant note. First, the deadline for Cincinnati and Dayton to meet the air quality standard is 2009, which means that any VOC reductions contributing to attainment would need to occur during the 2008 ozone season. Thus, the emission inventory and modeling information from LADCO do not directly assess whether the set of measures assumed in the analysis will suffice to assure timely attainment. Second, the emission inventory includes emission reductions that would be expected were Ohio to restart a vehicle inspection and maintenance program and does not include the emission reductions that are expected from use of low RVP gasoline. Third, while EPA believes that the modeling is adequate for purposes here, EPA recognizes that Ohio and other states are continuing to refine their emission inventories and modeling analyses, and EPA is not attempting to evaluate here whether the analysis would constitute an adequate attainment demonstration as required under CAA section 172(c)(1). Moreover, under CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), EPA is allowed to make a finding of necessity even if the plan for an area does not contain an approved demonstration of timely attainment. Fourth, EPA recognizes the uncertainties inherent in modeling. For this reason, EPA guidance recommends that states supplement the modeling with additional analyses to be used as weight of evidence in assessing whether the modeling overstates or understates the air quality improvement that is expected. The above estimates of reductions needed to attain the standard in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas are taken directly from LADCO modeling results without considering any additional analyses that Ohio may submit along with its attainment demonstrations. The State evaluated an extensive list of non-fuel alternative controls to determine if reasonable and practicable controls could be adopted and used to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the required deadline. The State evaluated a wide range of control measures, considering the following factors: VOC emission reduction potential; ability to implement the control measure expeditiously; cost; and, ease of implementation. Ohio summarized the results of this evaluation in a document entitled “RVP Rule Waiver Request Addendum.” After evaluating a wide range of other controls for their reasonableness and practicability, four measures did rise to the top: the reduction of VOC emission from auto refinishing operations, the reduction of VOC emissions from portable fuel containers, the adoption of rules for industrial solvent degreasing, and, the lowering of gasoline vapor pressure to 7.8 psi during the summer months. Ohio determined that the rest of the control measures would not achieve emission reductions early enough to bring about timely attainment, were technically impossible to implement, and, were either unreasonable or impracticable. In the case of auto refinishing operations, the State has adopted rules that require high volume, low pressure spray equipment and additional work practice requirements. The State's analysis indicates that the application of such controls could yield emission reductions comparable to those from other source categories in the range of approximately 0.7 tons per day (including 0.4 tons per day in the Cincinnati area and 0.3 tons per day in the Dayton area), in a time period compatible with the State's commitment to attain the 8-hour NAAQS as expeditiously as possible. Ohio's evaluation also showed that VOC reductions in the range of 4.3 tons per day (including 2.6 tons per day from the Cincinnati area and 1.7 tons per day in the Dayton area) could be achieved through the adoption of industrial solvent cleaning (degreasing) regulations. In addition, the implementation of statewide rules requiring the use of newly designed spill proof portable fuel containers would achieve a modest reduction of about 0.4 tons per day across the Cincinnati/Dayton area by 2008. The State's analysis identified that adoption of all measures determined to be reasonable and practicable would at most result in approximately 5.2 tons per day of emission reductions by 2008. Thus, even with implementation of all reasonable and practicable non-fuel control measures, additional VOC reductions are necessary. Ohio's 7.8 psi RVP fuel requirement, which includes a 1 psi exemption for ethanol blended fuels, is calculated to achieve approximately 4.6 tpd of VOC reductions in Cincinnati and 4.2 tpd of VOC reductions in Dayton beginning the summer of 2008. EPA believes these emission reductions are necessary to achieve the ozone NAAQS in both areas. EPA is basing today's action on the information available to us at this time, which indicates that adequate reasonable and practicable non-fuel measures that would achieve these needed emission reductions, and protect Ohio's air quality in a timely manner are not available to the State. Hence, EPA finds that the 7.8 psi RVP fuel program is necessary for attainment of the applicable ozone NAAQS, and is proposing to approve it as a revision to the Ohio SIP. E. What Are the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements? The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) amends the CAA by requiring EPA, in consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE), to determine the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C), as of September 1, 2004, and to publish a list that identifies these fuels, the States and Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts

(PADD)in which they are used. CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(II). It also places three additional restrictions on EPA's authority to waive preemption by approving a State fuel program into the SIP. *These restrictions are as follows:* • First, EPA may not approve a State fuel program into the SIP if it would cause an increase in the total number of fuel types approved into SIPs as of September 1, 2004. • Second, in cases where EPA approval of a fuel would increase the total number of fuel types on the list but not above the number approved as of September 1, 2004, because the total number of fuel types in SIPs is below the number of fuel types as of September 1, 2004, we are required to make a finding after consultation with DOE, that the new fuel will not cause supply or distribution interruptions or have a significant adverse impact on fuel producibility in the affected or contiguous areas. • Third, with the exception of 7.0 psi RVP, EPA may not approve a state fuel into a SIP unless that fuel type is already approved in at least one SIP in the applicable PADD. CAA Section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(I),

(IV)and (V). On December 28, 2006, EPA published the final notice containing the final interpretation, which was a fuel type interpretation, of the EPAct provisions (See 71 FR 78192). We also determined and published a list of the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs, under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004. F. How Has the State Met the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements? Any approval of a 7.8 psi RVP program would be subject to the EPAct restrictions, described earlier above. More specifically, any approval of a 7.8 psi RVP program must not cause an increase in the total number of fuel types approved into all SIPs as of September 1, 2004. Under our final interpretation, Ohio's 7.8 psi RVP requirement for the Cincinnati and Dayton areas is not a “new fuel type.” EPA's approval of Ohio's 7.8 psi RVP will not increase the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs, as of September 1, 2004, because 7.8 psi RVP is on the list of fuels types. Further, because the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs at this time is not below the number of fuels on the final list of fuels, which we published on December 28, 2006 (71 FR 78192), we do not believe that we need to make a finding on the effect of a 7.8 psi RVP fuel requirement in Cincinnati and Dayton on fuel supply and distribution in either Cincinnati/Dayton or the contiguous areas. We note, however, that Ohio has delayed the effectiveness of the 7.8 psi RVP fuel requirements until twelve months following the EPA approval of its request for a fuel waiver in order to ensure that there is sufficient compliance time for the regulated community. Finally, because the 7.8 psi RVP fuel type is already approved in at least one SIP (Indiana (61 FR 4895, (February 9, 1996)) in the PADD where Ohio is located, EPA has determined that the Agency is not restricted from approving the 7.8 psi fuel program into the Ohio SIP. In today's action, we are proposing approval of Ohio's 7.8 psi RVP program as consistent with the provisions of EPAct. G. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision at the request of the OEPA. To ensure that it secures the needed approval under section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA, Ohio submitted this action for EPA approval to make it part of the SIP. H. What Other Relevant Materials Has the State Submitted? On May 9, 2006, OEPA submitted several VOC rules for approval into the SIP and EPA published a proposed approval of these rules on December 6, 2006 (71 FR 70699). The rules include a provision requiring the use of lower emitting solvents in cold cleaner degreasers, the use of more efficient auto refinishing painting application techniques and a rule requiring the use of lower emitting portable fuel containers all which are discussed in this notice. In addition, EPA recently received a redesignation request from OEPA for the Dayton 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is currently reviewing the submittal and the implication of any of these additional materials on the approval of the fuel waiver request. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Ohio on February 14, 2006 and October 6, 2006, establishing a 7.8 psi RVP fuel requirement for gasoline distributed in the Cincinnati and Dayton 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas which include Montgomery, Miami, Greene, Clark, Hamilton, Butler, Warren and Clermont counties. EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's fuel requirements into the SIP because EPA has found that the requirements are necessary for the Cincinnati and Dayton areas to achieve the NAAQS for ozone. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes approval of a state rule implementing a Federal Standard. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant regulatory action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 22, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-5809 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859; FRL-8293-4] RIN 2060-AN85 Risk and Technology Review, Phase II, Group 2 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). SUMMARY: This ANPRM asks for public comment on hazardous air pollutant emissions and other model input data that EPA intends to use to assess residual risk from selected industrial major source categories, as required by the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the data are comprised of hazardous air pollutant emission estimates and emission release parameters for 22 industrial source categories subject to 12 national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for hazardous air pollutants with compliance dates of 2002 and earlier. The source of this information is the February 2006 version of the 2002 National Emissions Inventory, updated with some facility-specific data collected by EPA. We are seeking comment on the emissions and source data found at the Risk and Technology Review Web site and we are providing the opportunity for the public to submit technical corrections and updates. Following review of comments received, we will update the data, as appropriate, and assess risk for these source categories. We will use these risk estimates and our evaluation of the availability, cost, and feasibility of emissions reduction options to determine the ample margin of safety for residual risk and to fulfill our obligations to conduct a technology review. We currently anticipate using the results of these risk estimates along with review of control technology as the basis for our decisions on whether to propose additional standards to address residual risk for each source category. There will be opportunity for oral and written comment on any additional standards when we publish our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). We anticipate proposing the results of this risk and technology review for these 22 source categories by fall 2007. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859 by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov.* • *Fax:*

(202)566-1741. • *Mail:* U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. • *Hand Delivery:* In person or by Courier, deliver comments to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859. 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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is

(202)566-1742. Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's **Federal Register** notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* for current information on docket operations, locations, and telephone numbers. The Docket Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for submitting comments to *http://www.regulations.gov* are not affected by the flooding and will remain the same. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information about this ANPRM, contact Ms. Paula Hirtz, Office and Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; *telephone number:*

(919)541-2618; *fax number:*

(919)541-0246; and *e-mail address: hirtz.paula@epa.gov.* For information specific to the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), contact Ms. Anne Pope, Air Quality and Assessment Division (Office and Air Quality Planning and Standards), Mail Code C339-02, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; *telephone number:*

(919)541-5373; *fax number:*

(919)541-0684; and *e-mail address: pope.anne@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Regulated Entities.* Entities potentially affected by this action include facilities containing any one or more of the 22 major source categories subject to the 12 national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) (or commonly referred to maximum achievable control technology

(MACT)standards) listed in Table 1. This action does not affect area sources, as these NESHAP do not apply to area sources. Industries regulated by these MACT are classified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes shown in Table 1. In addition, a classification system of MACT codes has been developed and is used in the 2002 NEI to identify processes included in each MACT source category. The MACT codes for the 22 source categories addressed in this notice are also displayed in Table 1. Table 1.—MACT Standards, Source Categories, and Corresponding NAICS and MACT Codes Addressed by This ANPRM MACT standard/source category name NAICS codes MACT code Mineral Wool Production 327993 409 Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 336411 0701 Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations 4883 0603 Natural Gas Transmission and Storage 486210 0504 Oil and Natural Gas Production 211 0501 Petroleum Refineries 32411 0503 Pharmaceuticals Production 3254 1201 Group I Polymers and Resins: Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production 325212 1311 Hypalon( TM ) Production 325212 1315 Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production 325212 1321 Polybutadiene Rubber Production 325212 1325 Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production 325212 1339 Group IV Polymers and Resins: Acrylic-Butadiene-Styrene Production 325211 1302 Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production 325211 1317 Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene Production 325211 1318 Nitrile Resins Production 325211 1342 Polyethylene Terephthalate Production 325211 1328 Polystyrene Production 325211 1331 Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production 325211 1338 Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 331312 0201 Printing and Publishing Industry 32311 0714 Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations 336611 0715 *Submitting Comments/CBI.* When submitting comments, remember to identify this ANPRM by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date, and page number). Also, make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. As described further in section VII of this ANPRM, specific data change suggestions need to be accompanied by supporting documentation that includes a description of any assumptions used and any technical information and/or data that you used. Do not submit CBI to EPA through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Instead, send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to Mr. Morales, 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. If you submit a CD-ROM or disc that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. *Worldwide Web (WWW).* In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's notice is also available on the World Wide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of today's notice will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated NESHAP at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg* . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. As discussed in more detail in section VI of this ANPRM, additional information is available on the Risk and Technology Review Phase II Web page at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html* . This information includes source category descriptions and detailed emissions and other data that will be used as model inputs. *Outline.* The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. Background II. What approach is EPA taking for the Risk and Technology Review? A. What is the approach we are taking to address residual risk for the Group 2 source categories? B. What data were compiled and reviewed? C. What are the steps planned before proposing NESHAP to address residual risk? D. How will we develop proposed NESHAP to address residual risk? E. When will the NESHAP be proposed and promulgated? III. What is the purpose of this ANPRM? IV. What data are in the ANPRM data sets for each source category? V. What are we specifically seeking comment on? VI. How may I access the data for a specific source category? VII. How do I submit suggested data corrections? VIII. What additional steps are expected after EPA reviews the comments received? I. Background Section 112 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA)establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants

(HAP)from stationary sources. In the first stage, after EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b), section 112(d) of the CAA calls for promulgation of technology-based emission standards for those sources. For “major sources” that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of any single HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP, these technology-based standards must reflect the maximum reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air health and environmental impacts). These technology based standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. Between 1993 and 2004, EPA published 96 MACT standards (or NESHAP) covering 174 source categories. In this first stage, the focus was on ensuring reductions through available technologies. CAA Section 112(d)(6) requires EPA to review these emission standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years. The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any remaining “residual” risk according to CAA section 112(f). This provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report to Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating risk posed (or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the MACT standards, the public health significance of those risks, the means and costs of controlling them, actual health effects to persons in proximity of emitting sources, and recommendations as to legislation regarding such remaining risk. EPA prepared and submitted this report (Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA-453/R-99-001) in March 1999. Congress did not act in response to the report, thereby triggering EPA's obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze and address residual risk. Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA then directs EPA to assess the risk remaining (residual risk) after the application of the MACT standards and promulgate more stringent standards for a category or subcategory of sources subject to MACT standards if promulgation of such standards is necessary to protect public health with an ample margin of safety or to prevent (taking into consideration various factors) adverse environmental effects. The standards to be promulgated under this subsection must “provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health in accordance with this section (as in effect before the date of enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990), unless the Administrator determines that a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental impact.” Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves our use of a two-step process for developing standards to address any residual risk and our interpretation of “ample margin of safety” developed in the “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants” (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). To date, EPA has conducted CAA 112(d)(6) technology reviews and promulgated residual risk standards for eight (Halogenated Solvents will be promulgated in April 2007) individual NESHAP and their associated source categories. In an effort to streamline this process for the remaining source categories, EPA plans to address residual risk and perform a technology review for several source categories in one combined effort. While the standard review and development process will be streamlined, each source category will be assessed independently and decisions on the level of any standards will be made individually for each source category. The first set of MACT source categories for which this streamlined process will be undertaken includes the 50 source categories listed in Table 2, all of which have MACT compliance dates of 2002 and earlier. (Except for the Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills source category, which has a compliance date of January 2004, these facilities are believed to be in compliance with MACT as of 2002, so the NEI reflects their post-MACT compliance emissions.) This action is referred to as Phase II of the Risk and Technology Review

(RTR)process (where the first eight individual NESHAP comprise Phase I). Other MACT standards will be reviewed in the future. While the initial phases of data compilation and EPA internal review processes have been completed for each of the 50 source categories included in RTR Phase II, the source categories have been divided into smaller groups to ease the burden on public commenters and EPA's review of public comments and the rulemaking processes. Table 2 shows the source categories EPA anticipates including in each group of the RTR Phase II. Table 2.—Source Categories and Corresponding NAICS and MACT Codes Included in Risk and Technology Review Phase II RTR Phase II group Source category name NAICS codes MACT code 1 Acetal Resins Production 325211 1301 Hydrogen Fluoride Production 325120 1409 Group I Polymers and Resins: Butyl Rubber Production 325212 1307 Ethylene-Propylene Rubber Production 325212 1313 Polysulfide Rubber Production 325212 1332 Neoprene Production 325212 1320 Group II Polymers and Resins: Epoxy Resins Production 325211 1312 Non-Nylon Polyamides Production 325211 1322 2 Mineral Wool Production 327993 409 Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 336411 701 Marine Tank Vessel Loading 4883 603 Natural Gas Transmission & Storage 486210 504 Oil and Natural Gas Production 211 501 Petroleum Refineries 32411 503 Pharmaceuticals Production 3254 1201 Group I Polymers and Resins: Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production 325212 1311 Hypalon( TM ) Production 325212 1315 Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production 325212 1321 Polybutadiene Rubber Production 325212 1325 Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production 325212 1339 Group IV Polymers and Resins: Acrylic-Butadiene-Styrene Production 325211 1302 2 Group IV Polymers and Resins: Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production 325211 1317 Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene Production 325211 1318 Nitrile Resins Production 325211 1342 Polyethylene Terephthalate Production 325211 1328 Polystyrene Production 325211 1331 Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production 325211 1338 Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 331312 201 Printing and Publishing Industry 32311 714 Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 336611 715 Other Acrylic/Modacrylic Fibers 325222 1001 Chromium Electroplating: Chromic Acid Anodizing 332813 1607 Decorative Chromium Electroplating 332813 1610 Hard Chromium Electroplating 332813 1615 Ferroalloys Production 331112 304 Flexible Polyurethane Foam 326150 1314 Other Kraft, Sulfite, Semi-chemical, Soda Pulping Processes and Mechanical, Secondary Fiber, and Non-wood Pulping Processes and Papermaking Systems: Pulp and Paper Production 3221 1626-1 Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills: Pulp and Paper Production 3221 1626-2 Off-site Waste and Recovery 562 806 Phosphate Fertilizer Production 325312 1410 Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 325312 1411 Polycarbonates Production 325199 1326 Polyether Polyols Production 325199 1625 Portland Cement Manufacturing 3273 410 Primary Lead Smelting 331419 204 Publicly Owned Treatment Works 221320 803 Secondary Aluminum Production 331314 202 Secondary Lead Smelting 331492 205 Steel Pickling-HCl Process 331111 310 Wood Furniture Manufacturing 337122 716 Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 327993 412 This ANPRM addresses only the 22 source categories included in Group 2. As initial analyses for each source category included in Group 1 of the RTR Phase II indicate that estimated health risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a facility in the source category meet levels the Agency considers to be without appreciable health risk and it is improbable that these source categories emit pollutants that would cause adverse environmental effects, we plan to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)in the **Federal Register** for the 8 source categories in Group 1 without previously issuing an ANPRM. The remaining source categories were split into two groups. Group 2 is generally comprised of source categories with earlier deadlines, fewer multipathway concerns, and categories that the Agency believes will require fewer resources to complete. The source categories in the other group generally have later deadlines and more multipathway concerns. Additional notices will be published addressing the other source categories in the future. II. What approach is EPA taking for the Risk and Technology Review? A. What is the approach we are taking to address residual risk for the Group 2 source categories? We plan to follow the same general process in revising NESHAP to address residual risk for each of Group 2 source categories listed in the table above. * This general approach includes the following primary steps * : 1. Compile and review (and update with facility-specific data collected by EPA in some cases) readily available source category emissions data from the 2002 NEI. 2. For each group of source categories, conduct preliminary evaluations to identify key HAP and data anomalies. 3. Make emissions and other modeling input data, along with a list of the identified key HAP and data anomalies, available for public comment through an ANPRM. 4. Reconcile and update emissions and other modeling input data, based on comments received, and conduct a risk assessment for each category. 5. Develop and propose CAA section 112(f)(2) residual risk and CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review standard(s) as appropriate. 6. Address comments from the proposal(s) and promulgate CAA section 112(f)(2) residual risk and CAA 112(d)(6) technology standard(s), where necessary. An independent scientific peer consultation is currently underway to review the approach for assessing residual risk for the source categories included in the RTR Phase II. This peer consultation will be conducted by a panel of EPA's Science Advisory Board, and will focus on:

(1)The source of emissions and other modeling data and the approach for refining this data,

(2)the analytical approach for quantifying and characterizing human and environmental exposures and risks, and

(3)the types of results that will be generated and the format for the characterization of assessment results. The process outlined above for the 22 source categories included in Group 2 of the RTR Phase II is described in more detail in the following discussion. B. What data were compiled and reviewed? In the first step of this process, we used the 2002 NEI Final Version 1 (made publicly available on February 26, 2006) as a starting point and compiled emissions information for each source category and performed an internal engineering review of these data (referred to hereafter as “initial NEI data”). The primary data attributes evaluated in this review included:

(1)Facility representation in each source category (i.e., we ensured that source categories accurately included facilities making the products characteristic of the source categories), and

(2)appropriateness of facility emissions, in both the inclusion of the appropriate HAP, and in the magnitude of those HAP emissions. In cases where better data were known to exist for a particular source category, that information was integrated into the data set for that source category. These reviewed and integrated data sets for each source category are referred to hereafter as the “ANPRM data sets.” C. What are the steps planned before proposing NESHAP to address residual risk? In this ANPRM, we are seeking public review and comment on the emissions and other model input data included in the ANPRM data sets for the source categories included in Group 2 of the RTR Phase II. These source categories are listed in Table 1. We will evaluate the comments and data corrections received in response to this ANPRM and update the data for the source categories in Group 2, as appropriate. In accordance with the methodologies described in the Residual Risk Report to Congress, we will then use the revised model input data sets for these source categories (referred to as the notice of proposed rulemaking, or NPRM, data sets) in an analysis of the inhalation risks. The Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector HEM-3 version 1.1.0) will be used to perform this modeling. The HEM-3 model performs three main operations: dispersion modeling, estimation of population exposure, and estimation of human health risks. The dispersion model used by HEM-3 is AERMOD, which is one of EPA's preferred models for assessing pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities. 1 We will also perform a screening assessment of potential adverse environmental effects using these updated data. 1 Environmental Protection Agency. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005). We will also evaluate the NPRM data sets for each of the 22 source categories for potential non-inhalation human health risks, specifically through the presence of emissions of any persistent and bioaccumulative

(PB)HAP, all of which are listed in Table 3 below. 2 For source categories that also carry a potential for non-inhalation human health risks, in addition to analyses to estimate risks from inhalation of emissions, we will also estimate risks using refined models capable of addressing multi-pathway exposures (i.e., exposures due to ingestion or dermal exposures). The models selected for this exercise (primarily, we will use the EPA's Total Risk Integrated Modeling system, or TRIM, a refined multi-pathway pollutant fate and transport model) will also be used to produce estimates of pollutant concentrations in the surrounding environment, which will be used in the quantitative assessment of environmental risks from these chemicals. The 22 source categories are not expected to have multi-pathway issues. 2 Environmental Protection Agency. Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library, Volume I. EPA-453K-04-001A. *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html.* Table 3.—Persistent and Bioaccumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants (PB HAP) Cadmium compounds Chlordane Chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans DDE Heptachlor Hexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers) Hexachlorobenzene Lead compounds Mercury compounds Methoxychlor Polychlorinated biphenyls Polycyclic Organic Matter

(POM)Toxaphene Trifluralin D. How will we develop proposed NESHAP to address residual risk? We will provide a more detailed discussion of the residual risk methodology in the Group 2 NPRM. Therefore, after the risk assessments for Group 2 are complete, the results will be examined to determine whether any source category meets certain criteria where the Agency considers the risk to not be a problem (“low risk”). The “low risk” criteria we intend to consider include: Lifetime cancer risk to the individual most exposed is less than 1-in-1 million, chronic non-cancer risk to the individual most exposed is less than a target-organ-specific hazard index of 1, air concentrations estimated for acute exposures scenarios are less than health-protective reference levels, and there is no potential for significant and widespread adverse environmental effect. For Group 2 source categories in which all facilities meet these “low risk” criteria, EPA will not propose further regulation under CAA section 112(f). For source categories that are not determined to be low risk, a two-step standard development process will be applied, consistent with CAA section 112(f) and with our previously articulated approach for developing NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(f). This approach was described in the final NESHAP addressing residual risk for coke ovens (58 FR 57898, October 27, 1993). In the first step of this approach, modeled source category risks will be evaluated to determine if they are “acceptable.” The term “acceptable,” in reference to residual risks is not specifically defined in the CAA, but CAA section 112(f)(2) refers positively to the interpretation of this term in the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The preamble to the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) stated that a lifetime maximum individual excess cancer risk of approximately 100-in-1 million “should ordinarily be the upper-end of the range of acceptability.” However, this is not a rigid line of acceptability, and other factors will be considered, such as the number of people exposed at various risk levels, the overall incidence of cancer and other serious health effects, assumptions and uncertainties associated with the risk analysis (including the 70 year exposure assumption), and the weight of evidence for human health effects. In the second step of this standard development process, we will develop risk-reduction regulatory alternatives and decide upon the level of the standard for each source category, considering the requirements necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect human health, as required by CAA section 112(f)(2). To develop the regulatory alternatives, we will conduct various analyses, including an assessment of the impacts of each regulatory alternative. The impacts will include HAP emission reductions, other environmental impacts, costs, economics, small business impacts, reduction in maximum risks to individuals most exposed, reductions in chronic and acute risks to populations at various risk levels, and reductions in cancer incidence. We will assess these alternatives, decide upon the level of the standard, and publish a NPRM in the **Federal Register** to propose any regulatory changes for the individual standards codified in 40 CFR part 63 for each source category. As we undertake these rulemaking proposals, we will also consider developments in pollution control in each source category and the costs of potentially stricter standards reflecting those developments, to fulfill the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6). Where there have been developments in practices, processes, and control technologies, we will consider relevant factors, such as costs, potential emissions reductions, and health and environmental risk in a determination of what, if any, further controls are necessary. Where appropriate, we will develop regulatory alternatives, assess the impacts of those alternatives, and decide upon the level of the standard(s). We plan to propose any CAA section 112(d)(6) regulatory changes for the individual standards codified in 40 CFR part 63 for each source category in the same **Federal Register** notice proposing action addressing residual risk. E. When will the NESHAP be proposed and promulgated? Our current goal is to propose the decisions resulting from both CAA section 112(f) (residual risk) and CAA section 112(d)(6) (technology review) efforts, including the proposal of any standards for each of the 21 source categories in Group 2, in the Fall of 2007. Proposal of any standards for the petroleum refineries source category will occur by the court-ordered deadline of August 22, 2007. In addition to proposing any new residual risk or technology-based standards, we will announce any decisions not to promulgate residual risk standards for “low risk” source categories or source categories for which the current standards protect public health with an ample margin of safety and any decisions not to promulgate additional technology-based standards. After the close of the comment period on the proposed standard(s), we will review and perform any analyses and data gathering necessary to address the comments, prepare responses, and make changes to the proposed standards, as necessary. We anticipate the final standards will be published in the **Federal Register** in the summer of 2008. III. What is the purpose of this ANPRM? The primary purpose of today's ANPRM is to request public comments on the emissions and other model input data included in the ANPRM data sets for the 22 source categories included in Group 2 of the RTR Phase II. These data are provided in an updatable form on the RTR Web page at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.* We provide detail in section VII below on how to submit updates and corrections to this information. Following review of comments received, we will update the data as appropriate, and model to generate estimates of residual risk that we will use as the basis for our proposed decisions on whether to develop standards to address residual risk for each source category. Section V lists the general items for which we are seeking comment for all source categories. In addition, we note information unique to each source category for which we are requesting technical corrections or updates in the source category specific sections within section IV of this ANPRM. We note that emissions data cannot be withheld from disclosure as CBI pursuant to section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code. EPA's policy regarding the categories of information that it considers to be “emissions data” is set forth in a **Federal Register** notice dated February 14, 1991 (56 FR 7042). A copy of that notice has been placed in the docket. IV. What data are in the ANPRM data sets for each source category? As mentioned in Section II of this ANPRM, the 2002 NEI is the primary data source used in creating the ANPRM data sets for each source category. The data extracted from the NEI for inclusion in the ANPRM data sets included general facility information, such as company name, plant name, and facility identification codes; emissions data, including speciated HAP emissions data; emissions release characteristics, including stack height, stack diameter, and the emissions stream exit temperature and velocity; and location information, including the latitude/longitude coordinates of emissions release locations. For more information on the 2002 NEI, please visit our 2002 NEI Web page at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html.* For the most part, the emissions values in the ANPRM data set represent actual emission levels. Where actual emissions data is not already included, we request that commenters provide such data. Due to the high uncertainty of the dioxin/furan emissions information submitted during the inventory development process, dioxin/furan emissions were not included in the 2002 NEI, and no emissions of these compounds are included in the ANPRM data sets. As we update the ANPRM data set, we will include dioxin/furan emissions, based on the best information available to EPA at that time. These data may include information EPA has gathered on dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. The EPA National Center for Environmental Assessment Web site, *http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=159286* , contains links to these data. In creating the ANPRM data sets for each source category, we started with the February 2006 version of the 2002 NEI. We first conducted a detailed review of the facilities that were included in the NEI and added or removed facilities to make the data as representative of the overall source category as possible. We then reviewed emissions, release characteristics, and other model input data. We began by retrieving all records in the 2002 NEI based solely on MACT source category designations, which are fields in the NEI that identify the MACT source category that applies to each emission point. This MACT source category is assigned by a variety of methods. In some cases, the State or local agency that provided the data to EPA identified the MACT category. Since State and local agencies are aware of the regulations that apply to facilities, we have high confidence in MACT category designations provided by a State or local agency. In other cases, EPA staff responsible for developing the MACT standards provided input to populate the MACT source category code fields. As these individuals have knowledge of the source category for which they are accessing and using the NEI data, the confidence in these designations is also high. Most of the MACT source category code designations, however, are assigned based on Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), NAICS, or Source Classification Code

(SCC)defaults. There is often considerable uncertainty associated with these designations. One of the first things we reviewed in the NEI data was the list of facilities included for each source category. For some source categories, we are reasonably confident that we know the names of the facilities and their exact locations. In these cases, we compared the “known” lists of facilities to the facilities in the NEI. We removed the MACT source category designation for facilities not on the known list. If facilities on the known lists were not in the data for the source categories, we searched the NEI for these facilities. Quite often, they were in the 2002 NEI, but had different, and presumably incorrect, MACT source category designations. These facilities were added to the data set for the category and the MACT source category codes were re-designated accordingly. For large facilities with multiple processes that represent multiple MACT source categories, it was not always straightforward to separate the processes by source category. In these cases, we used a variety of approaches to separate the processes and emission points into source categories. Examples of the criteria used to separate processes and emissions into source categories include SCC, SIC codes, and pollutants emitted. Situations where such source category separation decisions were made are highlighted in the source-category discussions later in this section and detailed in the files available for download on the RTR Web page at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.* We are asking specifically for comment on how we separated processes and emission points by source category at these large integrated facilities. For categories with large numbers of facilities for which we do not have complete lists of known facilities, we conducted more general evaluations of the facilities in the data sets. These evaluations included examining the company names, SIC, NAICS, and SCC, and adding or removing facilities based on these criteria. We will be evaluating residual risk for all facilities and emission sources that are in the 22 source categories included in Group 2 of the RTR Phase II. In some instances, the ANPRM data sets may include emission points that are part of the source category but are not subject to the MACT standard for that source category. Emissions from these sources will be considered in our future regulatory decisions. In addition, the ANPRM data sets, for most source categories, include all major and area sources (facilities) in the 2002 NEI that have processes related to the specific source category. After finalizing the facility lists for each source category, we conducted a general review of the emissions and other data included in the ANPRM data sets to identify data anomalies that could affect the risk estimates. With a few exceptions, we did not change the data or include additional data. For the following source categories, the 2002 NEI was supplemented with additional data provided by industry to create the ANPRM data sets: • Petroleum Refineries • Shipbuilding and Ship Repair • Source categories regulated by the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT: ○ Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production ○ Hypalon TM Production ○ Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production ○ Polybutadiene Rubber Production ○ Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production The addition of these data, as well as other data changes made, are described in the source-category specific sections below. We note that because these changes are included in the ANPRM data sets, these data sets do not exactly match the February 2006 version of the 2002 NEI data available on our NEI Web site— *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html.* When comments are received via this ANPRM and incorporated into the source category-specific ANPRM data sets, these revisions will then also be incorporated into the 2002 NEI and made publicly available through the NEI Web site in Final Version 2.1. Following are sections discussing the data for individual source categories. These discussions provide an overview of the source category, a brief summary of the ANPRM data sets, and a mention of the types of major anomalies associated with the data. Summary reports for each of the source categories, which contain considerable detail on the information summarized below, including the carcinogenic HAP and HAP with adverse health effects other than cancer, are available on the RTR Web page at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.* We especially encourage you to review the specific anomalies raised in these reports and to provide data to help reduce these anomalies. 1. Mineral Wool Production The mineral wool production source category includes facilities that produce mineral wool, which is a fibrous, glassy substance made from natural rock (such as basalt), blast furnace slag, or other similar materials and consisting of silicate fibers. In the mineral wool manufacturing process, rock and/or blast furnace slag and other raw materials (e.g., gravel) are melted in a furnace (cupola) using coke as fuel. The molten material is then formed into fiber. Mineral wool is manufactured as either a “bonded” product that incorporates a binder to increase structural rigidity or a less rigid “nonbonded” product. Emission sources from mineral wool manufacturing facilities include the cupola furnace where the mineral charge is melted; a blow chamber, in which air or a binder is drawn over the fibers, forming them into a screen; a curing oven that bonds the fibers (for bonded products); and a cooling oven. The primary HAP expected to be emitted during the mineral wool manufacturing process are metals, including antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, manganese, nickel, lead, and selenium that are emitted from the cupola, and gaseous HAP, including formaldehyde, carbonyl sulfide, and phenol, that result from the vaporization of the binder. The ANPRM data set for this source category includes information for 12 facilities, 11 of which are classified as major sources in the NEI. Based on our previous estimates of the number of facilities in the mineral wool source category, this data set represents between 75 and 90 percent of the industry. The HAP emitted in largest quantities from these facilities is carbonyl sulfide, which accounts for over 84 percent of the total HAP emissions by mass from the data set. Formaldehyde, triethylamine, and phenol are also emitted in large quantities. Several PB HAP are reported in the data set for the mineral wool manufacturing source category, including lead, cadmium, and mercury compounds. The major anomalies associated with the data set for this source category include the HAP emitted and the speciation of chromium and mercury emissions. Some HAP expected (e.g., lead, manganese, cadmium, chromium, nickel, etc.) are not included for all the facilities in the data set, and some that are not expected (e.g., benzene and triethylamine) are reported from a few facilities. 2. Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities The aerospace manufacturing and rework source category includes all facilities that manufacture aerospace vehicles and/or vehicle components and all facilities that rework or repair these items. An aerospace vehicle or component is any fabricated, processed, or assembled set of parts or complete unit of any aircraft including, but not limited to, airplanes, helicopters, missiles, rockets, and space vehicles. Organic and inorganic HAP emissions in aerospace facilities originate from cleaning, primer application, topcoat application, paint stripping, chemical milling maskant application, and waste handling and storage. The HAP expected to be emitted by aerospace facilities include chromium, cadmium, methylene chloride, toluene, xylene, ethylene glycol, and glycol ethers. For emissions reported generically as “chromium” or “chromium and compounds,” emissions are speciated for this source category as 75 percent “chromium

(III)compounds” and 25 percent “chromium

(VI)compounds.” This speciation is based on source category-specific information provided by the aerospace industry. (Typically, a 66 percent “chromium

(III)compounds” and 34 percent “chromium

(VI)compounds” is used as a default speciation profile based on the approach adopted by the 1996 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment, or NATA.) We encourage commenters to review this assumption and provide site-specific chromium

(VI)and chromium

(III)data where possible. The ANPRM data set for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework source category includes information for 301 facilities, 169 of which are classified as major sources in the NEI. Based on our previous estimates of the number of facilities in the aerospace source category, the ANPRM data set includes data for about 10 percent of the industry. Methyl chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride account for approximately 80 percent of the mass of HAP emitted across the 301 facilities in the ANPRM dataset. The major anomalies associated with the data set for this source category include the number of facilities in the source category, the HAP emitted, and the speciation of chromium. Some HAP expected to be reported (chromium, nickel, and hexamethylene diisocyanate) are not included for all the facilities in the data set. 3. Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations Marine tank vessel loading operations are facilities that load and unload liquid commodities in bulk, such as crude oil, gasoline and other fuels, and some chemicals and solvent mixtures. The cargo is pumped from the terminal's large, above-ground storage tanks through a network of pipes and into a storage compartment

(tank)on the vessel. Most marine tank vessel loading operations are associated with petroleum refineries, synthetic organic chemical manufacturers, or are independent terminals. The major HAP emission points for marine vessel loading operations include open tank hatches and overhead vent systems. Other possible emission points are hatch covers or domes, pressure-vacuum relief valves, seals, and vents. Emissions may also occur during ballasting (i.e., the process of drawing ballast as water into a cargo hold). The primary HAP expected to be emitted from marine vessel loading operations depend on the material being loaded, but are generally expected to be benzene, hexane, toluene, xylene compounds, ethyl benzene, and cumene. The ANPRM data set for the marine tank vessel loading operations source category includes information for 126 facilities, all of which are classified as major sources in the NEI. Based on our previous estimates of the number of facilities in this source category, the ANPRM data set includes data for more than were expected to be subject to the MACT (which was estimated to be 40 at time of the MACT promulgation) and less than the estimated number of existing facilities based on Army Corps of Engineers estimates (700). In the ANPRM data set, the HAP emitted in largest quantities from these 126 sources are hexane, methanol, toluene, xylene compounds, and benzene, which collectively accounts for nearly 75 percent of the total HAP emitted. The major anomalies associated with the data set for this source category include the number of facilities in the source category and the emission release parameters (of which nearly all are NEI default values). 4. Natural Gas Transmission and Storage The natural gas transmission and storage source category comprises the pipelines, facilities, and equipment used to transport and store natural gas products (hydrocarbon liquids and gases). Pipeline transport of natural gas products is covered by this category to either the point of custody transfer for the oil and natural gas production source category or the point of delivery to the local distribution company or final end user of the natural gas if no local distribution company is present. Emissions of HAP from the natural gas transmission and storage category come from glycol dehydration unit reboiler vents, other process vents, storage vessels with flash emissions, pipeline pigging and storage of pipeline pigging wastes, combustion sources, and equipment leaks. The major HAP expected to be emitted by the natural gas transmission and storage source category are hexane, toluene, benzene, mixed xylenes, formaldehyde, and glycol ethers. Our previous estimates identified seven natural gas transmission and storage facilities that were major sources. The ANPRM data set for the natural gas transmission and storage source category includes information for 123 facilities, 78 of which are classified as major sources in the NEI. In the ANPRM data set, the HAP emitted in largest quantities from natural gas transmission and storage facilities are hexane, toluene, benzene, and mixed xylenes and these emissions collectively account for over 75 percent of the total HAP emissions from this source category. One major anomaly associated with the data set for this source category is the number of facilities identified in the ANPRM data set compared to the number of facilities previously identified for this source category (i.e., there appear to be more facilities identified as natural gas transmission and storage facilities in the ANPRM data set than previously identified). 5. Oil and Natural Gas Production The Oil and Natural Gas Production source category includes facilities involved in the recovery and treatment of hydrocarbon liquids and gases from oil and natural gas production wells. Components of these facilities include glycol dehydration units, condensate tank batteries, and other tanks and equipment present at natural gas processing plants. The primary HAP emissions from oil and natural gas production facilities occur via the glycol dehydration reboiler vents, other process vents, storage vessels, and equipment leaks. The major HAP expected to be emitted by the oil and natural gas production source category are xylenes, toluene, hexane, and ethyl benzene. The ANPRM data set for the oil and natural gas production source category includes information for 2,824 facilities, of which 909 facilities are classified as major sources in the NEI. Our previous estimates identified 440 major sources and 2,200 area sources. In the ANPRM data set, the HAP emitted in the greatest amounts are carbonyl sulfide, hexane, toluene, benzene, and xylenes formaldehyde, ethyl benzene, ethylene glycol, and methanol. These HAP collectively account for over 99 percent of the total HAP emissions for this source category. There are twelve PB HAP reported in the data set for the Oil and Natural Gas Production source category, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), lead, dibenzofuran, and cadmium. For reported emissions of POM chemicals, emissions are grouped into one of seven POM categories—POM 71002 (16-PAH, PAH total, POM); POM 72002 (2-Chloronaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benzo(c)phenanthrene, Benzo[e]Pyrene, Benzo[g,h,i,]Perylene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Perylene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene); POM 73002 (7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]Anthracene); POM 74002 (3-Methylcholanthrene); POM 75002 (5-Methylchrysene, Benzo[a]Pyrene, Dibenzo[a,h]Anthracene); POM 76002 (B[j]Fluoranthen, Benz[a]Anthracene, Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]Pyrene); and POM 77002 (Chrysene). We encourage commenters to provide data on the individual chemical(s) that make up the POM. The major anomalies associated with the data set for this source category include the number of facilities in the source category, the specific HAP emitted by individual facilities, and default plant coordinates. The ANPRM data set contains over 2,800 facilities and this number is more than expected. The ANPRM data set also contains emissions of some HAP that are expected to be emitted from all facilities in the category (e.g., xylenes, hexane, toluene, and ethyl benzene), but are only emitted from a small percentage of facilities. Conversely, the HAP with the largest quantity of emissions in the ANPRM data set, carbonyl sulfide, is not expected to be emitted from facilities in this source category. In addition, a significant percentage (40 percent) of the coordinates in the ANPRM data set are default coordinates. 6. Petroleum Refineries Petroleum refineries are facilities engaged in refining and producing products made from crude oil or unfinished petroleum derivatives. EPA listed two separate Petroleum Refinery source categories, both of which include any facility engaged in producing gasoline, naphtha, kerosene, jet fuels, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or other products from crude oil or unfinished petroleum derivatives. The Petroleum Refineries—Catalytic Cracking (Fluid and Other) Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Plant Units source category includes the following process units: catalytic cracking (fluid and other) units, catalytic reforming units, and sulfur plant units (MACT II). The second source category, Petroleum Refineries—Other Sources Not Distinctly Listed, includes the process units not listed in the first category including, but not limited to, thermal cracking, vacuum distillation, crude distillation, hydrotreating, hydrorefining, isomerization, polymerization, lube oil processing, and hydrogen production (MACT I). Because the MACT standard for the “Other Sources Not Distinctly Listed” source category (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU) was promulgated first (60 FR 43244, August 18, 1995), it is commonly referred to as Petroleum Refineries MACT I. Only the units in the “Other Sources Not Distinctly Listed” category, and regulated by the MACT 1 standards, are being addressed in RTR Phase II. These units include emissions sources classified under SIC 2911 located at petroleum refineries, including: petroleum refinery process units, storage vessels, transfer racks, wastewater streams, and equipment leaks. The units and emissions associated with catalytic cracking, catalytic reforming, and sulfur plants, which are all regulated by MACT 2 standards, will be investigated in future RTR efforts. The specific HAP emitted by petroleum refineries varies by facility and process operations but can include a variety of organic and inorganic compounds and metals. Emissions originate from various process vents, storage vessels, wastewater streams, loading racks, marine tank vessel loading operations, and equipment leaks associated with refining facilities. Process vents, wastewater streams, and storage vessels generally emit organic HAP. The primary HAP expected to be emitted from the MACT 1 petroleum refining sources include benzene, toluene, and ethyl benzene, but can also include acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, xylene, carbonyl sulfide, carbon disulfide, hydrogen chloride, chlorine and other HAP. The ANPRM dataset for this source category contains 175 refineries, of which 124 are classified as major sources. In conjunction with previous efforts for this source category, the industry had collected and submitted up-to-date benzene emissions data for 23 refineries. The industry and EPA consider these data to be the most accurate benzene emissions data available for petroleum refineries. For these 23 refineries, EPA replaced all benzene emissions data in the NEI with these updated industry data. The emissions of other HAP that were in the NEI for these 23 refineries were not removed. For the purpose of these analyses, the ANPRM data set for these 23 facilities was kept separate from the ANPRM data set for the remaining 152 refineries. Organic chemicals account for the majority of the total mass of HAP emitted by petroleum refinery sources, with toluene, hexane, mixed and individual isomers of xylenes, benzene, methanol, methyl tert-butyl ether, and ethyl benzene accounting for about 90 percent of the HAP mass emitted across the both data sets. Of the 152 refineries for which industry did not supply benzene emissions data, benzene emissions were reported for 137 refineries. A range of PB HAP emissions are reported in the ANPRM datasets, including various PAH and several metals (including lead and lead compounds, cadmium and cadmium compounds, mercury and mercury compounds). For reported emissions of POM chemicals, emissions are grouped into one of seven POM categories. We encourage commenters to provide the individual chemical(s) that make up the POM. The major anomalies associated with the data sets for this source category include specific HAP emitted by individual facilities, along with release characteristics and coordinates for those refineries for which industry did not provide updated data. The data sets contain emissions of several metal HAP, which are expected to be more likely to be emitted from MACT 2 sources, not MACT 1. Also, it appears that the benzene emissions for the 23 facilities for which the industry supplied new data are significantly higher than the benzene emissions in the NEI for the other refineries. Nearly all of the emissions release parameters (71 percent of stack height, 96 percent of stack diameter, 97 percent of emissions exit temperature, and 97 percent of emissions exit velocity values) for the refineries for which no new data were provided are default values in the NEI and the ANPRM data set. Finally, a significant percentage (40 percent) of the coordinates in the data set for which new data were not provided are defaulted, some based on county or zip code centroids. 7. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing The pharmaceutical manufacturing process consists of chemical production operations that produce drugs and medication. These operations include chemical synthesis (deriving a drug's active ingredient) and chemical formulation (producing a drug in its final form). During pharmaceutical manufacturing operations, HAP emissions can occur from breathing and withdrawal losses from chemical storage tanks, venting of process vessels, leaks from piping and equipment used to transfer HAP compounds (equipment leaks), and volatilization of HAP from wastewater streams. While a wide variety of HAP can be emitted from pharmaceutical manufacturing processes, expected HAP include methylene chloride, methanol, N,N-dimethylformamide, toluene and hydrochloric acid. When the NESHAP for this category was finalized in 1998, EPA estimated that there were approximately 101 pharmaceutical manufacturing operations subject to the MACT regulations. The ANPRM data set for pharmaceutical manufacturing includes 222 facilities, 107 of which are classified as major sources in the NEI. The HAP emitted in largest quantities from these sources are methanol, methylene chloride, and toluene. Emissions of these three HAP account for over 80 percent of the mass of all HAP emitted across all 222 facilities. PB HAP emissions in the ANPRM data set for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing source category include lead, mercury, and cadmium compounds as well as a range of PAH. For reported emissions of POM chemicals, emissions are grouped into of one of seven POM categories. We encourage commenters to provide the individual chemical(s) that make up the POM. For emissions reported generically as “chromium” or “chromium and compounds,” emissions are speciated for this source category as 66 percent “chromium

(III)compounds” and 34 percent “chromium

(VI)compounds.” We encourage commenters to review this assumption and provide specific chromium

(VI)and chromium

(III)data where possible. The major anomalies associated with the data set for this source category are related to the HAP emitted. While methylene chloride, NN-dimethylformamide, toluene, and hydrochloric acid are expected to be emitted by facilities in this source category, these emissions were not reported for many of the facilities. Also, HAP not expected to be emitted from this source category (e.g., ethylene oxide, p-dioxane, naphthalene, ethylene dichloride, arsenic, hydrazine, POM, and chromium

(IV)compounds) are reported for eight or fewer facilities. 8. Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production Epichlorohydrin elastomers are widely used in the automotive industry. The main epichlorohydrin elastomers are polyepichlorohydrin, epi-ethylene oxide

(EO)copolymer, epi-allyl glycidyl ether

(AGE)copolymer, and epi-EO-AGE terpolymer. Sources of HAP emissions for the Epichlorohydrin Elastomer source category include raw material storage vessels, front-end process vents, back-end process operations, wastewater operations, and equipment leaks. The majority of the emissions come from equipment leaks. The process “front-end” includes pre-polymerization, reaction, stripping, and material recovery operations; and the process “back-end” includes all operations after stripping (predominately drying and finishing). The primary HAP emitted during production are epichlorohydrin and toluene. The ANPRM data set for the Epichlorohydrin source category includes information for one facility, which is classified as a major source in the NEI. Our previous estimate of the number of facilities in the Epichlorohydrin source category was also one, therefore we believe the ANPRM data set includes data for the entire industry. In conjunction with previous efforts for this source category, the industry had collected and submitted up-to-date emissions and emissions release characteristic data for this facility. The industry and EPA consider these data to be the most accurate emissions and emissions release characteristic data available for the epichlorohydrin elastomers production processes at this facility. EPA replaced all epichlorohydrin elastomers production emissions and emissions release characteristic data in the NEI with the updated industry data for this facility. In the ANPRM data set, toluene is emitted in the greatest quantity and accounts for about 99 percent of the total emissions. 9. Hypalon TM Production Hypalon TM , or chlorosulfonated polyethylene, is a synthetic rubber produced by reacting polyethylene with chloric and sulfur dioxide, transforming the thermoplastic polyethylene into a vulcanized elastomer. The reaction is conducted in a solvent reaction medium containing carbon tetrachloride. Sources of HAP emissions include raw material storage vessels, front-end process vents, back-end process operations, and equipment leaks. The majority of the emissions come from front-end process vents. The process “front-end” includes pre-polymerization, reaction, stripping, and material recovery operations; and the process “back-end” includes all operations after stripping (predominately drying and finishing). The primary HAP emitted during production are carbon tetrachloride and chloroform. The ANPRM data set for the Hypalon TM resins source category includes information for one facility, which is classified as a major source in the NEI. Our previous estimate of the number of facilities in the Hypalon TM source category was also one, therefore we believe the ANPRM data set includes data for the entire industry. In conjunction with previous efforts for this source category, the industry had collected and submitted up-to-date emissions and emissions release characteristic data for this facility. The industry and EPA consider these data to be the most accurate emissions and emissions release characteristic data available for the Hypalon TM production processes at this facility. EPA replaced all Hypalon TM production emissions and emissions release characteristic data in the NEI with the updated industry data for this facility. In the ANPRM data set, carbon tetrachloride and chloroform are emitted in the greatest amounts and account for nearly all of the emissions. 10. Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production Nitrile butadiene rubber is a copolymer of 1,3-butadiene and acrylonitrile, and the Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production source category includes any facility that polymerizes 1,3-butadiene and acrylonitrile. Depending on its specific composition, nitrile butadiene rubber can be resistant to oil and chemicals, a property that facilitates its use in disposable gloves, hoses, seals, and a variety of automotive applications. The drying and finishing steps that make up the back-end processes are significant sources of HAP emissions. Other sources of HAP emissions include raw material storage vessels, front-end process vents, wastewater operations, and equipment leaks. The primary HAP emitted during production are acrylonitrile, 1,3-butadiene, and styrene. The ANPRM data set for the Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production source category includes five facilities, two of which are classified as major sources. Based on our previous estimates of the number of facilities in the source category, the ANPRM data set includes data for the entire industry. In conjunction with previous efforts for this source category, the industry had collected and submitted up-to-date emissions and emissions release characteristic data for three of these five facilities. The industry and EPA consider these data to be the most accurate emissions and emissions release characteristic data available for the nitrile butadiene rubber production processes at these facilities. For these three facilities, EPA replaced all nitrile butadiene rubber production emissions and emissions release characteristic data in the NEI with these updated industry data. In the ANPRM data set, styrene, 1,3-butadiene, and acrylonitrile are emitted in the largest quantities, accounting for 42 percent, 21 percent, and 33 percent of the total source category emissions, respectively. A major anomaly associated with the data set for this source category is that one HAP expected to be reported by each facility (1,3-butadiene) is not included in the data for all the facilities. 11. Polybutadiene Rubber Production Polybutadiene rubber is a homopolymer of 1,3-butadiene, and the Polybutadiene Rubber Production source category includes any facility that polymerizes 1,3-butadiene. Most of the polybutadiene rubber manufactured in the United States is used in the production of tires in the construction of the tread and sidewalls. Sources of HAP emissions include raw material storage vessels, front-end process vents, back-end process operations, wastewater operations, and equipment leaks. The majority of the emissions come from back-end process operations, which are predominately drying and finishing. The primary HAP emitted during production include hexane, 1,3-butadiene, styrene, and toluene. The ANPRM data set for the Polybutadiene Rubber Production source category includes information for five facilities, each of which are classified as major sources in the NEI. Based on our previous estimates of the number of facilities in the Polybutadiene Rubber Production source category, the ANPRM data set includes data for the entire industry. In conjunction with previous efforts for this source category, the industry had collected and submitted up-to-date emissions and emissions release characteristic data for each of these five facilities. The industry and EPA consider these data to be the most accurate emissions and emissions release characteristic data available for the polybutadiene rubber production processes at these facilities. For these five facilities, EPA replaced all polybutadiene rubber production emissions and emissions release characteristic data in the NEI with these updated industry data. In the ANPRM data set, hexane and toluene are emitted in the greatest amounts and account for about 74 and 19 percent of the total emissions, respectively. 12. Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production The Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production source category includes any facility that manufactures copolymers consisting of styrene and butadiene monomer units. This source category is divided into three subcategories due to technical process and HAP emission differences:

(1)The production of styrene-butadiene rubber by emulsion,

(2)the production of styrene-butadiene rubber by solution, and

(3)the production of latex. Styrene-butadiene rubber is coagulated and dried, while latex is not. For both styrene-butadiene rubber processes, the monomers used are styrene and butadiene; either process can be conducted as a batch or a continuous process. Sources of HAP emissions for the emulsion subcategory include raw material storage vessels, front-end process vents, back-end process operations, wastewater operations, and equipment leaks. Most of the emissions come from back-end process operations, which are predominately drying and finishing. The primary HAP emitted by emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber production are styrene and 1-3,butadiene. Sources of HAP emissions for the solution subcategory include raw material storage vessels, front-end process vents, back-end process operations, wastewater operations, and equipment leaks. Most of the emissions come from back-end process operations. The primary HAP emitted by production of solution styrene butadiene rubber are hexane, butadiene, styrene, and toluene. Sources of HAP emissions from the latex production subcategory include raw material storage vessels, front-end process vents, wastewater operations, and equipment leaks. The primary HAP emitted are styrene and butadiene. The ANPRM data set for the Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production source category includes information for 15 facilities, seven of which are classified as major sources in the NEI. Based on our previous estimates of the number of facilities in the Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production source category, the ANPRM data set includes data for the entire industry. In conjunction with previous efforts for this source category, the industry had collected and submitted up-to-date emissions and emissions release characteristic data for eight of these 15 facilities. The industry and EPA consider these data to be the most accurate emissions and emissions release characteristic data available for the styrene butadiene rubber and latex production processes at these facilities. For these eight facilities, EPA replaced all styrene butadiene rubber and latex production emissions and emissions release characteristic data in the NEI with these updated industry data. In the ANPRM data set, styrene and 1,3-butadiene are emitted in the greatest amounts and account for about 88 and 8 percent of the total emissions, respectively. 13. Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene resins consist of a terpolymer of acrylonitrile, butadiene, and styrene and can be synthesized by emulsion, suspension, and continuous mass polymerization. The majority of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene resin production is by batch emulsion. The primary HAP emissions during the acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene production process occur via equipment leaks and process vents. Other emission points include storage vessels, wastewater operations, and heat exchange systems. Typical products made from acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene resins are piping, refrigerator door liners and food compartments, automotive components, telephones, luggage and cases, toys, mobile homes, and margarine tubs. The major HAP expected to be emitted by the Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production source category are acrylonitrile, butadiene, and styrene. The ANPRM data set for the Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production source category includes information for seven facilities, six of which are classified as major sources in the NEI. Based on our previous estimates of the number of facilities in the Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production source category, the ANPRM data set includes data for about half of the industry. In the ANPRM data set, styrene and acrylonitrile are emitted in the greatest amounts and account for about 65 percent of the total emissions. The major anomalies associated with the data set for this source category include the number of facilities in the source category (i.e., only about half of the facilities in the category appear to be included in the inventory) and the specific HAP emitted by individual facilities. Some HAP expected to be reported (styrene and 1,3-butadiene) are not included for all the plants in the data set and other unexpected HAP (e.g., ethylene dichloride and ethylene oxide) are reported to be emitted by at least one facility. 14. Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Resin Production Methyl methacrylate-acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene is an acrylic graft copolymer. Chemically, graft copolymers are prepared by attaching a polymer as a branch to the chain of another polymer of a different composition. Typical products made from methyl methacrylate-acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene resins are piping, refrigerator door liners and food compartments, automotive components, telephones, luggage and cases, toys, mobile homes, and margarine tubs. Major HAP expected to be emitted by the Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene source category are acrylonitrile, butadiene, and styrene. The ANPRM data set for the Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene source category includes information for one facility, which is classified as a major source in the NEI. Based on our previous estimates of the number of facilities in the Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene source category, the ANPRM data set includes data for the whole industry. In the ANPRM data set, the six HAP reported to be emitted include styrene, acrylonitrile, 1,3-butadiene, methyl methacrylate, cumene, and ethyl benzene. Styrene accounts for almost 83 percent of the mass emitted. One major anomaly associated with the data set for this source category is that nearly all of the emissions points are reported to be fugitive sources, but the data includes only NEI default “virtual stack” emissions parameters for these sources. 15. Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene Production Methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene polymers are prepared by grafting methyl methacrylate and styrene onto a styrene-butadiene rubber in an emulsion process. The product is a two-phase polymer used as an impact modifier for rigid polyvinyl chloride products. These products are used for applications in packaging, building, and construction. Emission points for methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene resin production include process vents, equipment leaks, storage vessels, and wastewater operations. Major HAP expected to be emitted by the Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene Production source category include butadiene, styrene, acrylonitrile, and methyl methacrylate. The ANPRM data set for the Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene Resin Production source category includes information for three facilities, each of which are classified as major sources in the NEI. Based on our previous estimates of the number of facilities in the Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene Production source category, the ANPRM data set includes data for each facility in the industry. In the ANPRM data set, toluene, methyl methacrylate, styrene, and 1,3-butadiene account for nearly all of the emissions. The major anomalies associated with the data set for this source category include the HAP emitted. Some HAP are emitted by one facility and possibly should be emitted by the other facilities in the source category. In addition, nearly all of the emission release parameters are NEI default values. 16. Nitrile Resins Production Nitrile resins are synthesized through the polymerization of acrylonitrile, methyl acrylate, and butadiene latex using an emulsion process. Nitrile resin products are commonly used in packaging applications (e.g., food packaging). Emissions points for nitrile resin manufacturing processes are process vents and equipment leaks. Emissions from storage tanks, such as those used to store acrylonitrile, are also possible. The major HAP expected to be emitted by the nitrile resins production source category is acrylonitrile. The ANPRM data set for the Nitrile Resins source category includes information for one facility, which is classified as a major source in the NEI. Based on our previous estimates of the number of facilities in the Nitrile Resins source category, the ANPRM data set includes data for the whole industry. Acrylonitrile is the HAP emitted in the largest quantity, accounting for over 55 percent of the total HAP mass emitted. One major anomaly associated with the data set for this source category is that 100 percent of the emission release parameters are NEI default values. 17. Polyethylene Terephthalate Production Three different types of resins are made by sources covered by the Polyethylene Terephthalate Production source category: Solid-state resins (polyethylene terephthalate bottle grade resins); polyester film; and engineering resins. They are all thermoplastic linear condensation polymers based on dimethyl terephthalate or terephthalic acid. Polyethylene terephthalate melt-phase polymer is used in the production of all three of these resins. Polyethylene terephthalate production can occur via either a batch or continuous process. The most common use of polyethylene terephthalate solid-state resins is in soft drink bottles, and some industrial fiber- graded polyester (e.g., for tire cord) is also produced from polyethylene terephthalate solid-state resins. The most common uses of polyethylene terephthalate film are photographic film and magnetic media. Polyethylene terephthalate is used extensively in the manufacture of synthetic fibers (i.e., polyester fibers), which compose the largest segment of the synthetic fiber industry. The most common uses of polyester fibers are apparel, home furnishings, carpets, fiberfill, and other industrial processes. Emissions sources present at polyethylene terephthalate production processes include raw material storage tanks, mix tanks, prepolymerization and polymerization reaction vents and process tanks, cooling towers, and methanol recovery systems. Major HAP emissions expected from the Polyethylene Terephthalate Production source category are ethylene glycol, methanol, acetaldehyde, and dioxane. The ANPRM data set for the Polyethylene Terephthalate source category includes information for 22 facilities, 21 of which are classified as major sources in the NEI. Based on our previous estimates of the number of facilities in the Polyethylene Terephthalate Production source category, the ANPRM data set includes data for about two-thirds of the facilities in the industry. In the ANPRM data set, volatile organic HAP dominate the total mass emissions, with methanol, ethylene glycol, acetaldehyde, methylene chloride, and mixed xylenes accounting for over three-fourths of the total emissions. The major anomalies associated with the data set for this source category include the number of facilities in the source category and the HAP emitted. Some HAP expected to be reported (methanol, acetaldehyde, and dioxane) are not included for all the plants in the data set. 18. Polystyrene Production Polystyrene resins are those produced by the polymerization of styrene monomer. This type of resin can be produced by three methods:

(1)Suspension polymerization (operated in batch mode);

(2)mass (operated in a continuous mode); and

(3)emulsion process (operated in a continuous mode). The mass and suspension methods are the most commercially significant, whereas use of the emulsion process has decreased significantly since the mid-1940s. The uses for polystyrene resin include packaging and one-time use, expandable polystyrene beads, electronics, resellers and compounding, consumer and institutional products, and furniture, building, or construction uses. A wide variety of consumer and construction products are made from polystyrene resins, including disposable dinnerware, shower doors, light diffusers, soap dishes, insulation board, food containers, drain pipes, audio and video tape, picnic coolers, loose fill packaging, and tubing. The major HAP expected to be emitted by the polystyrene source category is styrene. The ANPRM data set for the polystyrene resins source category includes information for 23 facilities, 14 of which are classified as major sources in the NEI. Based on our previous estimates of the number of facilities in the Polystyrene Production source category, the ANPRM data set is missing data for 5 facilities in the industry. In the ANPRM data set, styrene is emitted in the greatest amounts and accounts for about 65 percent of the total emissions. The major anomalies associated with the data set for this source category include facility representation of the source category and the HAP emitted. Some unexpected HAP, including tetrachloroethylene, naphthalene, ethyl chloride, and several metals, are reported to be emitted by some facilities. 19. Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production Styrene-acrylonitrile resins are copolymers of styrene and acrylonitrile. Styrene-acrylonitrile resins may be synthesized by emulsion, suspension, and continuous mass polymerization; however, the majority of production is by batch emulsion. Typical uses include automobile instrument panels and interior trim and housewares. Emission points along the styrene-acrylonitrile resin production process include equipment leaks, process vents, storage vessels, and wastewater operations. Major HAP expected to be emitted by the Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production source category are acrylonitrile and styrene. The ANPRM data set for the Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production source category includes information for three facilities, all of which are classified as major sources in the NEI. Based on our previous estimates of the number of facilities in the Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production source category, the ANPRM data set is missing data for 3 facilities in the industry. Many facilities that produce acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene resins also produce styrene-acrylonitrile, because much of the styrene-acrylonitrile resins that are produced are used as feedstock in the production of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene. Therefore, for two of these plant sites, we could not distinguish whether certain emissions units belonged to the Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene or the Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production source categories. For these two plant sites, the emissions units in question were assigned to the Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production source category and no emissions units were assigned to the Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production source category. For the third plant site, EPA assigned the Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production MACT code to all the processes that emitted styrene or acrylonitrile and included these units in the ANPRM data set for the Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production source category. For this facility, styrene is the HAP emitted in the largest quantity accounting for over 55 percent of total HAP mass emitted. Ethyl benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and toluene are also reported in relatively large quantities and collectively account for about 35 percent of the total emissions. The major anomalies associated with the data set for this source category include the number of facilities in the source category, the use of county centroid locations as default emissions release locations, and the use of NEI default values for 100 percent of the emissions release parameters. In addition, one HAP (acrylonitrile) is expected to be emitted in larger quantities than reported in the NEI. 20. Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants Primary aluminum plants produce aluminum metal from alumina ore through the electrolytic reduction of aluminum oxide (alumina) by direct current voltage in an electrolyte (called “cryolite”) of sodium aluminum fluoride. All primary aluminum facilities have potlines that produce aluminum metal, and also have a paste production operation. In addition, some facilities have anode bake furnaces that are used in the production of aluminum anodes. Potlines are categorized based primarily on differences in the process operation, equipment, and the applicability of control devices. HAP expected to be emitted by primary aluminum production sources include hydrogen fluoride and POM, including PAH (e.g., anthracene, benzo(a) pyrene, and naphthalene) that are part of the POM HAP category. The ANPRM data set for the primary aluminum reduction source category includes information for 20 primary aluminum facilities. Of these 20 facilities, 19 are classified as major sources in the NEI. Based on our previous estimates of the number of primary aluminum reduction facilities, this includes over 85 percent of the industry. Although a wide range of compounds are reported as emissions from these facilities in the ANPRM data set, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and hydrochloric acid make up over 96 percent of the total emissions by mass. Hydrogen fluoride is the most common HAP reported as an emission (reported for 18 facilities); carbonyl sulfide and hydrochloric acid are reported as emissions by 11 and 7 facilities, respectively. A wide variety of PB HAP are reported, including numerous PAH and the metals lead, cadmium, and mercury and their associated compounds. For reported emissions of POM chemicals, emissions are grouped into one of seven POM categories. We encourage commenters to provide the individual chemical(s) that make up the POM. The major anomalies associated with the data set for this source category include the specific HAP emitted by individual facilities and the speciation of POM. Certain HAP (e.g., chlorine, hydrogen chloride, POM) are not included for all the facilities in the data set. 21. Printing and Publishing The printing and publishing source category includes facilities that use lithography, rotogravure, and other methods to print a variety of substrates, including paper, plastic, metal foil, wood, vinyl, metal, and glass. The MACT standards focused on those facilities that perform publication rotogravure printing, product and package rotogravure printing, and wide-web flexographic printing. Publication rotogravure printing refers to printing using a rotogravure press of various paper products, including catalogs, magazines, direct mail advertisements, display advertisements, miscellaneous brochures and other advertisements, newspaper sections and inserts, periodicals, and telephone directories. Product and packaging rotogravure printing entails the production, on a rotogravure press, of any printed substrate not otherwise defined as publication rotogravure printing. This includes (but is not limited to) folding cartons, flexible packaging, labels and wrappers, gift wraps, wall and floor coverings, upholstery, decorative laminates, and tissue products. Wide-web flexographic printing is a technique for printing substrates of 18 inches or wider in which the applied pattern is raised above the printing plate and the image carrier is made of rubber or other elastomeric materials. The wide-web flexographic presses are used to print flexible and rigid packaging; newspapers, magazines, and directories; paper towels, tissues, and similar products; and printed vinyl shower curtains and wallpaper. Research and laboratory facilities are not subject to the provisions of the MACT standards unless they are collocated with production lines. The NESHAP applies to HAP present in the inks, ink extenders, solvents, coatings, varnishes, primers, adhesives, and other materials applied with rotogravure and flexographic plates. The primary HAP expected to be emitted from printing and publishing operations are toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, methanol, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethylene glycol, and certain glycol ethers. At the time of MACT promulgation in 1995, EPA estimated that there were approximately 200 publication rotogravure, product and packaging rotogravure, and wide-web flexographic printing facilities nationwide that would be subject to these MACT regulations. The ANPRM dataset for the printing and publishing source category contains 463 facilities, of which 216 are classified as major sources in the NEI. The HAP emitted in largest quantities from these sources are toluene, glycol ethers, methyl isobutyl ketone, and xylene (mixture of o-, m-, and p-isomers). Emissions from these HAP account for nearly 94 percent of the mass emitted across all 463 facilities. POM is the only PB HAP reported in the ANPRM data set for this source category. For reported emissions of POM chemicals, emissions are grouped into one of seven POM categories. We encourage commenters to provide the individual chemical(s) that make up the POM. The major anomalies associated with the data set for this source category are related to the HAP emitted. Emissions of several HAP, including trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, p-dioxane, benzene, and naphthalene, are reported to be emitted by a small percentage of sources in this category. These HAP may be emitted from other on-site processes. We are requesting data on these HAP emissions. 22. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair The shipbuilding and ship repair industry consists of establishments that build, repair, repaint, convert, and alter ships. In general, activities and processes involved in ship repair and new ship construction are relatively similar. Operations include fabrication of basic components from raw materials, welding components and parts together, painting and repainting, overhauls, ship conversions, and other alterations. Nearly all shipyards that construct new ships also perform major ship repairs. Marine coatings used on offshore oil and gas well drilling and production platforms are not included in this source category. Emissions of HAP from shipbuilding and ship repair facilities result from painting, cleaning solvents, welding, metal forming and cutting, and abrasive blasting performed during ship repair and shipbuilding operations. HAP expected to be emitted include a range of organic compounds used as solvents, including toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, methanol, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethylene glycol, and glycol ethers. In addition to the organic HAP, relatively small amounts of inorganic HAP such as chromium, hexavalent chromium, manganese, nickel, and lead are expected to be emitted from painting, welding, metal forming and cutting, and abrasive blasting performed during ship repair and shipbuilding operations. At the time of NESHAP promulgation in 1995, EPA estimated that there were approximately 437 facilities of varying capabilities involved in the construction and repair of ships in the United States; approximately 35 of these facilities qualified as major sources of HAP emissions. The ANPRM data set for the shipbuilding and ship repair source category contains 88 facilities, of which 71 facilities are classified as major sources. In conjunction with previous efforts for this source category, the industry had collected and submitted up-to-date welding and blasting emissions data for 13 facilities. The industry and EPA consider these data to be the accurate welding and blasting emissions data for these facilities. For 12 of these 13 facilities, the 2002 NEI did not include any emissions from these welding and blasting processes. The newly collected data was added to the ANPRM data set for these facilities. The data was not added for the 13th facility, which did have detailed state-submitted welding and blasting emissions data already included in the NEI. As no welding and blasting emissions data were available for the other facilities in the source category, no data was added to the ANPRM data set for these facilities. The HAP emitted in largest quantities in total from these sources are xylenes and ethylbenzene. Total emissions from these two HAP account for 63 percent of the mass emitted across all 88 facilities. PB HAP emissions reported in the ANPRM data set for the shipbuilding and ship repair source category include cadmium, lead compounds, POM, and mercury. For emissions reported generically as “chromium” or “chromium and compounds,” emissions are speciated for this source category as 66 percent “chromium

(III)compounds” and 34 percent “chromium

(VI)compounds.” We encourage commenters to review this assumption and provide specific chromium

(VI)and chromium

(III)data where possible. For reported emissions of POM chemicals, emissions are grouped into one of seven POM categories. We encourage commenters to provide the individual chemical(s) that make up the POM. The major anomalies associated with the data set for this source category are related to the HAP emitted. Some metal HAP expected to be reported from welding, blasting, and other metalworking processes are not included for all the facilities in the data set. We have been working with the industry to improve these anomalies, and will continue these efforts. However, we also welcome additional data on these emissions. V. What are we specifically seeking comment on? The primary purpose of this ANPRM is to solicit comments on the source-category specific data included in the ANPRM data sets. Therefore, we are asking you to carefully review the facility-specific data available for download on the RTR Web page at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html* and provide corrections to these data. These data include information for each emissions release point at each facility in each of the 22 source categories included in Group 2 of the RTR Phase II. For large integrated facilities with multiple processes representing multiple source categories, it is often difficult to clearly distinguish the source category to which each emission point belongs. For this reason, the data available for download include not only the data for each facility in the specific source category, but also the data for each entire facility. In addition to the ANPRM data sets for each source category, we are providing a downloadable file which describes each source category and summarizes the major data anomalies. These files are being made available to focus the review of emissions data on the emission points and pollutants which are expected to contribute the most to significant inhalation exposures and health risks. More information on how to download the data and how to submit data corrections is provided in Sections VI and VII of this ANPRM, respectively. In reviewing the data, we are requesting both general comments about how well the data represent the source categories and more specific comments regarding the emission-point specific information included in the ANPRM data set for each facility in the 22 source categories. We also ask that you examine situations in which we made changes or additions to the NEI data and provide comments and data that will help us improve or clarify the information in order to minimize any anomalies. We are particularly interested in the following information regarding source category representation in the data: • Names and addresses for any facilities with processes which should be, but are not included in the data set for a specific source category. ○ If known, whether data for these facilities are included in the NEI. • Facilities whose data should not be included in the data set for a specific source category—please provide a brief description of the facilities and an explanation of why they do not belong in the data set for that source category. • Facilities in the data set for a source category that are not major sources for HAP—please provide documentation verifying the area source status. We would also like comment on the facility-specific and emission-point specific data, as well as our assumptions about certain data characteristics. As discussed further below, the areas in which further information and/or correction or clarification is requested, include the following: • Facility location and identification. ○ Facility name. ○ Facility address. ○ Facility category code (i.e., major or area source). • Emission point data ○ SCC and MACT codes ○ Emissions (tons per year (TPY)) of each HAP. ○ Emission release point type (i.e., fugitive, vertical, horizontal, gooseneck, vertical with raincap, or downward facing vent). ○ Emissions release characteristics: stack height and diameter, exit gas temperature, velocity, and flow rate. ○ Emission point latitude and longitude coordinates. • Data characteristics. ○ Acute emissions factors. ○ Speciation of metal HAP and POM. ○ HAP emissions performance level (e.g., actual, allowable, maximum). At the facility level, we are asking for input on the name and address of the facility, whether the facility is a major or area source for HAP, and facility identification codes. The facility name should include at least the company name and may also include facility identification information, such as “Plant A” or “Ohio River Works.” The address should include the street address of the plant location, as well as the city, county, State, and zip code for that location. We are also requesting verification of the area/major source status of each facility. For each individual emission point, we are asking for comments on the SCC and MACT code to which each emission point is assigned, the HAP emitted, the mass of emissions reported for each HAP, and the release characteristics. For large facilities with multiple processes representing more than one source category, we ask that you pay particular attention to the MACT and SCC codes, so that emission points and emissions are assigned to the appropriate source category. We also ask that you provide comments on all HAP emitted from a process, even if you know the emission levels are very low. The high toxicity of some HAP means that even emission levels one might otherwise consider insignificant (in terms of mass) can have a significant risk impact. This is particularly true for PB HAP. These compounds have high toxicities and may be emitted by some of the source categories being reviewed. It is critical that we obtain the most accurate, speciated emission estimates possible to be used in the multi-pathway assessments that will be conducted prior to proposal of regulatory actions. If you consider the data in the ANPRM data sets unrepresentative of the emissions from a facility, explain why these data are not representative and submit better data where available. When submitting emissions data, we ask that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values. We will need appropriate documentation to support any suggested changes. Data corrections are discussed more in section VII. In addition to the emissions data, we also request comments and revisions on the release characteristics for individual emission points. First, you should check the emission release point type description. Most of the emission points in the NEI are either classified as vertical or fugitive, although the options also include horizontal, goose neck, vertical with rain cap, and downward facing vent. Then you should check the release parameters, which include stack height, exit gas temperature, stack diameter, exit gas velocity, and exit gas flow rate. Quite often the NEI contains default release parameters, so providing actual parameters will improve the quality of the data and the modeling results. Emission point location is a parameter that can have a significant effect on the modeling results. Ideally, we would like a specific set of coordinates for every emission point. In many instances, a single set of coordinates is used for all emission points at a facility. In these situations, we request information on emission-point specific coordinates. If such detailed coordinates are already in the ANPRM data sets, we would like you to review them carefully and provide any updates or corrections needed. To model fugitive sources, the release parameters used include the height, length, width, and angle of the area where the fugitive emissions sources are located, along with the temperature. The NEI contains fields for these parameters, but they are rarely populated. Instead, the NEI contains a set of default vertical stack parameters for fugitive sources, which have been designed to provide the same dispersion as a low-lying point source with minimal plume rise. These are a temperature of 72° Fahrenheit, a diameter of 0.003 feet, a velocity of 0.0003 feet per second, and a flow rate of 0 cubic feet per second. We request comment on the use of these release characteristics to effectively model fugitive emission sources as pseudo-point sources. We are also requesting comments concerning certain data characteristics. This includes the speciation of several metal HAP, including mercury and chromium, and polycyclic organic material. These HAP were separated into their various forms, such as hexavalent and trivalent chromium, within NEI using the procedures established by the National Air Toxics Assessment. We are requesting comment on whether the speciation factors used are appropriate and ask that any suggested alternative approaches be accompanied by documentation supporting that alternative. Also, to screen for potentially-significant short-term exposures, maximum short-term (one-hour) emission rates will be developed by multiplying the average annual hourly emission rates by ten. We would like comments on whether this factor represents a reasonable approximation for each emission point in order to estimate acute exposures and risks. If you believe that any particular emission point does not represent a reasonable approximation, please provide your rationale and a suggestion for a more appropriate ratio. This will assist us in our assessment of short-term impacts and risks. As noted in section IV, the emissions values in the ANPRM data set generally represent actual emission levels. Where actual emissions data is not already included, we request that commenters provide such data. In addition to comments on the data included in the data sets for each source category, we will accept other comments related to this ANPRM. As described in section VII of this ANPRM, all comments and supporting data must be submitted to the docket for this action. VI. How may I access the data for a specific source category? Source category descriptions and the ANPRM data sets are available on the RTR Web page at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.* Information is available to be downloaded from this Web page for each source category in two separate files. One file contains a description of the source category, and a separate file includes the detailed ANPRM data set for the source category. These files must be downloaded from the Web site to be viewed. The file containing the source category description is available in an Adobe® PDF format (this file format is viewable with Adobe® Reader, which may be downloaded at *http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readermain.html* ) and contains the following information: • A description of the processes and major products • The estimated number of facilities in the source category. • A summary of emission points types and HAP emissions from the source category. • A summary of the anomalies associated with the data for that source category. The ANPRM data set for each source category is included in a separate file, which must be downloaded from the RTR Web *page—http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html* . These are Microsoft® Access files, which require Microsoft® Access to be viewed (if you do not have Microsoft® Access, contact Anne Pope by telephone ((919) 541-5373) or by e-mail ( *pope.anne@epa.gov* ) for other data viewing options). Each file contains the following information from the NEI for each facility in the source category: Facility data Emissions data EPA Region Pollutant Code Tribal Code Pollutant Code Description Tribe Name Emissions

(TPY)State Abbreviation MACT Code County Name MACT Flag State County FIPS SCC Code NEI Site ID SCC Code Description Facility Name Emission Unit ID Location Address Process ID City Name Emission Release Point ID State Name Emission Release Point Type Zip Code Stack Default Flag Facility Registry Facility Registry Identifier Stack Height State Facility Identifier Exit Gas Temperature SIC Code Stack Diameter SIC Code Description Exit Gas Velocity NAICS Code Exit Gas Flow Rate Facility Category Code Longitude Facility Category Latitude Location Default Flag Data Source Code Data Source Description HAP Emissions Performance Level Start Date End Date More information on these NEI data fields can be found in the NEI documentation at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html#documentation.* VII. How do I submit suggested data corrections? The source category-specific ANPRM data sets are available for download on the RTR Web page at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html* . To suggest revisions to this information, we request that you complete the following steps: 1. Download the Microsoft® Access file containing the ANPRM data set for a source category. 2. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions in the data fields appropriate for that information. The data fields that may be revised include the following: Facility data Emissions data REVISED Tribal Code REVISED Emissions

(TPY)REVISED County Name REVISED MACT Code REVISED Facility Name REVISED SCC Code REVISED Location Address REVISED Emission Release Point REVISED City Name REVISED Stack Height REVISED State Name REVISED Exit Gas Temperature REVISED Zip Code REVISED Stack Diameter REVISED Facility Registry REVISED Exit Gas Velocity REVISED State Facility REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate REVISED Facility Category REVISED Longitude REVISED Latitude REVISED HAP Emissions 3. Fill in the following commenter information fields for each suggested revision: • Commenter Name. • Commenter E-Mail Address. • Commenter Phone Number. • Revision Comments. 4. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations, etc.). 5. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to the docket for this ANPRM (through one of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this ANPRM). To help speed review of the revisions, it would also be helpful to submit the suggestions to EPA directly at *RTR@epa.gov.* 6. If you are providing comments on a facility with multiple source categories, you need only submit one file for that facility, which should contain all suggested changes for all source categories at that facility. We strongly urge that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Access files, which are provided on the *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html* Web page. Data in the form of written descriptions or other electronic file formats will be difficult for EPA to translate into the necessary format in a timely manner. Additionally, placing the burden on EPA to interpret data submitted in other formats increases the possibility of misinterpretation or errors. VIII. What additional steps are expected after EPA reviews the comments received? Once EPA receives comments on the Group 2 emissions and emissions release data, we plan to revise the ANPRM data sets based upon public comment and supporting documentation, model with the new data, and proceed with proposing and promulgating residual risk and technology review standards as appropriate. More detail of this process is provided in sections C, D, and E of section II of this ANPRM. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances. Dated: March 23, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-5805 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Siskiyou Mountains Salamander and Scott Bar Salamander as Threatened or Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Siskiyou Mountains salamander ( *Plethodon stormi* ) and Scott Bar salamander ( *Plethodon asupak* ) as threatened or endangered, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing these species may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating status reviews of these species, and we will issue a 12-month finding to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review of the Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial data regarding these species. A determination on critical habitat will be made if and when a listing action is initiated for these species. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on March 29, 2007. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petition, comments and information should be submitted to us by May 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: The complete file for this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1829 S. Oregon Street, Yreka, CA 96097. Submit new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning these species to us at the address above or via electronic mail at *Siskiyou_salamander@fws.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Detrich, Field Supervisor, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ), or at

(530)842-5763. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Information Solicited When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information to indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information on the Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders. We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the status of the Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders. We are seeking information regarding the species' historical and current status and distribution, biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the species and habitat, and threats to either species or habitat. Please note that comments merely stating support or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species shall be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If we determine that listing either the Siskiyou Mountains salamander or Scott Bar salamander is warranted, it is our intent to propose critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we would propose to list the species. Therefore, with regard to areas within the geographical area currently occupied by the species we also request data and information on what may constitute physical or biological features essential to the conservation of either species, where these features are currently found, and whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection. In addition, we request data and information regarding whether there are areas outside of the geographical area occupied by the species, which are essential to the conservation of either species. Please provide specific comments as to what, if any, critical habitat should be proposed for designation, if either species is proposed for listing, and why that proposed habitat meets the requirements of the Act. If you wish to comment or provide information, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding to the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES ) by the date listing in the DATES section. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that the Service make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The finding is based on information contained in the petition and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the finding. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make the finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the petitioners and otherwise available in our files at the time of the petition review. We had access to a Geographic Information System database of all known Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander sites, based on data obtained from researchers, the State of California, the United States Forest Service, and private land managers. We evaluated the information provided by the petitioners in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). The process of making a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and § 424.14(b) of our regulations is based on a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial scientific or commercial information” threshold. A substantial finding should be made when the Service deems that adequate and reliable information has been presented that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a status review of the species. On June 18, 2004, we received a petition dated June 16, 2004, from the Center for Biological Diversity, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, and Noah Greenwald, to list the Siskiyou Mountains salamander ( *Plethodon stormi* ) as a threatened or endangered species on behalf of themselves and five other organizations. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). In their petition, the petitioners assert that there are three separate distinct population segments

(DPSs)of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, one of which consists of the Scott Bar salamander. Alternatively, the petitioners assert that the Scott Bar salamander is a separate species and request that it be considered independently for listing. Since the time of the petition, the Scott Bar salamander ( *Plethodon asupak* ) has been recognized as a species separate from the Siskiyou Mountains salamander (Mead *et al.* 2005) and we have reviewed it separately in making this finding. The petitioners also requested the Service to consider whether the Siskiyou Mountains salamander warrants listing throughout a significant portion of its range, and requested designation of critical habitat for both species concurrent with their listing. In a July 19, 2004, letter to the petitioners, we responded that we reviewed the petition for both species and determined that an emergency listing was not warranted, and that because of inadequate funds for listing and critical habitat designation, we would not be able to otherwise address the petition to list the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander at that time. On June 23, 2005, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue, and on August 23, 2005, the Center for Biological Diversity and four other groups filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in Federal District Court for the District of Oregon ( *Center for Biological Diversity* , *et al.* v. *Norton et al.* , No. 3:05-CV-1311-BR), challenging our failure to issue a 90-day finding on the petition to list the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander. On December 28, 2005, we reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to complete the 90-day finding by April 15, 2006, and if we determined that the petition presented substantial information that listing may be warranted, to complete the 12-month finding by January 15, 2007. On April 17, 2006, the Service made its 90-day finding (71 FR 23886; April 25, 2006). That finding concluded that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information to warrant the listing of Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders. On July 6, 2006, the Center for Biological Diversity and others filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ( *Center for Biological Diversity et al.* vs. *Dirk Kempthorne et al.* , No. C-06-4186-WHA) challenging the merits of our April 17, 2006, 90-day finding. On January 19, 2007, the U.S. District Court determined the 90-day finding was arbitrary and capricious, and the Court vacated and remanded the finding, and ordered the Service to make a new 90-day finding by March 23, 2007. This new finding complies with the Court's order. Species Information For the purpose of this finding, the Service is evaluating the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander separately. However, we recognize that all research on the ecology of these species was conducted prior to recognition of the Scott Bar salamander as a separate species. To date, information specific to the Scott Bar salamander is limited to its distribution and range. Both species are members of the Family Plethodontidae, the lungless salamanders, and as such their survival is dependent upon similar ecological requirements. The geographic ranges of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander are contiguous, but not overlapping, occur over a relatively small area (approximately 405,000 acres

(ac)(164,000 hectares (ha))), and have similar environmental conditions. Additionally, information in our files suggests that habitat associations of these species are generally the same, although a rigorous study comparing their habitat requirements has not been conducted. The most significant difference between these species is their range; the range of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander is approximately five times larger than that of the Scott Bar salamander. Therefore, for the purpose of this finding, the Service applied the current literature describing the biological characteristics and ecology of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander to both species. Description and Taxonomy Like others in the family Plethodontidae, the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander are completely terrestrial, medium-sized, slender-bodied salamanders with short limbs and a dorsal stripe. Both species are found in or near talus (loose surface rock) and fissured rock outcrops where moisture and humidity are high enough to allow respiration through their skin (Nussbaum *et al.* 1983). Both species are endemic to the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains of southern Oregon and northern California. The Siskiyou Mountains salamander was described in 1965 (Highton and Brame 1965), and is characterized by a modal number of 17 costal grooves (vertical creases along the side of the body) and 4 to 5.5 intercostal folds (folds of skin between the costal grooves) between the toes of adpressed limbs (limbs firmly pressed against the sides of the body) (Nussbaum *et al.* 1983; Leonard *et al.* 1993). Adults have a light-to purplish-brown dorsum, and the body is sprinkled with a moderate to dense array of white to yellow flecks that are concentrated on the sides and limbs and away from the light-brown dorsal stripe. Juveniles are black and have an olive-tan dorsal stripe that extends onto the tail. Recent genetic analyses recognize the Siskiyou Mountains salamander as a distinct species from the Del Norte salamander ( *Plethodon elongatus* ) and the Scott Bar salamander (Mead *et al.* 2002, 2005; Mahoney 2004; Bury and Welsh 2005). Previously, observations of clinal variation in color and morphometric traits from coastal populations of Del Norte salamanders along the Klamath River to Siskiyou Mountains salamander populations in the Seiad Valley led Bury

(1973)to propose possible intergradation between these two species, and Stebbins (1985, 2003) to demote the Siskiyou Mountains salamander to a subspecies of Del Norte salamander. A number of studies (Pfrender and Titus 2002; DeGross 2004; Mead *et al.* 2005) have delineated three distinct genetic lineages within the Siskiyou Mountains salamander: Group I ( *P. stormi* populations within the Applegate River drainage north of the Siskiyou crest), Group II ( *P. stormi* populations south of the Siskiyou crest), and Group III ( *P. asupak* populations). However, Group III is now considered a separate species, Scott Bar salamander. Mead *et al.*

(2005)described *Plethodon asupak* , the Scott Bar salamander, as a new species based on analysis of molecular (mitochondrial DNA) and morphological data from *Plethodon* populations near the confluence of the Klamath and Scott Rivers in Siskiyou County, California (Mahoney 2004; Mead *et al.* 2002, 2005). Molecular analysis shows the Scott Bar salamander to be the ancestral lineage from which the Del Norte salamander and Siskiyou Mountains salamander were derived (Mahoney 2004; Mead *et al.* 2002, 2005). For the purpose of this finding, the Service is evaluating the Scott Bar salamander as a species separate from the Siskiyou Mountains salamander. We recognize, however, that genetic research on these salamanders is ongoing, and the species' designations may be reconsidered in the future. The Scott Bar salamander is more robust and has a wider head and longer limbs than either of its two most closely related sister species, the Del Norte salamander and Siskiyou Mountains salamander. It has fewer intercostal folds (2.5 to 3.5) between adpressed (flatly pressed back) limbs than either the Del Norte salamander (5 to 6) or the Siskiyou Mountains salamander (4 to 5), and the modal number of costal grooves

(17)is one fewer than in the Del Norte salamander (18). The Scott Bar salamander has a longer body relative to its tail length and longer forelimbs and hindlimbs than the Siskiyou Mountains salamander or Del Norte salamander. The coloration of the Scott Bar salamander is similar to that of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and is described in Mead *et al.* (2005). Despite the morphological differences described in Mead *et al.* (2005), the two species are very difficult to distinguish in the field. Habitat Siskiyou Mountains salamanders and Scott Bar salamanders are found on forested slopes where rocky soils and talus outcrops occur. Occupied habitat for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander can range from small isolated rock outcrops to entire hillsides (Clayton *et al.* 2004). Occasionally these salamanders can be found under other types of cover such as bark, limbs, or logs, but only during wet weather when moisture is high and only if there are talus outcrops nearby (Nussbaum 1974; Nussbaum *et al.* 1983). Nussbaum

(1974)characterized optimal habitat for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander as stabilized talus in old-growth forest stands on north-facing slopes. However, more recently, populations of both species have been found in rock outcrops in all forest age classes and on all slope aspects (Clayton *et al.* 2004; U.S. Department of Interior

(USDI)2005), as well as in managed stands (CDFG 2005). Siskiyou Mountains salamanders have been collected in the spring during the daytime at soil temperatures ranging from 38 to 52.3 degrees Fahrenheit (3.5 to 11.3 degrees Celsius) and at depths ranging from 0 to 18.0 inches (0 to 45.7 centimeters) (Nussbaum *et al.* 1983; Nussbaum 1974). Range and Distribution The Siskiyou Mountains salamander's range encompasses approximately 337,037 ac (136,500 ha) in three counties (Jackson, Josephine, and Siskiyou Counties) of southwestern Oregon and in northern California (Clayton and Nauman 2005a). More specifically, this species has been detected in the Applegate River drainage of southern Oregon south to the Klamath River watershed of northern California. In California, recent genetic analyses indicate the species' range is bounded to the west by the Indian Creek drainage and to the east by the Horse Creek drainage (see DeGross 2004; Mahoney 2004; Mead *et al.* 2005; Mead 2006). It is known from sites ranging from 1,600 feet (488 meters) (Nussbaum *et al.* 1983) to approximately 1,800 meters (6,000 feet) in elevation (Clayton *et al.* 1999). Approximately 90 percent of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander's range occurs on Federal lands managed under the Northwest Forest Plan

(NWFP)(USDA, USDI 1994). Within the NWFP area, 36 percent of the salamander's range occurs in reserves (Late-Successional Reserves, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, and Congressionally Reserved Areas), where timber harvest and other ground-disturbing activities are severely restricted; 10 percent occurs within Matrix lands generally available for timber harvest; and 44 percent occurs in Adaptive Management Areas (AMA), where habitat management guidelines are flexible and some timber harvest is expected to occur. The remaining 10 percent of the species' range occurs on private lands. To date, approximately 200 Siskiyou Mountains salamander sites have been located (Clayton and Nauman 2005a). This number represents an unknown proportion of the total population, because surveys have not been conducted over the species' entire range. These sites occur primarily on Federal lands and are distributed across several NWFP land use allocations (Clayton *et al.* 2004). The USDA, USDI Species Review Panel

(2002)reported that approximately 23 percent of known sites occur on reserve lands (Late-Successional Reserves and Congressionally Withdrawn Areas) (USDA, USDI 1994). The remaining sites occur on Adaptive Management Areas, Matrix lands, and private lands. The Scott Bar salamander is found only in Siskiyou County, California, from just east of Seiad Valley to Scott Bar Mountain (Clayton and Nauman 2005b). The species' range extends north and south of the Klamath River and east and west of the Scott River and encompasses approximately 68,438 ac (27,717 ha). Approximately 82 percent of the Scott Bar salamander's range occurs on Federal lands: 58 percent on reserves (Late-Successional Reserves) and 24 percent on Matrix lands (USDA, USDI 1994). The remaining 18 percent of the species' range occurs on private lands. Clayton and Nauman (2005b) reported that fewer than 10 sites are currently known for the Scott Bar salamander, although other sites are suspected. Based on our internal review of recent genetic analyses (Mahoney 2004; Mahoney 2005; Mead *et al.* 2005; Mead 2006), 17 Scott Bar salamander sites have now been verified. Within the presumed range of the Scott Bar salamander, numerous historical salamander detections have been assigned to the Siskiyou Mountains salamander. Because populations of the two species tend not to overlap (Mead 2006), it is reasonable to conclude that all salamander detections within what is now known to be the range of the Scott Bar salamander are Scott Bar salamanders. Thus, information in our files suggests that, within the range of the Scott Bar salamander, there are roughly 20 known salamander sites that are likely occupied by Scott Bar salamanders and are in addition to the 17 noted above (USDI 2006). To date, systematic surveys have not been conducted throughout this species' range; however, additional sites may be discovered in the future. The 17 verified localities of the Scott Bar salamander are distributed across several watersheds that encompass the majority of the species' known range. Of these localities, 82 percent occur on Federal lands: 35 percent on reserves (Late-Successional Reserves) and 47 percent on Matrix lands (USDA, USDI 1994). The remaining 18 percent of the verified localities occur on private lands. Although the sample of known sites was not collected systematically, this distribution suggests that the species may be well distributed within its range. Although the historic range of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander is unknown, the Service assumes that it was bounded to the west and south by the range of the Del Norte salamander ( *Plethodon elongatus* ), and to the east and northeast by drier climatic conditions and the associated vegetation communities. The range of the Scott Bar salamander consists of a polygon surrounded by the range of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander. The existing distribution of occupied sites for these species closely matches this description, and neither the petition nor information in our files provides information to suggest that a decline in extent of range has occurred for either species. Similarly, neither the petition nor information in our files provides information to suggest that significant areas within the species' ranges no longer support salamander populations. The petition states that significant portions of the species' ranges have been logged, suggesting the loss of salamander populations. However, as discussed in more detail below under Threats Analysis, Factor A, information from our files suggests that sites often remain occupied following logging (Farber *et al.* 2001; Clayton *et al.* 2004; CDFG 2005) or are recolonized after a few years (Welsh and Ollivier 1995). In addition, the Services' evaluation of the distribution of known salamander locations indicates that the salamanders are well-distributed throughout their ranges, including many areas with evidence of past logging, with large gaps corresponding to roadless areas that have received little to no survey effort. Evaluation of the range and potential population size for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander is strongly influenced by the species' low detectability and the amount and distribution of potentially suitable habitat. Because of their secretive habits, detection rates for these salamanders are very low, even though the species may be quite abundant locally (Nussbaum 1974; Clayton *et al.* 1999). Surveys within habitat known to be occupied are frequently negative (Clayton *et al.* 2004; CDFG 2005). Populations at individual sites likely range in size from a few individuals to thousands of individuals (Nussbaum 1974; Welsh and Lind 1992). Based on intensive field surveys, Nussbaum

(1974)provided a species-wide “conservative estimate” of over 3 million Siskiyou Mountains salamanders. While the author acknowledged that a number of methodological problems may affect this estimate, it nonetheless suggests that the perceived rarity of this species may be more related to low detectability than to actual population size. The USDA, USDI Species Review Panel

(2001)evaluated results of project surveys conducted in the northern portion of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander's range, and estimated that 3 to 14 percent of the extent surveyed provides potentially suitable habitat. In a similar evaluation, Timber Products Company estimated that approximately 18 percent of their surveyed lands within the range of the Scott Bar salamander was composed of suitable talus habitat (S. Farber pers. comm. 2006). The information from both surveys suggests that suitable habitat for these species is patchy, and comprises a minor portion of these species' ranges. Threats Analysis Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:

(A)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;

(B)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C)disease or predation;

(D)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In making this finding, we evaluated whether threats to the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander as presented in the petition pose a concern with respect to the species' survival such that listing under the Act may be warranted. Our evaluation of these threats, based on information provided in the petition and available in our files, is presented below. A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range The petition claims that logging and wildfire pose the primary threats to Siskiyou Mountains salamander's and Scott Bar salamander's habitat and populations by altering habitat structures that influence the microclimatic conditions required by both species. The petition states that logging and wildfire increase surface temperatures and decrease relative humidity and soil moisture by removing forest cover. It also states that logging has the additional effect of compacting and realigning talus substrates. The petition states that it is likely a substantial, yet unquantified, amount of habitat has already been lost due to logging activities. According to the petition, the effects of logging and wildfire on Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders are based on a sequence of relationships: the unique physiology and behavior of these species, their dependence on moist surface conditions in order to forage and reproduce, reduction of the occurrence of favorable surface conditions following loss of forest cover, and loss of viability of salamander populations inhabiting the resulting unfavorable conditions. Based on these assertions, the petition concludes that the rate and extent of timber harvest and fires will likely cause the two species to be threatened or endangered due to habitat loss in the foreseeable future. The petition describes the physiological and behavioral traits of Siskiyou Mountains salamanders and Scott Bar salamanders that link them to habitats that provide moist conditions. Both species are lungless salamanders that require moisture in order to respire through their skin and to avoid dessication (Nussbaum *et al.* 1983). These traits act to limit the time during which the species can be active at the surface where foraging takes place (Nussbaum *et al.* 1983; Feder 1983). In the warm, dry environment characteristic of the eastern Klamath—Siskiyou Mountains, surface conditions favorable for activity by these salamanders is limited to relatively brief rainy periods in the spring and fall when soil moisture and relative humidity are high and temperatures moderate (Nussbaum *et al.* 1983; Clayton *et al.* 1999). This limitation is reflected in survey protocols for Siskiyou Mountains salamander, which require that surveys be restricted to periods of relative humidity above 65 percent, air temperature between 39.2 and 68 Fahrenheit (4 to 20 degrees Celsius), soil temperature between 38.3 and 64.4 degrees Fahrenheit (3.5 to 18 degrees Celsius), and moist soil conditions; outside of these parameters detection rates are low (Clayton *et al.* 1999). During the remainder of the year, these salamanders retreat underground into fissured rock substrates (Nussbaum *et al.* 1983). Based on the relationships described above, the petition claims that habitat conditions that further limit above ground activity will result in reduced abundance and viability of Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander populations. The petition cites Ollivier *et al.* (2001), who state that shortened periods of surface conditions appropriate for feeding and breeding activities can limit both survivorship and recruitment of these salamanders due to reduced ability to achieve body mass and fat needed for reproduction. Based on physiological and ecological studies of plethodontid salamanders (Feder 1983), and the association of Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders (and the closely related Del Norte salamander in the Klamath province) with mature forested habitats (Nussbaum *et al.* 1983; Welsh and Lind 1988, 1991, 1995; Ollivier *et al.* 2001), it is reasonable to conclude that individuals living in drier, more open conditions may experience reduced fitness. The petition cites Chen *et al.*

(1993)to support the claim that removing or reducing canopy during logging or other activities can alter stand microclimates, which in turn would result in conditions unsuitable for surface activity by salamanders. Information in our files suggests that microclimatic variables such as soil moisture, fuel moisture, relative humidity, and air temperature are sensitive to changes in canopy, with open-canopied and unforested sites exhibiting drier conditions, reduced humidity, and warmer air and soil temperatures (Chen *et al.* 1995; Chen *et al.* 1999). The petition states that rigorous pre- and post-logging studies have not been conducted on Siskiyou Mountains salamanders or Scott Bar salamanders. Information in our files also indicates that this type of study has not been conducted on the similar Del Norte salamander in the drier portions of its range. However, the petition cites several studies from across North America (Dupuis *et al.* 1995; Ash 1997; deMaynadier and Hunter 1998; Herbeck and Larsen 1999) and specific to the Pacific Northwest (Bury and Corn 1988; Raphael 1988; Welsh 1990; Corn and Bury 1991; Welsh and Lind 1988, 1991,1995) that describe impacts of logging to other plethodontid salamanders. It is important to note that studies conducted in eastern and mid-western North America and much of the Pacific Northwest (Bury and Corn 1988; Raphael 1988; Welsh 1990; Corn and Bury 1991; Welsh and Lind 1988, 1991,1995; and Grialou *et al.* 2000) were conducted in mesic (relatively wet) forest types where environmental constraints (moisture, temperature) on salamander dispersal and survival are presumably less than in the dry eastern Klamath Mountains. In addition, most plethodontid salamander species studied in other areas of North America occupy soil, surface litter, and woody debris in mesic environments, whereas Siskiyou Mountains salamanders and Scott Bar salamanders occupy talus substrates that provide refuge from temperature extremes and dry conditions in xeric (relatively dry) environments. Therefore, inferences drawn from studies of other plethodontid species in mesic environments may be limited in their applicability to Siskiyou Mountains salamander or Scott Bar salamander populations in the dry eastern Klamath Mountains. Studies from the midwestern and eastern United States (Ash 1997; deMaynadier and Hunter 1998; Herbeck and Larsen 1999) and western Canada (Dupuis *et al.* 1995) indicate that clear-cutting can have significant short-term impacts to plethodontid salamander abundance, and that second-growth stands that regenerate following clear-cutting typically do not support the same level of abundance as do older forests. Dupuis *et al.* (1995), Ash (1997), and Herbeck and Larsen

(1999)reported that plethodontid salamanders were frequently absent from 2-to-5-year-old clear-cut forests. All of the studies that examined relative abundance of plethodontid salamanders in different forest age classes (Dupuis *et al.* 1995; deMaynadier and Hunter 1998; Herbeck and Larsen 1999) found that second-growth stands supported salamanders, albeit at significantly lesser abundance than older forests. However, the impact of clear-cutting on salamanders may be temporary, as one study (Ash 1997) showed that salamanders returned to clear-cut sample plots 4 to 6 years after cutting, and their numbers increased rapidly. Linear regressions estimated that salamander numbers on clear-cut plots would equal or exceed numbers on forested plots by 20 to 24 years after cutting (Ash 1997). Studies of more closely related plethodontid salamanders in the Pacific Northwest (Raphael 1988; Welsh 1990; Corn and Bury 1991; Welsh and Lind 1988, 1991,1995) found the abundance of plethodontid salamanders to be greater in older versus younger forests, and most of these studies found that difference to be significant. However, salamanders were still present in harvested areas. Raphael

(1988)reported that while Del Norte salamanders were 2 to 3 times more abundant in adjacent old-growth forest, clear-cut areas still contained the species. Additional information in our files (Grialou *et al.* 2000) also suggests that western red-backed salamanders ( *Plethodon vehiculum* ) occupy recent clear-cut areas (2 to 4 years), although at a significantly lesser abundance than in adjacent older forests. H. Welsh and D. Ashton

(2004)obtained similar results for Del Norte salamanders on the Six Rivers National Forest, where salamander abundance showed a marked decline following clear-cutting, but remained relatively stable in a lightly harvested stand. However, studies are not consistent with respect to abundance on recently clear-cut sites. Bury and Corn

(1988)reported plethodontid salamanders to be absent in their two clear-cut sites, but their results were equivocal because detection rates of plethodontid salamanders were very low in all of the habitats studied. In contrast to the above studies, Corn and Bury

(1991)found abundance of western red-backed salamanders was not significantly different between clear-cut areas less than 10 years old and old-growth forest. Few peer-reviewed studies exist in our files comparing the demographics of plethodontid salamander populations in clear-cut areas and adjacent forest. Grialou *et al.*

(2000)studied the abundance and demographics of salamanders, including two plethodontid species, in mesic forests in southwestern Washington. In the year following clear-cut harvesting, body sizes of western subadult and juvenile red-backed salamanders were smaller, but attained normal size distribution by the second-year post harvest. Gravid females were captured on clear-cut plots before and after harvest. Knapp *et al.*

(2003)used a randomized, replicated design to quantify plethodontid salamander populations on harvested timberlands of the Appalachian Mountains in Virginia and West Virginia. While salamander abundance was less on clear-cut areas versus control areas, there were no differences between cut and uncut treatments in the proportion of gravid females or in the average number of eggs in gravid females. Moreover, there were no differences between cut and uncut treatments in the proportion of the sample that was juvenile, except in one plethodontid species, which had a higher proportion of juveniles in uncut treatments. Because most of the aforementioned studies have been conducted on other plethodontid species in mesic environments, the Service believes that our evaluation should focus primarily on information collected from Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander populations. The petition claims that a study of habitat associations of Siskiyou Mountains salamander by Ollivier *et al.*

(2001)demonstrates that the species is threatened by logging. Ollivier *et al.*

(2001)conducted presence/absence surveys for salamanders at 239 random locations within the range of Siskiyou Mountains salamander (some samples were within the range of the Scott Bar salamander), and concluded that the species was strongly associated with characteristics of mature forests such as closed canopies, large tree diameters, and a mossy ground cover layer. Based on this conclusion, the petition infers that removal of forest cover would result in habitat conditions unsuitable for the salamanders. While the study design employed by Ollivier *et al.*

(2001)did not compare salamander abundance pre- and post-harvest, their sample contained 42 precanopy plots (0-to-30-year-old clearcuts). Subsequent to the study by Ollivier *et al.* (2001), State and private biologists conducted numerous surveys and detected Siskiyou Mountains salamanders and Scott Bar salamanders in previously logged sites (Farber *et al.* 2001; CDFG 2005). These surveys followed no sampling design and cannot be used to infer a lack of impacts caused by logging; however, they do suggest that salamander populations persist at sites that have been logged. After reviewing data collected by Ollivier *et al.*

(2001)and sampling results obtained by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), H. Welsh and D. Ashton

(2004)concluded that the viability of Siskiyou Mountains salamander populations is compromised following clear-cutting. They based this conclusion on the high proportion (64 percent) of juvenile and subadult animals in the sample obtained by CDFG in non-forested habitats, and speculated that this was an indication of a ‘sink' population of dispersing individuals and low levels of reproduction. Without further research, the effects of forest canopy removal on the abundance and demographics of Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander populations following logging will remain poorly understood. Two studies examining this question are currently in progress: one involving the Service, the Redwood Sciences Laboratory, and Humboldt State University, and one being conducted by Timber Products Company. The petition also states that gaps created in the species' range by logging could compromise the species' viability. The petition claims that the biology of the species, narrow habitat niche, naturally fragmented habitat, and patchy distribution limit the species' ability to recover from disturbances. The petition cites Blaustein *et al.*

(1995)to support the claim that when local populations of Siskiyou Mountains salamander are extirpated, there is little chance that the habitat will be recolonized. However, evidence in the petition and in Service files suggests that dispersing juveniles readily colonize logged sites (Welsh 2005) and road cutbanks (Nussbaum 1974), suggesting that dispersal may not be as limited as previously thought. The biology of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and the Scott Bar salamander may limit their ability to recolonize vacant sites; however, neither the petition nor information in our files demonstrates that logging creates gaps in plethodontid salamander distribution by extirpating species from a site. The petition also states that other actions, including tractor logging, road construction, mining, and recreational development, have resulted in, and will continue to result in, degradation, loss, or fragmentation of Siskiyou Mountains salamander habitat. The petition cites Welsh and Ollivier

(1995)as suggesting that tractor yarding may impact Siskiyou Mountains salamander habitat by compacting, breaking, or realigning talus. Although it is reasonable to conclude that tractor yarding may disturb talus substrates, field studies have not demonstrated how this impacts salamander populations. The petition also cites deMaynadier and Hunter

(2000)as indicating that plethodontid salamanders are sensitive to population fragmentation by logging roads. Results of that study suggest that logging roads may significantly inhibit movement and local abundance of plethodontid salamanders. Additional information in our files (Marsh *et al.* 2005) suggests that forest roads act as partial barriers to salamander movement. Road densities within much of the ranges of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander are documented to be high (USDA 1999) and may act to reduce dispersal and increase the degree of isolation among salamander populations. This in turn may lead to reduced gene flow and reduced long-term persistence of small, isolated populations (Marsh *et al.* 2005). Conversely, Nussbaum

(1974)found that road cuts provided essential habitat in the form of newly exposed fissured rock and were colonized by Siskiyou Mountains salamanders soon after road construction. The available information regarding the effects of roads on populations of Siskiyou Mountains salamanders and Scott Bar salamanders is equivocal. Although the amount of habitat impacted by logging could not be quantified, the petition contends that substantial habitat loss has likely occurred. To support this claim, the petition cites the USDA, USDI Species Review Panel (2001), which stated that “cumulative effects from past timber harvest have impacted populations on Federal lands” and “from 1980 to 1990, 10 percent of habitat on the Applegate Ranger District was clearcut.” However, the rate and extent of timber harvest has declined dramatically on Federal lands within the Northwest Forest Plan area during the past 30 years (USDA, USDI 2005), particularly on the Klamath National Forest, which comprises roughly 50 percent of the Siskiyou Mountain salamander's range and 80 percent of the Scott Bar salamander's range (USDA 2006). During the 6-year period from 2000 to 2005, the Klamath National Forest sold and removed an average of 15.9 million board feet of timber annually, compared with 187.8 million board feet/per year during 1985 to 1990 (inclusive), and 238.2 million board feet/per year from 1979 to 1984 (USDA 2006). The declining trend in timber harvest reduces the likelihood that a high proportion of the salamanders' populations will be impacted by logging. While the Service agrees that timber harvesting has the potential to reduce habitat quality for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander, Forest Service reports (USDA, USDI 2005; USDA 2006) demonstrate a dramatic decline in the amount of timber harvest on Federal lands within the ranges of the salamanders. These data suggest that the rate and magnitude of harvest on the majority of the species' ranges is likely not sufficient to cause them to be threatened or endangered in the foreseeable future. The petition further claims that fire suppression has led to an increase in fuel loading, resulting in a change from low- to high-intensity fire regimes in many forest stands within the ranges of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander, and that the risk of stand-replacing fire has increased due to forest management practices that remove the largest, most fire resistant trees and create young, highly combustible plantations. The petition claims that although the response of these salamanders to fire has not been well studied, fire has the potential to impact populations by removing or reducing forest canopy cover. Published studies (Agee 1993; Taylor and Skinner 1998) and Forest Service reports (USDA 1999) clearly document that increased fuel loading and forest stand density have increased the potential for high-intensity wildfire events within the range of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander. These high-intensity fires were much less frequent in the historical fire regime with which these salamanders evolved. High-intensity wildfire events, by definition, remove or significantly reduce forest cover; consume moss, duff, and forest litter; and may sterilize surface soil layers. The impacts of such events on salamander habitat and populations are likely more severe than those of clear-cutting, but have not been directly evaluated. Recent large fires within the Klamath Province, combined with fire behavior modeling conducted by the Forest Service, suggest a high probability of moderate-to high-intensity wildfires within the range of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander. However, fire modeling also suggests that the level of tree mortality would be highly variable within the range of these species (USDA 1999), resulting in a mosaic pattern of habitat effects. The extent to which high-intensity fire effects would occur within habitats occupied by these salamanders is currently unknown. To summarize Factor A, logging, wildfire, and other habitat disturbances may impact local abundance and viability of Siskiyou Mountains salamanders and Scott Bar salamanders by altering the microclimate within stands that support these species, by fragmenting habitat, or by otherwise reducing habitat quality. Although extensive logging has occurred in Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander habitat for over 100 years, the extent of habitat change has not been quantified, and salamander populations remain well-distributed. Increased potential for stand-replacing wildfire also places more of the species' habitat at risk. Information in our files (e.g., Farber *et al.* 2001; CDFG 2005) indicates that both Siskiyou Mountains salamanders and Scott Bar salamanders occur to some extent in clear-cuts, second-growth stands, burned areas, and naturally open habitats, and the demography of populations subjected to timber harvest or fire is poorly known. This evidence suggests that while timber harvest and wildfire may, at least temporally, reduce habitat quality for, and abundance of, Siskiyou Mountains salamanders and Scott Bar salamanders, they do not result in the extirpation of populations. The rate and extent of timber harvest has declined dramatically on Federal lands within the Northwest Forest Plan area, particularly the salamanders' ranges on the Klamath National Forest, during the past 30 years (USDA, USDI 2005; USDA 2006). Based on current Forest Service policies, we anticipate that the rate of timber harvest will remain at roughly the present levels. Although it is reasonable to assume that high-intensity wildfire may have a negative impact on salamander habitat and populations, we are not aware of any scientific studies that evaluate this potential risk, and there is evidence that salamander populations persist following reduction of forest canopy. In general, the Service finds that reliable scientific information presented in the petition and available in our files regarding the dependence of the Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders on old growth forest habitat and habitat-based threats to the species posed by logging and high-intensity fires is equivocal and conflicting. However, based on the standard applicable to 90-day findings under the Act, we find that the petition does present substantial information regarding Factor A, indicating that listing of these two species across all or a significant portion of their ranges may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes The petition does not provide any information pertaining to Factor B. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing of these two species across all or a significant portion of their ranges may be warranted due to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. C. Disease or Predation The petition does not present any information pertaining to Factor C. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing of these two species across all or a significant portion of their ranges may be warranted due to disease or predation. D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The petition asserts that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders because Federal regulatory mechanisms that formerly protected the salamanders have been eliminated and State regulatory mechanisms that protect the species are likely to be eliminated. The petition does not contend that, if left in place, the Federal and State mechanisms would be inadequate to protect the species. Federal Lands The petition cites the USDA, USDI Species Review Panel

(2001)to demonstrate that approximately 80 percent of the range of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander occurs on Federal lands managed by the Rogue-Siskiyou and Klamath National Forests and the Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management. Thirty-nine percent of the species' range occurs within protected land designations under the Northwest Forest Plan

(NWFP)(USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2001). Additionally, the petition cites Clayton *et al.* (2002 as cited in USDA, USDI 2004) to demonstrate that less than 10 percent of suspected high-quality habitat occurs in reserves. The petition thus concludes that the majority of the species' ranges and high-quality habitat occurs on Federal lands available for timber harvest and other activities. The petition cites the USDA, USDI Species Review Panel

(2001)to suggest that specific protections on non-reserve land allocations will likely be required to ensure persistence of the species. The petition claims that the Siskiyou Mountains salamander formerly received substantial protection on Federal lands from the Survey and Manage Program (USDA, USDI 1994). The petition claims that this program was abolished with the Record of Decision

(ROD)entitled, “To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl” in March 2004 (March 2004 ROD). The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the March 2004 ROD addressed potential mitigation, including sensitive species programs, for species affected by the removal of the Survey and Manage Program. However, the petition claims that the sensitive species programs provide substantially less protection by failing to require surveys and making mitigation optional. The petition cites a USDA, USDI

(2004)statement that the elimination of the Survey and Manage Program may result in gaps in the Siskiyou Mountains salamander's range. According to the petition, in the absence of the Survey and Manage Program, management of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander would be governed by the standards and guidelines of the NWFP. According to the petition, 78 percent of the known occupied sites north of the Siskiyou Crest occur in the Applegate Adaptive Management Area (AMA). Under the NWFP, AMAs were created to “encourage the development and testing of technical and social approaches to achieving desired ecological, economic, and other social objectives,” with each AMA having a management plan (USDA, USDI 1994). Because an agency plan for the Applegate AMA has not been produced, and standards and guidelines for activities in AMAs are more flexible than in other land-use allocations, the petition claims that existing guidelines for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander in the Applegate AMA would result in limited protection for the species. However, the petitioners provided no documentation to suggest that Federal actions in the AMA are having an effect on the salamanders. The status of the Survey and Manage Program is in flux. In January 2006, the United States District Court, Western District of Washington in *Northwest Ecosystem Alliance,* *et al.* , v. *Mark E. Rey,* *et al.* , Case 2:04-CV-00844-MJP, ordered the March 2004 ROD set aside for failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). With this, the court reinstated the 2001 Survey and Manage ROD as it stood in March 2004. The Survey and Manage Program is therefore the current regulatory mechanism in place for the United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands that the Siskiyou Mountains salamander occupies. Under these provisions, all currently known and future sites south of the Siskiyou Crest will be managed to maintain species persistence, and surveys will be conducted prior to habitat-disturbing activities. North of the Siskiyou Crest, high-priority sites will be identified and managed to provide a reasonable assurance of species persistence. The Scott Bar salamander is not specifically addressed by name in the Survey and Manage ROD protections. However, the Klamath National Forest has formally stated that Survey and Manage protections for Siskiyou Mountains salamander also extend to the Scott Bar salamander, as they cannot be easily distinguished in the field (M. Boland 2006). Thus, protections for the Scott Bar salamander on Federal lands are in place. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have stated that they intend to issue on June 8, 2007, a final supplement to the 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that addresses the deficiencies of the March 2004 ROD that were identified by the court. Implementation of the final supplement is anticipated during August 2007. The Service cannot predict what protections will be provided to the Siskiyou Mountains salamander in future decisions. If existing Federal regulations are modified in the future, the adequacy of these regulations to protect the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander in light of any threats to the species threats should be evaluated at that time. State Regulations The State of Oregon provides no regulatory protections for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander on private lands (approximately 10 percent of the species' range). In California, the Siskiyou Mountains salamander is listed as a threatened species and receives substantial protection under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These protections include pre-project surveys and prohibitions on timber harvest in established buffers around suitable habitat. In 2005, CDFG submitted a petition to the California Fish and Game Commission to delist the Siskiyou Mountains salamander. Because of CDFG's delisting proposal, the petitioners claim that the protections provided by CESA should not be considered to provide firm regulatory protection for the species. The final determination on whether to delist the Siskiyou Mountains salamander was scheduled to be made at the Fish and Game Commission's January 31, 2007, meeting; however, that determination has been postponed until Fall of 2007. If existing State regulations are modified in the future, the adequacy of the future regulations to protect the Siskiyou Mountains salamander in light of any threats to the species should be evaluated at that time. Unless and until the Siskiyou Mountains salamander is delisted as a threatened species, it remains protected under the CESA. In July 2005, the Scott Bar salamander appeared on the CDFG's Special Animals List (CDFG 2006). The CDFG describes the Scott Bar salamander as a “newly discovered species from what was part of the range of *Plethodon stormi.* ” Based on this change of taxonomic status, the CDFG removed the Siskiyou Mountains salamander populations now recognized as Scott Bar salamanders from listed status under CESA. That action was successfully challenged by three environmental organizations in State court ( *Environmental Protection Information Center et al.* vs. *California Department of Fish and Game* , Case No. CPF-06-506585). The court found that the removal of Scott Bar salamander from the State's endangered species list was not in accordance with law, and ordered that the new species be protected under CESA until formal delisting procedures are completed. On May 1, 2006, the California Fish and Game Commission received a petition to list the Scott Bar salamander under CESA. No specific regulatory mechanisms to protect the Siskiyou Mountains salamander exist on the approximately 10 percent of the species' range that occurs in Oregon. However, research suggests that populations of these salamanders persist following timber harvest (Farber *et al.* 2001; Clayton *et al.* 2004; CDFG 2005). Therefore, the Service believes that the lack of regulatory protections on a limited proportion of the species' ranges does not likely pose a threat to the species as a whole in the foreseeable future. To summarize Factor D, existing Federal regulations currently provide substantial protection on Federal lands for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander through the Survey and Manage Program. Current California regulations provide substantial protection for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander on private lands. Oregon provides no regulatory protections for Siskiyou Mountains salamanders on private lands. However, private lands in Oregon comprise only 10 percent of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander's range. The Scott Bar salamander's range does not extend into Oregon. Thus, substantial regulatory protections are provided to both species across a large majority of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander's range and all of the Scott Bar salamander's range. Although the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have developed a supplement to their March 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

(SEIS)that again proposes to eliminate Survey and Manage guidelines for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, no decision has been made by the agencies. Similarly, the State of California is currently evaluating a petition to delist the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, but no decision regarding this action has been reached. Continuing litigation over the Federal and State proposals and re-evaluation of the proposals by Federal and State agencies indicates that a future relaxation of regulatory mechanisms to protect the Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders is at best uncertain. Under section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act, the Service must evaluate the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms rather than speculate about future changes to those mechanisms. If these regulations are modified or eliminated in the future, the Service will consider that information when evaluating the adequacy of then existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and the Scott Bar salamander, in light of any threats faced by the species. In particular, we will monitor any changes to Federal and State regulatory mechanisms during our status review of the species. Because Federal and State of California regulations are currently in effect and offer protection for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander over all or the vast majority of the species' ranges, we find that the petition does not present substantial information that listing of these two species across all or a significant portion of their ranges may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence The petition states that “an increasing consensus has developed that we are and will continue to experience global warming.” The petition cites Feder

(1983)and Ollivier *et al.*

(2001)to propose that the salamanders' unique physiology and their need for moist conditions for foraging and breeding activity make the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander particularly sensitive to variations in climate. Thus, the petition suggests that the expected change in climate over time is likely to influence the species' distribution and ability to find suitable habitat. The petition also claims that warmer temperatures may shorten the window in which the species is able to forage and reproduce. According to the petition, warmer temperatures may also negatively affect habitat by increasing the severity and intensity of forest fires, resulting in loss of forest canopy. However, the petition did not present an analysis of the likelihood or magnitude of microhabitat changes that may be brought about by regional climate change. The petition also cites USDA, USDI

(2004)to demonstrate that, due to limited habitat and the known existence of only three localities, the Scott Bar salamander is at risk of extinction due to genetic or demographic stochasticity, regardless of management direction. However, information in our files suggests that the number of known localities and existing habitat within the range of the Scott Bar salamander is considerably larger than that considered in USDA, USDI (2004), and there is no evidence to suggest the historical range of the Scott Bar salamander has significantly contracted despite 100 years of extensive logging, which has substantially decreased in recent years. The apparent resiliency of this species and the existence of 37 currently known sites decreases the potential threat posed by stochastic events, although the species' range is naturally small and restricted. The Siskiyou Mountains salamander also continues to be distributed across its historic range despite widespread logging during the 20th century. Stochastic events pose even less of a potential threat to the Siskiyou Mountains salamander due to its apparent resiliency and the greater number of known localities and relatively larger range. To summarize Factor E, because foraging and breeding activities are dependent upon cool, moist conditions, these salamanders may be susceptible to alterations in microclimate resulting from projected climate change. However, the petition does not present reliable evidence of, or analyze the type, magnitude, or temporal effects of, microhabitat changes within the ranges of the Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders that could potentially be brought about by future regional climate change. Finally, the petitioners assert that the Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders are at risk because their restricted ranges make the species vulnerable to extinction as a result of stochastic events. Although the ranges of the species are naturally restricted, they have continued to persist despite decades of logging, and the number of currently known populations is considerably greater than stated in the petition. Additionally, a considerable amount of suitable habitat capable of supporting Siskiyou Mountains salamanders and Scott Bar salamanders has yet to be surveyed. Thus, the Service believes that both the Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders are more resilient to stochastic events than the petition claims. We find that the petition does not present substantial information that listing of the two species across all or a significant portion of their ranges may be warranted due to natural or manmade factors affecting their continued existence. Distinct Population Segments and Significant Portion of Range The petition asserts that the Siskiyou Mountains salamander occurs in three separate distinct population segments

(DPSs)and also requests the Service to consider listing the Siskiyou Mountains salamander throughout a significant portion of its range. Because we conclude that the petition provides substantial information that listing the Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders rangewide may be warranted (thus triggering the requirement under the Act that we conduct a status review), we have not analyzed in detail whether the petition also provides substantial information with respect to a particular significant portion of the range of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander. For the same reason, we have not analyzed in detail whether the petition provides substantial information with regard to potential distinct population segments of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander other than the petitioner's proposed Scott Bar salamander DPS, which we have treated as a separate species for purposes of this finding. However, we welcome information on the issue of whether either salamander is, in fact, in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, and information on the issue of whether a particular DPS of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander warrants listing. We will consider these issues further during the status review, particularly if we conclude that the species are not in danger of extinction rangewide, nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Finding The Service finds that the information provided in the petition and readily available in our files regarding habitat associations of Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar salamanders and the potential for population losses due to logging and fire is equivocal and conflicting. Therefore, based on the standard applicable to 90-day findings under the Act, we must find that the petition does present substantial information that listing of the two species across all or a portion of their ranges *may* be warranted based on the threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of their habitat and ranges. This finding initiates a status review of these species so that we can gather more scientific data on these and other relevant issues concerning these species. The petition also requested that critical habitat be designated for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and Scott Bar salamander. If we determine in our 12-month finding that listing these species is warranted, we will address the designation of critical habitat in the proposed listing rule or as funding allows. References Cited A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request, from the Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Author The primary authors of this notice are staff of the Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Dated: March 22, 2007. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E7-5774 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AU53 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population Segment From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period; notice of a public hearing. SUMMARY: Under the Endangered Species Act (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce an extension of the comment period for the proposed rule to establish a distinct population segment

(DPS)of the gray wolf ( *Canis lupus* ) in the Northern Rocky Mountains

(NRM)of the United States and to remove the gray wolf in the NRM DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

(List)under the Act. We also announce the location and time of one additional public hearing to receive public comments on this proposal. If you previously submitted comments, please do not resubmit them because we have already incorporated them into the public record and will fully consider them in our final decision and rule. DATES: The public comment period is extended until May 9, 2007. We may not consider any comments we receive after the closing date. We will hold a public hearing on April 19, 2007. For more information, see “Public Hearing and Comments.” ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit comments and materials concerning this proposal, identified by “RIN number 1018-AU53,” by any one of the following methods: 1. *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal—http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail—WesternGrayWolf@fws.gov.* Include “RIN number 1018-AU53” in the subject line of the message. 3. *Fax* —(406) 449-5339. 4. U.S. mail, hand delivery, or courier—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparation of this proposed action, will be available for inspection following the close of the comment period, by appointment, during normal business hours, at our Helena office (see ADDRESSES ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at our Helena office (see ADDRESSES ) or telephone

(406)449-5225, extension 204. Persons who use a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 8, 2007, we published a proposal to establish a DPS of the wolf ( *Canis lupus* ) in the NRM of the United States and to remove the NRM DPS from the List (71 FR 6106). The comment period on this proposal opened February 8, 2007, and extends to April 9, 2007. Due to the complexity of this proposed action, we are extending the comment period for 30 days to allow the public ample opportunity to comment on this complex proposal. Public Hearing and Comments One additional open house, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. (brief presentations about the proposed rule will be given at both 3 p.m. and 4 p.m.), and one additional public hearing, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., will be held on: April 19, 2007, Thursday, at the Cody Auditorium Facility, 1240 Beck Avenue, Cody, WY 82414. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement and present it to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Speakers can sign up only at the open houses and hearings. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us. If you have any questions concerning the public hearing, please contact Sharon Rose

(303)236-4580. If you need reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public hearing, please contact Sharon Rose at

(303)236-4580 as soon as possible in order to allow sufficient time to process requests. Please call no later than 1 week before the hearing date. Information regarding the proposal is available in alternative formats upon request. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this complex proposal. Public hearings are the only method for comments and data to be presented verbally for entry into the public record of this rulemaking and for our consideration during our final decision. Comments and data also can be submitted in writing or electronically, as described in our February 8, 2007, proposal (71 FR 6106) and in the ADDRESSES section above. We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. We solicit information, data, comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposal. Generally, we seek information, data, and comments concerning the boundaries of the proposed NRM DPS and the status of gray wolf in the NRM. Specifically, we seek documented, biological data on the status and management of the NRM wolf population and its habitat. Submit comments as indicated under ADDRESSES . If you wish to submit comments by e-mail, please include your name and return address in your e-mail message. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will take into consideration the comments and any additional information received during the comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final rulemaking. Accordingly, our final decision may differ from this proposal. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: March 23, 2007. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E7-5744 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 [Docket No. 070226045-7045-01; I.D. 020107A] RIN 0648-AT55 Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Management Measures for Bigeye Tuna Pacific-wide and Yellowfin Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: This proposed rule would implement Amendment 14 to the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FMP). The amendment responds to the Secretary of Commerce's determination that overfishing is occurring on bigeye tuna ( *Thunnus obesus* ) Pacific-wide, and on yellowfin tuna ( *Thunnus albacares* ) in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). The measures in the amendment are designed to end overfishing of bigeye tuna Pacific-wide and yellowfin tuna in the WCPO, as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Amendment 14 would establish Federal permitting and reporting requirements for all U.S. Hawaii-based small boat commercial pelagic fishermen. Internationally, Amendment 14 would establish for the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) an internal protocol related to its role in making recommendations to the Secretary on the management of pelagic fish stocks that are managed internationally, including its participation in U.S. delegations to meetings of regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs). This amendment also recommends that NMFS and the Department of State work through the RFMOs to immediately end overfishing of bigeye tuna Pacific-wide and WCPO yellowfin tuna, focusing on fisheries with the greatest impact on Pacific bigeye tuna and WCPO yellowfin tuna, i.e., longline and purse seine fisheries. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received by May 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by *AT55Tuna* , to any of the following addresses: • E-mail: *AT55Tuna@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following document identifier AT55Tuna. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a file size of 10 megabytes. • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail or Hand Delivery: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700. An Environmental Assessment

(EA)was prepared for this amendment. Copies of the Pelagics FMP and Amendment 14 (containing the EA) may be obtained from Kitty M. Simonds, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES ), or by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to 202-395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Harman, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2271. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 15, 2004, NMFS notified the Western Pacific and Pacific Fishery Management Councils that overfishing was occurring on bigeye tuna Pacific-wide (69 FR 78397, December 30, 2004). On March 16, 2006, NMFS notified the Western Pacific Council that overfishing was occurring on western and central Pacific Ocean

(WCPO)yellowfin tuna (71 FR 14837, March 24, 2006). As required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Councils were requested to take appropriate action to end overfishing. Pelagics FMP Amendment 14 contains the Western Pacific Council's recommended actions to end overfishing for both stocks. According to the guidelines for National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (50 CFR 600.310), fishery stock status is assessed with respect to two status determination criteria, one of which is used to determine whether a stock is “overfished,” and the second of which is used to determine if the stock is subject to “overfishing.” A stock is considered to be overfished if its biomass falls below the minimum stock size threshold (MSST). Overfishing means that fishing is occurring at a rate or level that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce maximum sustainable yield

(MSY)on a continuing basis. When a stock is not in an overfished condition, the maximum fishing mortality threshold

(MFMT)is equal to the fishing mortality associated with MSY (F MSY ). The latest stock assessments for bigeye tuna in the Pacific and WCPO yellowfin tuna have concluded that the biomass of neither stock is below their respective MSST. However, the assessments used as a basis for the overfishing determinations (conducted in 2003 and 2004 for Pacific bigeye tuna and 2005 and 2006 for WCPO yellowfin tuna) indicated that the then-current level of fishing mortality did exceed the stocks' respective MFMTs. Consequently, NMFS determined that overfishing was occurring on the Pacific-wide stock of bigeye tuna and on the WCPO stock of yellowfin tuna. Bigeye and yellowfin tuna are highly migratory species, and occur in the waters of multiple nations and the high seas. Consequently, they are targeted by fishing fleets of several nations, including the United States of America (U.S.A.). Until recently, the majority of bigeye tuna in the Pacific Ocean was caught by longliners, primarily for the Japanese sashimi market. During the last 10 years, however, catches of bigeye tuna by purse seiners have increased considerably. Purse seine-caught bigeye tuna are taken primarily when purse seiners targeting skipjack and yellowfin tuna set their nets around fish aggregating devices (FADs). Smaller amounts are also taken by handline and troll vessels. Yellowfin tuna in the WCPO are caught primarily by purse seiners. WCPO longline, pole-and-line, handline and troll fisheries also catch substantial amounts of yellowfin tuna. In 2004, estimated bigeye tuna catches by U.S. commercial fisheries under the Council's authority amounted to 5,163 mt, or 2.3 percent of the 2004 total Pacific-wide bigeye tuna catch. In 2004, estimated yellowfin tuna catches by U.S. commercial fisheries under the Council's authority amounted to 2,383 mt, or about 0.35 percent of the 2004 total Pacific-wide yellowfin tuna catch, and 0.58 percent of the yellowfin tuna caught in the WCPO. These figures indicate that the capacity for unilateral action by the U.S.A. to prevent or end overfishing is limited, as is the capacity for any action taken by the Council to end overfishing on these fish stocks. In response to concerns about the condition of the bigeye tuna stock in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) adopted management measures, commencing with temporal closures of purse-seine fishing and bigeye tuna catch limits for longline vessels. Within the area of competence of the IATTC, the longline fleets of China, Japan, Korea, and Chinese Taipei were allocated specific catch limits. Other member nations of the IATTC were allocated bigeye tuna catch limits equivalent to their respective 2001 catches. The U.S. longline fleet-wide bigeye tuna limit was set at 150 mt, although this quota will increase to 500 mt in 2007. (The IATTC's June 2006 resolution allows for a quota of 500 mt, and the U.S. implementing regulations are still being reviewed for implementation in the near future.) The U.S.A. is a Cooperating Non-member of the Commission on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC). (Although the implementing legislation for U.S. membership in the WCPFC has been signed, the U.S.A. has not formally ratified the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention) or become a member of the Commission.) The WCPFC, established under the Convention, adopted conservation and management measures for WCPO yellowfin tuna and WCPO bigeye tuna in 2005 and 2006. The measures include national limits on bigeye tuna catches by longline fisheries in the Convention area (which overlaps with the area of competence of the IATTC), based on such members' average 2001-04 catches, or for China and the U.S.A., based on their 2004 catches. These limits will remain in effect through 2008. WCPFC cooperating non-members, and participating territories (together abbreviated as CCMs) that caught less than 2,000 mt by longlines in 2004, may take up to 2,000 mt each year from 2006-08. For yellowfin tuna, for which the main source of fishing mortality in the WCPO is purse seine fishing, the WCPFC established measures for purse seiners within the Convention Area (in the area between 20° N and 20° S latitude). Starting in 2006, CCMs are required to take necessary measures to ensure purse seine effort levels do not exceed either 2004 levels, or the average of 2001 to 2004 levels, in waters under their national jurisdiction. Starting in 2007, CCMs must limit effort on the high seas by their purse seine vessels to those same baseline levels. Also beginning n 2007, CCMs must limit the fishing capacity of their fisheries other than longline and tropical purse seine fisheries to the same baseline levels. The adopted measures also require CCMs to develop management plans for the use of FADs in waters under national jurisdiction and on the high seas. The 2004 overfishing determination for Pacific-wide bigeye tuna relied on assessments from two approaches: one assuming a single Pacific-wide stock (assessment completed in July 2003), and the other assuming two stocks, one in the WCPO, corresponding to the area of competence of the WCPFC (assessment completed in July 2004), and the other in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO), corresponding to the area of competence of the IATTC (assessment completed in May 2004). The overfishing determinations relied on assessment results from each of these approaches, but did not rely on any assumptions or conclusions about stock structure. The July 2004 assessment for the WCPO stock indicated a probability of at least 67 percent that the recent fishing mortality rate exceeded the fishing mortality rate associated with MSY, known as the Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold (MFMT). The May 2004 assessment for the EPO stock indicated that in all scenarios considered, the recent fishing mortality rate exceeded the MFMT. The results of the 2003 assessment for the Pacific-wide stock were similar in that the recent fishing mortality rate exceeded the MFMT. The results from the 2003 and 2004 assessments showed that the level of fishing mortality F current was at or above the fishing mortality at MSY (F MSY ), i.e., F current /F MSY = 0.90-1.30 for bigeye tuna Pacific-wide. The latest assessment for bigeye tuna in the WCPO estimated, in the base case model, that F current /F MSY = 1.32 (F current was taken to be the 2001-04 average fishing mortality-at-age). The probability of F current being greater than F MSY was estimated to be 100 percent. The Pacific-wide stock was found not to be overfished, but could become so if levels of fishing mortality are not reduced. In 2005, the Scientific Committee of the WCPFC reviewed a stock assessment for the WCPO stock of yellowfin tuna that indicated that the stock was likely subject to overfishing. The then-current rate of fishing mortality F current was found to be likely in excess of the MFMT, with an F current /F MSY = 1.0 - 2.33. The latest assessment for yellowfin tuna in the WCPO, conducted in 2006 estimated, in the base case model, that F current /F MSY = 1.11 (F current was taken to be the 2001-04 average fishing mortality-at-age). The probability of F current being greater than F MSY was estimated to be 73 percent. The WCPO stock was found not to be overfished, but could become so if levels of fishing mortality are not reduced. Because bigeye and yellowfin tuna are taken by handline and troll vessels, Pelagics FMP Amendment 14 contains measures to assess the impact of small boat fisheries in Hawaii on these species, as well as other pelagic fishes, in the WCPO. Specifically, the Council recommended that NMFS enhance the data collection for U.S. Hawaii-based small boat fishing through mandatory Federal permits and data-collection programs (logbooks) for commercial pelagic fisheries, and improved surveys and voluntary reporting for recreational pelagic fisheries. Pelagics FMP Amendment 14 acknowledges that the Council recommended a control date of June 2, 2005, for entry into the small boat commercial pelagic fisheries in U.S. EEZ waters around Hawaii. On August 15, 2005, NMFS published a notice of this control date (70 FR 47781). The amendment also acknowledges that the Council recommended a control date of June 2, 2005, for entry into domestic longline and purse seine fisheries in U.S. EEZ waters in the western Pacific. On August 15, 2005, NMFS published a notice of this control date (70 FR 47782). These control dates were implemented to notify the public that future participation in these fisheries was not guaranteed if the Council and NMFS developed and implemented limited access programs for the fisheries. Establishment of these control dates does not, however, commit the Council or NMFS to any particular management regime or criteria for entry into these fisheries. The international scope of the overfishing situation for bigeye tuna Pacific-wide and WCPO yellowfin tuna indicates that measures to meaningfully address the problem must be addressed through international institutions. Unilateral management action for Council-managed pelagic fisheries could help reduce the fishing mortality, but would be insufficient to end overfishing. Thus, international measures are a fundamental component of FMP Amendment 14 to end overfishing on these tuna stocks. Internationally, Pelagics FMP Amendment 14 contains several proposed non-regulatory measures and recommendations, including the establishment for the Council of an internal protocol related to its role in making recommendations to the Secretary on the management of pelagic fish stocks that are managed internationally (including steps the Council would take to monitor the status of internationally managed fish stocks, participate in U.S. delegations in meetings with RFMOs, and follow the activities of RFMOs). The Council also recommends that NMFS and the Department of State work through the RFMOs to immediately end overfishing of bigeye tuna Pacific-wide and WCPO yellowfin tuna, focusing on fisheries with the greatest impact on Pacific bigeye tuna and WCPO yellowfin tuna, i.e., longline and purse seine fisheries. Specific international recommendations include plans for reducing longline fishing capacity, reducing purse seine fishing capacity and restrictions on the use of FADs while purse seine fishing, establishment and gradual reduction of national quotas, and other measures. This proposed rule is consistent with section 406 of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA, Public Law 109-479), which added a new subsection 304(i) to the MSA. Section 304(i) requires the Secretary to, among other things, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, immediately take appropriate action at the international level to end overfishing for fisheries that the Secretary has determined

(a)to be overfished or approaching a condition of being overfished due to excessive international fishing pressure, and

(b)for which there are no management measures to end overfishing under an international agreement to which the United States is a party. NMFS has made a determination that both of these conditions are present, and these measures are, therefore, proposed pursuant to subsection 304(i). This proposed rule recognizes that Pacific bigeye tuna and WCPO yellowfin tuna are exploited in waters under US jurisdiction, waters under the jurisdiction of other nations, and on the high seas by foreign fishing fleets along with the U.S. fleet. U.S. fisheries account for only a small percentage of the Pacific bigeye and WCPO yellowfin tuna harvests. Thus, fishing mortality of these tuna stocks stems predominantly from non-U.S. fleets in the region, and any unilateral management action to end overfishing by the U.S.A. would have a proportionally small effect in terms of reducing fishing mortality and ending overfishing. The Council has developed recommendations in Amendment 14 for domestic regulations to address the relative impact of U.S. fishing vessels on the affected stocks. Also in Amendment 14, the Council proposes to recommend, to NMFS and the Secretary of State, international actions to end overfishing in the fisheries. NMFS, in collaboration with the Councils and State Department, is working to end overfishing through the international bodies governing the conservation and management of Pacific bigeye and WCPO yellowfin tunas. Existing Pelagics FMP measures for bigeye Pacific-wide and WCPO yellowfin tuna have been implemented to address the relative impact of U.S. fishing vessels within the meaning of MSA Section 304(i)(2)(A). These measures include limited access programs, mandatory data collection, scientific observers, vessel size limits and gear specifications, and a vessel monitoring system. The additional domestic measures, proposed in this rule, would establish permit and reporting requirements for Hawaii-based small-boat pelagic fisheries to improve the quantity and quality of information on the harvest of Pacific bigeye and WCPO yellowfin tunas. Bigeye tuna is also a management unit species under the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP). The Pacific Council has worked with the Western Pacific Council to develop a response to the determination of overfishing on bigeye tuna Pacific-wide. Amendment 1 to the Pacific Council's HMS FMP is consistent with relevant elements of Pelagics FMP Amendment 14 to end overfishing of bigeye tuna. Comments on this proposed rule must be received by May 14, 2007. Public comment is specifically sought regarding the proposed Federal data collection requirements for small boat commercial pelagic fishermen in Hawaii, including the necessity of, and possible alternative means for, the proposed data collection program in light of existing programs collecting data for the same fisheries. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on May 14, 2007, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date. In addition to soliciting public comments on this proposed rule, NMFS is soliciting comments on proposed FMP Amendment 14 through April 16, 2007 (as stated in the Notice of Availability published on February 15, 2007, 72 FR 7385). Public comments on this proposed rule, if received by April 16, 2007, will also be considered in the approval/disapproval decision for Amendment 14. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision for Amendment 14, but will be considered for this proposed rule. Classification At this time, NMFS has not determined that Pelagics FMP Amendment 14, which this proposed rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The analysis follows: The statutory basis for this rule is the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The objective of this rulemaking is to address overfishing of Pacific bigeye tuna, and yellowfin tunas in the WCPO by improving databases required for more accurate assessments. The rule will directly impact 1,646 vessels comprising the entire Hawaii-based commercial pelagic small boat fisheries. Therefore, a substantial number (100 percent) of the affected universe of small entities will be impacted by this rulemaking. The fishery includes troll, handline, offshore handline, and pole-and-line vessels. All vessels participating in this fishery are considered to be small entities under the current Small Business Administration definition of small fish-harvesting businesses (gross receipts not in excess of $ 4.0 million). Therefore, there are no disproportionate impacts between small and large entities under this rule. In addition, there are no disproportionate economic impacts among vessels by gear, geographic area fished or home-ported, or vessel characteristics resulting from this rulemaking. The analysis of economic impacts relies on changes in net revenue as a proxy for profitability. Each permit is anticipated to cost approximately $80 annually in the form of an administrative fee representing from 2% to less than 1% of annual per vessel revenues by gear type. Expected economic costs per vessel resulting from implementation of this rule is $107, including opportunity cost ($25 per hour x 1.09 hours) reflecting the individual annual burden hours of filling out and submitting the logbook. Using an average annual revenue per vessel of $5,496, the cost to the vessel would be approximately 1.75% of annual revenue. Based on this small relative decrease in net revenues resulting from this rulemaking, NMFS has concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based on this determination, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. The public reporting burden for these requirements is estimated to be 30 min for a new permit application, and 20 min for completing a fishing logbook each day. Each estimate includes time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Public comment is sought regarding whether

(a)this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility,

(b)the accuracy of the burden estimates,

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES ), and email to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* or fax to 202-395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665 Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaii, Hawaiian natives, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Remote Island Areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 23, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 665 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC 1. The authority citation for part 665 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 665.12, add the definition of “Hawaii non-longline pelagic permit” to read as follows: § 665.12 Definitions. *Hawaii non-longline pelagic permit* means the permit required by § 665.21 to use non-longline fishing gear to fish for Pacific pelagic management unit species in EEZ waters around Hawaii, the resulting catch of which either is, or is intended to be, sold, bartered, or traded. 3. In § 665.21, add a new paragraph

(o)to read as follows: § 665.21 Permits.

(o)The owner of any vessel used to fish for Pacific pelagic management unit species using non-longline gear in EEZ waters around Hawaii, the resulting catch of which either is, or is intended to be, sold, bartered, or traded, must have a valid Hawaii non-longline pelagic permit issued for the vessel. 5. In § 665.22, add new paragraph

(uu)to read as follows: § 665.22 Prohibitions.

(uu)Engage in fishing using non-longline gear for Pacific pelagic management unit species in EEZ waters around Hawaii without a valid Hawaii non-longline pelagic permit as required under § 665.21(o). [FR Doc. E7-5825 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 070316061-7061-01; I.D. 031907B] RIN 0648-AV13 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Observer Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule to amend regulations supporting the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program). This action is necessary to revise requirements for the facilitation of observer data transmission and improve inseason support for observers. The proposed rule would promote the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMPs). DATES: Written comments must be received by April 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *0648-AV13-PR-OCS@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following identifier: “OCS proposed rule.” E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes; • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802; • Fax:

(907)586-7557; • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK; or • Webform at the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from the mailing address above or from the NMFS Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Anderson, 907-586-7228, or *jason.anderson@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area

(BSAI)and Gulf of Alaska

(GOA)in the Exclusive Economic Zone under the FMPs. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has prepared the FMPs pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. The Council originally adopted and NMFS approved and implemented the current “interim” Observer Program (Observer Program) in 1996 (61 FR 56425, November 1, 1996). Through interim extensions, Observer Program regulatory requirements have been extended through 2007 (62 FR 67755, December 30, 1997; 63 FR 69024, December 15, 1998; 65 FR 80381, December 21, 2000; and 67 FR 72595, December 6, 2002). A proposed rule that would extend regulations implementing the Observer Program indefinitely was published on February 22, 2007 (72 FR 7948). The Observer Program provides the regulatory framework for the collection of data by observers to obtain information necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish fisheries managed under the FMPs. Regulations implementing the Observer Program at § 679.50 require observer coverage aboard catcher vessels, catcher/processors, motherships, and shoreside and stationary floating processors that participate in the groundfish fisheries off Alaska, as well as establish vessel, processor, and observer provider responsibilities relating to the Observer Program. Timely electronic communication of catch reports submitted to NMFS by industry and observers is crucial for groundfish quota and prohibited species catch allowance monitoring. In July 1995, NMFS issued a final rule (60 FR 34904, July 5, 1995) that required computer hardware and software that enabled observers to send NMFS electronic data on all catcher/processors, motherships, and shoreside processors that process groundfish. In October 2003, a final rule was published (68 FR 58038, October 8, 2003) that extended these requirements to all catcher vessels that are required to carry an observer at all times during fishing operations. In April 2006, a final rule (71 FR 20346, April 20, 2006) was issued that, in part, revised hardware requirements to allow software upgrades installation. These rulemakings referred to the electronic data submission and communications system as “Atlas.” Regulations describing hardware and software requirements for electronic submission of observer reports on all catcher/processors, motherships, catcher vessels required to carry an observer at all times, and from shoreside and stationary floating processors are found at § 679.50(g)(1) and (g)(2). This electronic data submission and communications system is now called the “observer communications system (OCS).” The OCS is comprised of computers and communications equipment supplied by catcher vessels, catcher/processors, motherships, and shoreside and stationary floating processors, as well as custom software provided by NMFS. The OCS allows observers to rapidly process and report the data they collect to NMFS. Its use on catcher vessels, catcher/processors, motherships, and shoreside and stationary floating processors has enhanced timely and accurate fisheries data reporting. Regulations at § 679.50(g)(1) and (g)(2) require each OCS-use computer to meet processing chip, memory, operating system, disk drives, and modem minimum specifications. Since its implementation, OCS requirements have been periodically revised through proposed and final rulemaking to require necessary upgrades as commercially available software became obsolete or unsupported by its manufacturer, or as NMFS upgraded the OCS software component to increase data quality and efficiency. Rather than propose necessary hardware and software component upgrades to support new OCS software, NMFS proposes to remove these specific requirements. NMFS proposes to require that each catcher vessel, catcher/processor, mothership, and shoreside and stationary floating processor already subject to OCS requirements provide hardware and software that is fully functional and operational with the NMFS-supplied software. The term “functional” would mean that all the tasks and components of the NMFS supplied software and data transmissions to NMFS could be executed effectively by the computer equipment. NMFS would no longer revise OCS hardware and software requirements through rulemaking. As changes to the software component of the OCS become necessary to support electronic communications of observer data, Observer Program staff would communicate in writing with vessel and plant personnel to describe those changes. Catcher vessels, catcher/processors, motherships, and shoreside or stationary floating processors subject to OCS requirements would be required to ensure their computer hardware and software components continued to meet the functionality and operational requirements. Observer Program staff are currently upgrading the OCS software component. One reason for the upgrade is that the commercial database software used to store observer-collected information and interface with the OCS software is no longer supported by the manufacturer. The new OCS software should increase overall data quality by increasing the functionality and efficiency of the OCS, and interface with new, supported commercial database software. The new OCS software is expected to be available for installation for the 2008 fishing year. If this proposed regulation is adopted, catcher vessels, catcher/processors, motherships, and shoreside or stationary floating processors must ensure the OCS computer meets the minimum specifications necessary for the software to execute all of its tasks, including communication with NMFS computers to transmit data for the 2008 fishing year. Changes to OCS Regulations Presently, § 679.50(g)(1)(iii)(B)( *1* ) and (g)(2)(iii)(B)( *1* ) describe the minimum hardware and software requirements for the computer provided for an observer's use. This action proposes to remove these requirements except that the computer would still be required to be connected to a communication device that provides a point-to-point modem NMFS host computer connection. Proposed regulations at § 679.50(g)(1)(iii)(B)( *2* ) and (g)(2)(iii)(B)( *2* ) would require catcher vessel, catcher/processor, mothership, and shoreside or stationary floating processor operators to install the most recent NMFS-provided OCS software version or other NMFS-approved, commercially available software. While no commercially available software has been approved at this time, NMFS would consider approving commercially available software in the future. Regulations at § 679.50(g)(1)(iii)(C) and (g)(2)(iii)(C) currently require all OCS hardware to be fully functional and operational. According to these regulations, “functional” means that the hardware can initiate and transmit data to NMFS. Under this action, “functional” would be defined so that all of the NMFS-supplied, or other approved, software's tasks and components must also be fully functional and operational on the computer equipment. Additionally, NMFS proposes to redesignate these paragraphs as § 679.50(g)(1)(iii)(B)( *3* ) and (g)(2)(iii)(B)( *3* ), respectively, to clarify that both software and hardware OCS components must be functional. The revisions described above are necessary to accommodate the larger, more sophisticated software and database programs provided, or other approved, by NMFS. Classification This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA)as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. An action description, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. An IRFA copy is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and is not repeated here. An analysis summary follows. This proposed rule would require vessels and shoreside or stationary floating processors to meet current technology standards necessary to support OCS software changes as they occur. Entities subject to OCS requirements include all motherships, catcher/processors, shoreside or stationary floating processors and catcher vessels required to carry an observer at all times. These proposed actions would revise requirements for the facilitation of observer data transmission and improve support for observers. All motherships have gross revenues in excess of $4 million and are considered large entities. Data available for 2005 indicate that 17 of the 83 catcher/processors active in the groundfish fisheries that year would be considered small entities. Confidentiality restrictions require NMFS to report gross revenue information in aggregate of four or more entities. These restrictions prevent NMFS from reporting the number of catcher vessels and shoreside or stationary floating processors regulated under this proposed action as small entities because each group is no larger than four. Alternative 1 described in the EA/RIR/IRFA is the status quo alternative. Current regulations regarding computing and communications equipment would remain in effect. Alternative 2 would remove current hardware and software specifications for all vessels and shoreside or stationary floating processors currently subject to OCS requirements, and instead require them to ensure the computer provided for use by an observer meets the minimum specifications necessary for the NMFS-provided OCS software to execute all of its tasks, including communicate with NMFS computers to transmit data. Alternative 3 would revise current regulations to upgrade minimum hardware and software specifications for all vessels and shoreside or stationary floating processors currently subject to OCS requirements. Future changes to OCS software that would require hardware and software upgrades would require additional rulemaking. Upgrade costs to accommodate anticipated changes to OCS software are estimated to average $93 for all catcher/processors, $200 for all motherships, $315 for all shoreside and stationary floating processors, and $438 for all catcher vessels required to carry an observer at all times under the proposed action. For the 17 catcher/processors considered small entities, the cost is estimated at about 0.004 percent of one year's gross revenues. As noted above, NMFS is unable to report gross revenues for catcher vessels and shoreside or stationary floating processors considered small entities under this action. Therefore, OCS upgrade costs cannot be reported as a percentage of gross revenues for these entities. No additional recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance requirements are associated with this action. The analysis did not reveal any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 23, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows: PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 *et seq.* , 1801 *et seq.* , 3631 *et seq.* ; Pub. L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 110. 2. In § 679.50, paragraph (g)(1)(iii)(C) is redesignated as paragraph (g)(1)(iii)(B)( *3* ) and revised; paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(C) is redesignated as paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(B)( *3* ) and revised; and paragraphs (g)(1)(iii)(B)( *1* ) and ( *2* ), and (g)(2)(iii)(B)( *1* ) and ( *2* ) are revised to read as follows: § 679.50 Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December 31, 2007.

(g)* * *

(1)* * *

(iii)* * *

(2)* * *

(iii)* * *

(B)* * * ( *1* ) *Observer access to computer.* Making a computer available for use by the observer. This computer must be connected to a communication device that provides a point-to-point connection to the NMFS host computer. ( *2* ) *NMFS-supplied software.* Ensuring that the shoreside or stationary floating processor specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section has installed the most recent release of NMFS data entry software provided by the Regional Administrator, or other approved software. ( *3* ) *Functional and operational equipment.* Ensuring that the communication equipment required in paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(B) of this section and that is used by observers to enter and transmit data, is fully functional and operational. “Functional” means that all the tasks and components of the NMFS supplied, or other approved, software described at paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(B)( *2* ) of this section and the data transmissions to NMFS can be executed effectively aboard the vessel by the communications equipment. [FR Doc. E7-5826 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 60 Thursday, March 29, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. AMS-PY-07-0021] Notice of Request for an Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the intention of the Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)to request an extension of a currently approved information collection in support of customer-focused improvement initiatives for USDA-procured poultry, livestock, fruit, and vegetable products. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by May 29, 2007. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or to David Bowden, Jr., Chief, Standardization Branch, Poultry Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0259, Washington, DC 20250-0259,

(202)690-3148. Comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: *http://www.regulations.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Customer Service Survey for USDA-Donated Food Products. *OMB Number:* 0581-0182. *Expiration Date, as approved by OMB:* 10/31/2007. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* Starting with a 1996 pilot project by AMS, customers have been able to use the Customer Opinion Postcard, Form AMS-11, a 4-by 6-inch postcard, to voluntarily submit their perceptions of poultry, livestock, fruit, and vegetable products procured by USDA for school lunch program (42 U.S.C. 1751 *et seq.* ) and other domestic food assistance programs. These cards have proven to be a quick and inexpensive way for AMS to learn customer perception of USDA commodities thereby helping the Agency make improvements to its products. AMS would like to continue the use of the customer opinion postcards to get voluntary customer feedback on various products each year by reapproval of the Customer Opinion Postcard, Form AMS-11. In this way AMS will be better able to meet the quality expectations of school food service personnel and the 26 million school children who consume these products daily. Information about customers' perceptions of USDA-procured products is sought as a sound management practice to support AMS activities under 7 CFR part 250, regulations for “Donation of Foods for Use in the United States, Its Territories and Possessions and Areas Under Its Jurisdiction.” The information collected will be used primarily by authorized representatives of USDA (AMS, and the Food and Nutrition Service) and shared with State government agencies and product suppliers. To enable customers to mail cards directly to the commodity program that is soliciting the information, several versions of Form AMS-11 will be used, each with a different return address. Response information about products produced by a particular supplier may be shared with that supplier. Similarly, response information from customers located in a particular State may be shared with government agencies within that State. AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.083 hours (5 minutes) per response. *Respondents:* State, local, and tribal governments, and not-for-profit businesses. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 8,400. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 700 hours. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from David Bowden, Jr., Chief, Standardization Branch, at

(202)690-3148. Send comments regarding, but not limited to, the following:

(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; and

(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. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Dated: March 23, 2007. Kenneth C. Clayton, Acting Administrator Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-5793 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0173] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Imported Seed and Screenings AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for importation of seed and screenings. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0173 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0173, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0173. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on an information collection associated with regulations for importation of seed and screenings, contact Mr. Rodney Young, Botanist, Plant Protection and Quarantine, APHIS, Seed Examination Facility, Bldg. 580, BARC-E, Beltsville, MD 20705;

(301)504-8605; ext. 254. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Imported Seed and Screenings. *OMB Number:* 0579-0124. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* Under the authority of the Federal Seed Act

(FSA)of 1939, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1551 *et seq.* ), the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA)regulates the importation and interstate movement of certain agricultural and vegetable seeds and screenings. Title III of the FSA, “Foreign Commerce,” requires shipments of imported agricultural and vegetable seeds to be labeled correctly and to be tested for the presence of the seeds of certain noxious weeds as a condition of entry into the United States. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's regulations implementing the provisions of title III of the FSA are found in 7 CFR part 361. The regulations require the use of a number of information collection activities, including declaration of importation, container labeling, notification of seed location, a seed return request, seed analysis certificates (PPQ Form 925), a compliance agreement (PPQ Form 519), seed identity maintenance, and associated recordkeeping. We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1)Evaluate 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;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.37826 hours per response. *Respondents:* Importers of seed and screenings, seed cleaning/processing facility personnel, officials of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), and private seed laboratories accredited by CFIA. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 1,200. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 25. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 30,000. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 11,348 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of March 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-5780 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0176] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Artificially Dwarfed Plants AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of artificially dwarfed plants. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0176 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0176, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0176. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of artificially dwarfed plants, contact Dr. Arnold Tschanz, Senior Import Specialist, Permits, Registrations, Imports and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737;

(301)734-5306. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Importation of Artificially Dwarfed Plants. *OMB Number:* 0579-0176. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 *et seq.* ) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The regulations contained in “Subpart-Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant Products” (7 CFR 319.37 through 319.37-14) prohibit or restrict the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation. Among other things, the regulations require artificially dwarfed plants imported into the United States to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the government of the country of origin. This certificate must contain declarations that certain conditions were met in the country of origin to protect against the infestation of the plants by longhorned beetles and other plant pests. We are asking OMB to approve our use of this information collection activity for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1)Evaluate 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;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(EIS)for the North Sheep Grazing Allotment Final EIS. The Supplement will include additional analyses and new information concerning Management Indicator Species (MIS), capable and suitable grazing lands, and adaptive management strategies. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 45 days after publication of the draft Supplement. The draft Supplement is expected at the end of August 2007 and the final Supplement is expected to be available January 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Sawtooth National Forest; Attn: North Sheep Allotments Supplement; 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, Idaho 83340; or via telephone at

(208)727-5000; or you may hand-deliver your comments to the Sawtooth National Recreation Office, located at 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, during normal business hours from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an e-mail message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), and Word (.doc) to: *comments-intermtn-sawtooth@fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Brown, Assistant Forest Planner, at the address above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The original Notice of Intent for the North Sheep EIS was published in the **Federal Register** Vol. 68, No. 87, May 6, 2003. A revised Notice of Intent was published in the **Federal Register** Vol. 68, No. 145, July 9, 2003. On September 30, 2004, two Records of Decision were issued, based on the North Sheep Final EIS. These decisions were appealed in 2004. In 2005, the Appeal Deciding Officer affirmed both decisions. Purpose and Need for Action The Supplement will not change the purpose and need for the North Sheep Final EIS which was described on page 1-5. Proposed Action The Supplement will not change the proposed action for the North Sheep Final EIS which was described on pages 1-5 through 1-6. Responsible Official There are two Responsible Officials involved. For decisions regarding the Baker Creek and North Fork-Boulder allotments, the Responsible Official is the District Ranger, Ketchum Ranger District, P.O. Box 2356 (206 Sun Valley Road), Ketchum, Idaho 83340. For the Smiley Creek and Fisher Creek allotments, the Area Ranger of the SNRA is the Responsible Official—5 North Fork Canyon Road; Ketchum, ID 83340. Nature of Decision To Be Made Each Responsible Official will review the information on the Supplement and determine if their 2004 Record of Decision based on the North Sheep Final EIS should be modified or if the original decision is to remain in effect and unchanged. Scoping Process Public scoping for the Supplement will commence with the publication of this Notice of Intent. Public notices will be placed in local newspapers. Press releases will be distributed to the media. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the Supplement to the North Sheep EIS. The comment period for scoping is 30 days from the date the EPA publishes this notice of intent in the **Federal Register** . A legal notice will be published in the newspaper of record and a Notice of Availability will be published in the **Federal Register** to inform the public when supplemental information is available for review and comment. The draft Supplement will be distributed to all parties that received the 2004 North Sheep Final EIS and record of decision and to those parties that filed an appeal of the 2004 North Sheep RODs. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review A draft Supplement to the EIS will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft Supplement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC,* 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel,* 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris,* 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final Supplement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft Supplement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft Supplement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft Supplement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21) Dated: March 6, 2007. Jane Kollmeyer, Sawtooth Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 07-1533 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 18

Traces to 18 documents