Unknown. Final rule; official staff interpretation
25,819 words·~117 min read·
/register/2007/07/05/07-3260A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-07-05.xml --- 72 128 Thursday, July 5, 2007 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36648-36649 07-3272 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Forest Service See Rural Housing Service See Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36647-36648 E7-12917 E7-12962 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Phytosanitary treatments:
Plant pests; treatment amendments, 36629-36632 E7-13036 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36649-36650 E7-13008 Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health— Radiation and Worker Health Advisory Board, 36710 E7-12982 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare:
Long-term care hospitals; prospective payment system (2008 RY); annual payment rate updates and policy changes, 36612-36613 07-3260 clarification Correction, 36613-36616 07-3261 NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Rural hospitals; Medicare Hospital Gainsharing Demonstration Program, 36710-36711 07-3265 Civil Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 36655 07-3304 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Regattas and marine parades: Port Huron to Mackinac Island Race, 36598-36599 E7-13020 Commerce Commerce Department See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Freedom of Information Act; implementation, 36594-36595 E7-13001 Consumer Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 36674-36676 E7-12906 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
Commission agenda, priorities, and strategic plan, 36676 E7-12965 Defense Defense Department RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Introduction, 36852 07-3277 Small Business Rerepresentation, 36852-36856 07-3279 Small Entity Compliance Guide, 36856-36857 07-3278 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc., 36727-36728 E7-12976 Amri Rensselaer, Inc., 36728 E7-12955 Austin Pharma LLC, 36728 E7-12978 Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals, Inc., 36728 E7-12967 Chambrex Charles City, Inc., 36729 E7-12966 Cody Laboratories, Inc., 36729 E7-12948 Dade Behring Inc., 36729 E7-12960 Knoll Pharmaceutical Co., 36727 E7-12957 Lin Zhi International Inc., 36729-36730 E7-12973 Rhodes Technologies, 36730 E7-12974 Siegfried (USA), Inc., 36730 E7-12975 Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals, Inc., 36730-36731 E7-12971 Education Education Department NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:
Special education and rehabilitative services— Youth with disabilities; improvement of postsecondary and employment outcomes; model demonstration projects, 36676-36685 E7-12895 07-3249 Vocational and adult education— Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program, 36685-36693 E7-13022 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.: American Manufacturing International, Inc.; correction, 36731 E7-12914 Armstrong Wood Products, Inc.; correction, 36731 E7-12911 Form Tech Industries, LLC, 36731-36732 E7-12913 Golden Ratio Woodworks, 36732 E7-12909 Kimberly Clark Corp., 36732-36733 E7-12910 Mahle Inc., 36733 E7-12907 Penn Mould Industries, Inc., 36733-36734 E7-12912 Prelude Foam Products Inc. et al., 36734-36735 E7-12908 Robison & Anton Textile Co., 36735 E7-12915 Sunspring America, Inc., 36735 E7-12916 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings:
Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board— Savannah River Site, SC, 36693 E7-12981 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air programs; approval and promulgation; State plans for designated facilities and pollutants: Ohio, 36605-36607 E7-13002 Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States; air quality planning purposes; designation of areas: Kentucky, 36601-36605 E7-13003 Ohio; correction, 36599-36601 E7-13000 Superfund program: National oil and hazardous substances contingency plan priorities list, 36607-36610 E7-13056 PROPOSED RULES Superfund program:
National oil and hazardous substances contingency plan priorities list, 36634-36635 E7-13060 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36700-36701 E7-12997 Air programs; State authority delegations: Indiana, 36702 E7-12851 Meetings: Scientific Counselors Board, 36702-36703 E7-12999 Water pollution control: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System— Massachusetts and New Hampshire; noncontact cooling water discharges; general permits, 36703-36704 E7-12990 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Class E airspace, 36593-36594 E7-12794 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36746-36747 07-3256 Meetings:
RTCA Inc., 36747 07-3257 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Radio stations; table of assignments: Colorado, 36616 E7-12650 PROPOSED RULES Radio stations; table of assignments: Georgia, 36635 E7-12860 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36704-36706 E7-12991 E7-12993 E7-12994 Common carrier services: Wireline Competition Bureau; deployment and subscribership promotion in underserved areas, including “near reservation” areas, 36706-36708 E7-12862 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Complaints filed:
DC Energy, LLC, 36696 E7-12934 Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 36696-36697 E7-13064 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Alaska Power & Telephone Co., 36697-36698 E7-12926 Southern LNG, Inc., et al., 36698 E7-12932 Hydroelectric applications, 36698-36700 E7-12928 E7-12933 Meetings: Crossroads Pipeline Co.; technical conference, 36694 E7-12937 Northern Natural Gas Co.; technical conference, 36700 E7-12936 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Carson Cogeneration Co., 36693-36694 E7-12938 Crossroads Pipeline Co., 36694 E7-12929 Dauphin Island Gathering Partners, 36694-36695 E7-12931 MidAmerican Energy Co., 36695 E7-12927 Viking Gas Transmission Co., 36695 E7-12930 Western Area Power Administration, 36695-36696 E7-12935 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Federal agency actions on proposed highways; judicial review claims:
Sacramento County, CA; State Route 50 project, 36747-36748 E7-12900 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements filed, etc., 36708 E7-13019 Ocean transportation intermediary licenses: Bugatti Freight Int’l
(USA)Inc. et al., 36708-36709 E7-13033 Dolphin Shipping, Inc., 36709 E7-13041 Freight Right Global Logistics, Inc., et al., 36709 E7-13040 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Motor carrier safety standards: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act; implementation— Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program; State compliance plans, etc., 36760-36791 E7-11717 NOTICES Motor carrier safety standards: Commercial driver's license standards; exemption applications— National Agricultural Aviation Association, 36748-36750 E7-13021 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36750-36751 E7-13016 Exemption petitions, etc.: Boone & Scenic Valley Railroad, 36751-36752 E7-13025 Carolina Coastal Railway, Inc., 36752 E7-13028 Maryland Transit Administration, 36752-36753 E7-13029 Traffic control systems; discontinuance or modification: Rock & Rail, LLC, et al., 36753-36754 E7-13027 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Electronic fund transfers (Regulation E): Financial institutions compliance, requirements for electronic fund transfer; exception from terminal receipts requirements, 36589-36593 E7-12810 NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 36709-36710 E7-12985 Financial Financial Management Service See Fiscal Service Fiscal Fiscal Service NOTICES Surety companies acceptable on Federal bonds: Acadia Insurance Co. et al. [ **Editorial Note:** The page number for this document was incorrectly listed in the Monday, July 2, 2007 **Federal Register** Table of Contents. The correct page number is 36192] Factory Mutual Insurance Co. et al., 36758 07-3239 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and threatened species: Findings on petitions, etc.— Casey's June beetle, 36635-36646 E7-13031 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES Animal drugs, feeds, and related products: Sponsor name and address changes— UDL Laboratories, Inc., 36595 E7-13010 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Resource Advisory Committees— Hood/Willamette, 36650-36651 07-3251 07-3252 GSA General Services Administration RULES Acquisition regulations: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; procedure rules, 36794-36819 07-3064 Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Introduction, 36852 07-3277 Small Business Rerepresentation, 36852-36856 07-3279 Small Entity Compliance Guide, 36856-36857 07-3278 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Food and Drug Administration See Health Resources and Services Administration See National Institutes of Health Health Health Resources and Services Administration RULES National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Calculation of average cost of health insurance policy, 36610-36612 E7-13039 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard Indian Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Tribal-State Compacts approval; Class III (casino) gambling: Pueblo of Isleta et al., NM, 36717 E7-12904 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Export transactions: List of unverified persons in foreign countries, guidance to exporters as to “red flags” (Supplement No. 3 to 15 CFR part 732); revision, 36655-36658 E7-12894 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Indian Affairs Bureau See Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Circular welded carbon quality steel pipe from— China, 36663-36668 E7-13017 Cut-to-length carbon steel plate from— Romania, 36658-36663 E7-13009 Stainless steel bar from— India, 36668 E7-13011 Countervailing duties: Circular welded carbon quality steel pipe from— China, 36668-36672 E7-13014 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36717-36718 E7-12988 Import investigations: Buffer systems and components used in container processing lines, 36718-36719 E7-12989 Coated free sheet paper from— Various countries, 36719-36720 E7-12987 Laminated woven sacks from— China, 36720-36721 E7-12986 Justice Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36721-36725 E7-12956 E7-12958 E7-12959 E7-12961 E7-12964 E7-12968 Privacy Act; systems of records, 36725-36727 E7-12992 Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36754 E7-13015 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Introduction, 36852 07-3277 Small Business Rerepresentation, 36852-36856 07-3279 Small Entity Compliance Guide, 36856-36857 07-3278 National National Council on Disability NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 36735-36736 07-3293 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36736 E7-12970 Meetings: Arts Advisory Panel, 36736 E7-13012 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 36711-36712 07-3245 National Eye Institute, 36712 07-3238 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 36714 07-3242 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 36712-36713 07-3236 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 36713 07-3237 National Institute of Mental Health, 36714 07-3247 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 36713-36714 07-3240 07-3241 Scientific Review Center, 36714-36716 07-3243 07-3244 07-3246 Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: Endothelix, Inc., 36716 E7-12898 FP BioPharma, LLC, 36716-36717 E7-12899 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management: West Coast States and Western Pacific fisheries— Pacific Coast groundfish, 36617-36628 07-3262 NOTICES Endangered and threatened species: Incidental take permits— Green Diamond Resource Co.; California; salmon and steelhead, 36672-36673 E7-13061 Marine mammal permit applications, determinations, etc., 36673 E7-13062 Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 36673-36674 E7-12963 National Sea Grant Review Panel, 36674 E7-12972 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 36674 E7-13065 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Biological Sciences Advisory Committee et al., 36736-36737 E7-12821 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Regulatory guides; issuance, availability, and withdrawal, 36737 E7-12980 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 36737 07-3290 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36754-36757 E7-13007 Public Public Debt Bureau See Fiscal Service Rural Rural Housing Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36651 E7-12969 RUS Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Community Connect Program, 36651-36655 07-3285 Community Connect Program; withdrawn, 36655 07-3286 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Securities: Restricted securities; holding period for affiliates and non-affiliates, 36822-36849 07-3217 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 36737-36738 E7-12939 Investment Company Act of 1940: Boyle Fund et al., 36738-36740 E7-12944 RealNetworks, Inc, 36740-36742 E7-12943 Securities: Broker and dealer definitions; order extending temporary exemption of banks, 36742 E7-13058 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 36743-36744 E7-13013 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 36744-36746 E7-12940 Surface Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office RULES Permanent program and abandoned mine land reclamation plan submissions: Virginia, 36595-36598 E7-12979 PROPOSED RULES Permanent program and abandoned mine land reclamation plan submissions: Virginia, 36632-36634 E7-12977 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Central Midland Railway Co., 36757-36758 E7-12753 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Federal Railroad Administration See Maritime Administration See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board Treasury Treasury Department See Fiscal Service Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Transportation Department, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 36760-36791 E7-11717 Part III General Services Administration, 36794-36819 07-3064 Part IV Securities and Exchange Commission, 36822-36849 07-3217 Part V Defense Department; General Services Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 36852-36857 07-3277 07-3278 07-3279 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 128 Thursday, July 5, 2007 Rules and Regulations FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 205 [Regulation E; Docket No. R-1270] Electronic Fund Transfers AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. ACTION: Final rule; official staff interpretation. SUMMARY: The Board is amending Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and the official staff commentary to the regulation. Regulation E requires that financial institutions make a receipt available at the time a consumer initiates an electronic fund transfer
(EFT)at an electronic terminal. The final rule creates an exception from this requirement for EFTs of $15 or less. DATES: The final rule is effective August 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vivian W. Wong, Attorney, or Ky Tran-Trong, Counsel, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, at
(202)452-2412 or
(202)452-3667. For users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD)only, contact
(202)263-4869. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Statutory Background The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA or Act) (15 U.S.C. 1693 *et seq.* ), enacted in 1978, provides a basic framework establishing the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic fund transfer
(EFT)systems. The EFTA is implemented by the Board's Regulation E (12 CFR part 205). Examples of the types of transfers covered by the Act and regulation include transfers initiated through an automated teller machine (ATM), point-of-sale
(POS)terminal, automated clearinghouse (ACH), telephone bill-payment plan, or remote banking service. The Act and regulation provide for disclosure of the terms and conditions of an EFT service; documentation of EFTs by means of terminal receipts and periodic account activity statements; limitations on consumer liability for unauthorized transfers; procedures for error resolution; and certain rights related to preauthorized EFTs. The Act and regulation also prescribe restrictions on the unsolicited issuance of ATM and debit cards and other access devices. The official staff commentary (12 CFR part 205 (Supp. I)) interprets the requirements of Regulation E to facilitate compliance and provides protection from liability under sections 915 and 916 of the EFTA for financial institutions and persons subject to the Act. 15 U.S.C. 1693m(d)(1). The commentary is updated periodically to address significant questions that arise. II. Background and Overview of Comments Received Under the EFTA and Regulation E, financial institutions must make a receipt available at the time a consumer initiates an EFT at an electronic terminal. 1 For this purpose, electronic terminals include ATMs and POS terminals. The receipt requirement applies whenever an EFT is made at an electronic terminal, regardless of the transaction amount. 2 1 *See* Section 906 of the EFTA (15 U.S.C. 1693d) and 12 CFR 205.9(a). 2 The terminal receipt requirement does not apply to transactions initiated through a telephone operated by a consumer, or to transactions initiated by a consumer “by a means analogous in function to a telephone.” Thus, the receipt requirement does not apply to Internet transactions, where a consumer uses a computer to visit a merchant's web site to purchase goods or services. *See* § 205.2(h); comment 2(h)-1(ii). According to industry representatives, the receipt requirement has been an obstacle to their ability to respond to recent shifts in consumer payment preferences from cash to debit cards, particularly in environments that exclusively handle small-dollar transactions. For vending machines, for example, the costs associated with installing and servicing additional printing equipment capable of providing terminal receipts have been an impediment to offering cashless payment options. For public mass transit systems, the time required to provide each consumer with a receipt for debit card transactions at the gate or on a vehicle would cause delays that render the use of debit cards impractical in such circumstances. On December 1, 2006, the Board published a notice of proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement to provide a receipt to consumers at POS and other electronic terminals for transactions of $15 or less. 71 FR 69500. In support of the proposal, the Board cited the implementation costs and the growing consumer preference for using debit cards in all types of transactions, regardless of the dollar amount of the transaction. 3 In addition, the Board noted that while receipts may be important to consumers for moderate- to high-value transactions, receipts may be less significant for small-dollar transactions because consumers are less likely to retain them for proof of payment or for account management purposes given the limited risk of loss to the consumer. Moreover, consumers would continue to receive a record of each transaction on their periodic statements and retain the right to assert an error arising from that transaction with their account-holding financial institution, provided notice was given within the required time frames. 4 3 *See* Elizabeth Olson, *Who Needs Pocket Change When You've Got Plastic?* , N.Y. Times, Jun. 17, 2007, at BU5. *See also* Geoffrey Gerdes and Jack Walton II, “Trends in the Use of Payment Instruments in the United States,” *Federal Reserve Bulletin* 180, 181 (Spring 2005), and Ron Borzekowski, Elizabeth Kiser, and Shaista Ahmed, *Consumers' Use of Debit Cards: Patterns, Preferences, and Price Response* (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Financial and Economic Discussion Series 2006-16, April 2006). 4 *See* 12 CFR 205.9(b) and 205.11. The Board received 56 comment letters in response to the proposal. Commenters included banks, credit unions, card associations, financial and other industry trade associations, consumer groups, and individual consumers. A majority of the comment letters were submitted by industry while nearly 20 letters were submitted by individual consumers or consumer groups. In general, financial institutions and other industry commenters supported the Board's proposal to eliminate the receipt requirement for small-dollar transactions although many of these commenters urged the Board to increase the dollar threshold for the exception. Specifically, these commenters advocated an increase in the dollar threshold from $15 to $25, stating that a higher threshold would provide greater flexibility in the future to accommodate consumer preferences for electronic forms of payment in more market segments in the future. Industry commenters also favored a $25 threshold for consistency with current payment card association rules that waive the personal identification number
(PIN)and signature authorization requirements for certain merchants for transactions under $25. Consumer group commenters believed that the $15 threshold was too high and stated that a $5 threshold would be sufficient to accommodate the retail environments that currently do not accept debit cards. Consumer groups also suggested some additional consumer protections be implemented along with the exception, including limiting the exception only to retail environments that do not conduct any transactions over the dollar threshold. The Board received comments from 18 individual consumers. While six individual consumers supported the Board's proposal, the rest of the comments from individual consumers opposed the proposal, citing a need for receipts for various reasons, including account management, fraud detection, and reimbursement and income tax substantiation purposes. III. Summary of the Final Rule The Board is amending Regulation E to eliminate the requirement for providing terminal receipts for EFTs of $15 or less. The revisions are being adopted largely as proposed without substantive change. Pursuant to its authority under section 904(c) of the EFTA, the Board is adopting this limited exception to effectuate the purpose of the Act and facilitate the use and acceptance of debit cards in transactions where that option does not currently exist due to the compliance burdens associated with the receipt requirement. 5 In addition, a revision to the commentary clarifies that the fact that a financial institution does not make a terminal receipt available for an EFT of $15 or less is not an error for purposes of the error resolution provisions in § 205.11. 5 Section 904(c) of the EFTA (15 U.S.C. 1693b(c)) provides that the rules issued by the Board “may contain such classifications, differentiations, or other provisions, and may provide for any adjustments and exceptions for any class of electronic fund transfers” that in the judgment of the Board are “necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of [the Act], to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance therewith.” IV. Section-by-Section Analysis Section 205.9 Receipts at Electronic Terminals; Periodic Statements Consumer Need for a Receipt Most commenters agreed that an exception from the receipt requirement would be appropriate to facilitate consumers' use of debit cards in locations that do not currently offer that option. Many individual consumer commenters, however, opposed the Board's proposal, offering various reasons for needing receipts. A majority of these commenters stated that they use terminal receipts to accurately enter the transaction amounts in their financial records to track their finances or to independently verify transactions listed on their periodic statement. A few consumer commenters stated that the receipts can be used as proof of purchase to obtain reimbursements by employers or to substantiate tax deductions. Several of these individual consumer commenters also raised concerns that eliminating the receipt requirement for transactions of $15 or less might make it more difficult for consumers to dispute these transactions. These commenters asserted that without the receipt to serve as evidence to support a consumer's claim of error, consumers may be less likely to prevail in a dispute with the financial institution. As noted in the proposal, the intended purpose of making a terminal receipt available to a consumer at the time the consumer initiates an EFT was to provide a record of the transaction equivalent to a cancelled check. 6 Receipts may also serve to assist consumers in tracking their purchases for account management purposes. However, in certain retail environments, the burden in costs or delays in transaction time of making receipts available to consumers may discourage merchants and others from offering consumers the option to use a debit card, thus potentially limiting consumer payment options. The Board has previously recognized this potential obstacle in the context of vending machines in particular. In its March 1997 Report to the Congress on the Application of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to Electronic Stored-Value Products (1997 Report), the Board noted that the delay in transaction time from printing a receipt might discourage the use of machines accepting products that require receipts. 7 The Board also noted in the 1997 Report the additional compliance costs of the receipt requirement. Moreover, in other retail environments, the requirement to provide receipts may be impractical, such as in the case of mass transit systems where the time required to print a receipt for each consumer purchasing single fares with a debit card would cause delays that would significantly conflict with a transit system's need to handle a heavy volume of transactions within short time periods. In these circumstances, a consumer using cash would not be provided a receipt for transactions conducted in these environments nor would the consumer expect one. 6 *See* National Commission on Electronic Fund Transfers, *EFT in the United States: Policy Recommendations in the Public Interest* , 47-48 (1977). *See also* S. Rep. No. 915, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 5
(1978)(noting that “receipts * * * would give the consumer written verification of the amount, date, and type of transfer and the person paid.”). 7 *See Report to the Congress on the Application of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to Electronic Stored-Value Products* 50-51 (March 1997). The Board believes that receipts are of minimal benefit to consumers in small-dollar transactions for several reasons. First, consumers are less likely to obtain a receipt or retain it for such transactions due to the limited risk of loss. Furthermore, even without a receipt for small-dollar transactions, consumers have other means to track their finances. For example, in addition to receiving a record of each transaction on periodic statements, consumers can in most cases access information on specific transactions before receiving their periodic statements from their financial institutions through the telephone and often through the Internet as well. For expense reimbursement and tax substantiation purposes, consumers can use their periodic statements for small-dollar transactions if documentary evidence is needed. Also, while a receipt may be helpful for a consumer in disputing a transaction with their account-holding financial institution for certain types of errors, the absence of a receipt does not affect the consumer's right to assert any error with their financial institution. In light of the foregoing, the Board is exercising its authority under section 904(c) of the EFTA (15 U.S.C. 1693b) to create an exception to the receipt requirement that applies to EFTs of $15 or less. *See* § 205.9(a) and (e). The Board believes that the limited exception to the receipt requirement has significant potential benefits for consumers because the exception will facilitate compliance with the regulation and allow financial institutions to offer consumers the additional option of using a debit card in retail environments where the costs and time delays of making receipts available now effectively preclude merchants from offering that option. Proposed § 205.9(e) is revised in the final rule, for consistency with § 205.9(a), to state that the exception applies to the general requirement to “make available” a terminal receipt at the time of the EFT. No substantive change is intended. The Board also notes that the types of retail environments making use of the exception will likely be limited to circumstances where providing a receipt is impractical. In retail environments that process both large- and small-dollar transactions, merchants still will be required to make receipts available for those higher-dollar transactions, and the Board believes they will be unlikely to change their practices based on the dollar amount of the transaction. Similarly, merchants that provide receipts for purposes other than to comply with Regulation E, for example to facilitate merchandise returns, likely still would make receipts available for all transactions. A few commenters requested clarification regarding the applicability of the proposed exception to ATM transactions. In the proposal, the Board stated that the proposed exception would apply to deposits at ATMs of $15 or less. 8 These commenters interpreted the statement as limiting the exception to ATM deposits and suggested that the exception should apply to all transactions conducted at an ATM. The Board did not intend to so limit the exception but instead to note that the exception could potentially apply to all transactions at an ATM, *including* deposits. Nevertheless, the Board anticipates that for operational reasons, financial institutions would continue to make receipts available for ATM transactions, regardless of the amount of transfer. 8 *See* 71 FR at 69502. A small number of commenters suggested that instead of excepting small-dollar transactions altogether from the requirement to provide receipts, receipts should be provided to consumers upon request. Currently, comment 9(a)-1 already states that receipts may be provided only upon a consumer's request. As discussed above, however, in some retail environments, such as vending machines, the burdens associated with installing and maintaining printing equipment would be an obstacle to merchant acceptance of debit cards, even if the receipts are only provided upon request. Dollar Threshold The Board specifically requested comment on whether $15 is the appropriate threshold for the proposed exception. Several industry commenters suggested that the threshold should be set at $25 to be consistent with current card association rules that waive requirements for signature or PIN authorization for transactions under that amount for certain retailers. These commenters stated that having different dollar amount thresholds for receipts and authorization requirements would be confusing to consumers and would be difficult to implement in terms of training staff and reprogramming terminals. Industry commenters also asserted that a $25 threshold would better accommodate rising costs than the $15 threshold and provide greater flexibility for expansion of the use of debit cards in additional retail environments. Consumer group commenters and some individual consumers, however, thought the proposed threshold was too high, and they suggested that the threshold be the minimum amount necessary to address the limited circumstances cited by the industry. Thus, consumer groups recommended a threshold of no more than $5, which they stated would be sufficient to accommodate the types of retail environments discussed in the proposal. One consumer commenter suggested that the amount be lowered to $10, which the commenter believed would still take into account future price increases. The final rule provides an exception for transactions of $15 or less, as proposed. As discussed in the proposal, the Board believes that the $15 threshold strikes an appropriate balance between industry's need for flexibility to offer cashless payment options in a variety of retail environments and consumers' need for receipts in higher-dollar transactions. Commenters did not provide any data that suggests that a higher or lower threshold than the one proposed by the Board better or more appropriately balances the costs and benefits of the exception. The $5 threshold suggested by consumer groups may be sufficient today to enable consumers to use debit cards in a majority of retail environments where the option to use a debit card is currently unavailable. 9 The Board believes, however, that such a low threshold might not sufficiently accommodate price increases that may occur in these retail environments over time. A lower threshold might also foreclose the possibility of additional retail environments accepting cashless payments in the future. 9 Vending industry data indicates that the average cost in 2005 for food and beverages sold in vending machines was about 75 cents for candy, $1 for bottled beverages, and $2 for frozen and refrigerated food products. “State of the Vending Industry Report: Operators Slow to Invest; Sales Rise 3 Points in 2005,” *Automatic Merchandiser,* 40-62 (August 2006). A survey of major transit systems in Boston, Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC, indicates the maximum one-way fares range between $2 and $5 for subway systems. In addition, according to one creator of smart-card based payment solutions for municipal parking, the average purchase in parking meters using its smart-card system is $1.39. *See* Ryan Kline, “No Change, No Problem With Smart Card Enabled Meters,” *SecureID News* (Mar. 28, 2007). Commenters also did not provide strong arguments for increasing the threshold. While a $25 threshold would make the rule consistent with the card association rules that waive signature and PIN authorization for certain transactions under that amount, the Board does not believe consumers would be confused by a different dollar threshold for receiving receipts because these two rules fulfill different goals and purposes. The Board will continue to monitor the market need for the exception and revisit this dollar threshold as necessary. Additional Consumer Protections The Board solicited comment in the proposal on whether the Board should adopt any additional consumer protections in connection with the proposed exception. Most industry commenters thought that current consumer protections were sufficient and that additional protections were not necessary. A couple of industry commenters, however, suggested that a notice be posted at the terminal informing consumers that a receipt will not be provided for transactions of $15 or less. The Board believes that, on balance, the consumer benefit from receiving this notice is outweighed by the costs of imposing the burden on financial institutions of providing this notice. Many of the retail environments that would take advantage of the exception, such as vending machines, do not currently provide receipts for cash transactions. The Board believes that consumers will not expect a receipt when using a debit card in those environments. Thus, a notice informing them of the lack of a receipt is unnecessary. Consumer group commenters proposed some additional consumer protections. First, consumer groups advocated that receipts should be required in transactions where additional fees are imposed because they believe receipts are helpful to alert consumers to these fees. Although a merchant or ATM operator would be aware of any fees it may impose in connection with a debit card transaction, it is the Board's understanding that information about transaction fees charged by the consumer's account-holding financial institution in connection with an EFT typically would not be transmitted to merchants or to ATM operators unless the terminal is owned and operated by the financial institution. Thus, a receipt that is made available in such circumstances is unlikely to alert the consumer to *all* fees that may be charged in the transaction. Accordingly, the Board declines to adopt the suggestion. Nonetheless, the Board agrees that consumers should be made aware in some manner of all of the fees that may be imposed *before* entering into a transaction. Consumer group commenters also suggested that the exception should not be available in retail environments where transactions of both small- and large-dollar amounts are processed. As previously noted, however, the Board expects that for operational reasons, many businesses that process transactions of varying amounts will still make receipts available for all transactions, regardless of amount. Moreover, limiting the exception in the manner suggested would add additional complexity to the rule, and therefore, the Board believes the rule should be applied consistently for ease of compliance. Section 205.11 Procedures for Resolving Errors 11(a) Definition of Error Comment 11(a)-6, as proposed, clarified that the fact that a financial institution does not make a terminal receipt available for a transaction of $15 or less is not a billing error for purposes of §§ 205.11(a)(1)(vi) or (vii). 10 No comments were received regarding this provision, and the comment is adopted as proposed. 10 Section 205.11(a)(1)(vi) defines an “error” to include an EFT not identified in accordance with § 205.9 or § 205.10(a). Section 205.11(a)(1)(vii) states that a consumer's request for documentation required by § 205.9 or § 205.10(a) or for additional information or clarification concerning an EFT is also considered an “error” for error resolution purposes. V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* )
(RFA)generally requires an agency to perform an assessment of the rule's expected impact on small entities. Under section 605(b) of the RFA, the regulatory flexibility analysis otherwise required under the RFA is not required if an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and provides a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. Based on the analysis and reasons stated below, the Board certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 1. *Statement of the need for, and objectives of, the final rule.* The EFTA was enacted to provide a basic framework establishing the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic fund transfer systems. The primary objective of the EFTA is the provision of individual consumer rights. 15 U.S.C. 1693. The EFTA authorizes the Board to prescribe regulations to carry out the purpose and provisions of the statute. 15 U.S.C. 1693b(a). The Act expressly states that the Board's regulations may contain “such classifications, differentiations, or other provisions, * * * as, in the judgment of the Board, are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of [the Act], to prevent circumvention or evasion [of the Act], or to facilitate compliance [with the Act].” 15 U.S.C. 1693b(c). The Board is revising Regulation E to provide financial institutions relief from the requirement to make available terminal receipts at the time of a transaction for EFTs of $15 or less. The Board believes that these revisions to Regulation E are within Congress's broad grant of authority to the Board to adopt provisions that carry out the purposes of the statute and to facilitate compliance with the EFTA. These revisions facilitate financial institutions' compliance with the EFTA in small-dollar transactions by eliminating obstacles to the use of electronic payment methods in such transactions where the value to the consumer of having a record of the transaction in the form of a terminal receipt is limited. 2. *Issues raised by comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.* In accordance with section 603(a) of the RFA, the Board conducted an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the proposed amendments. 71 FR 69502-03. The Board did not receive any comments on its regulatory flexibility analysis with respect to providing an exception from the requirement to make terminal receipts available for EFTs of $15 or less. 3. *Small entities affected by the final rule.* The requirement to make available receipts when a consumer initiates an EFT at an electronic terminal applies to all financial institutions, regardless of their size. Accordingly, the proposed exception would reduce the burden and compliance costs for small institutions by providing relief from the requirement to make terminal receipts available to consumers at the time of the transaction where the transaction amount is $15 or less. 4. *Other federal rules.* The Board has not identified any federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the final revisions to Regulation E. VI. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The final rule contains requirements subject to the PRA. The collection of information that is required by this final rule is found in 12 CFR part 205. The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization is not required to respond to, this information collection unless the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number is 7100-0200. This collection of information is required to provide benefits for consumers and is mandatory (15 U.S.C. 1693 *et seq.* ). The respondents/recordkeepers are for-profit financial institutions, including small businesses. Institutions are required to retain records for 24 months. The final rule provides relief to financial institutions from the requirement to make available terminal receipts to consumers for all EFTs of $15 or less. The burden associated with use of this exception was previously estimated in the proposed rule and reported in documents filed with OMB. Under the Board's prior analysis, respondents that are currently providing receipts for EFTs of $15 or less would face a one-time burden of 8 hours (one business day) to reprogram and update their systems if they wish to make use of the exception. The Board did not receive any comments on the burden estimate provided in the proposal. Although the current requirement to make receipts available for all transactions initiated at an electronic terminal applies to financial institutions, third parties, such as merchants, typically make receipts available on behalf of an account-holding financial institution. In retail environments that do not currently accept debit cards, the financial institution's burden under Regulation E due to the receipt requirement will not be impacted if the merchant should choose to accept debit cards for transactions of $15 or less without printing a receipt. Under the final rule, however, an account-holding financial institution may also choose to program its ATMs to make receipts available only for transactions above $15. For purposes of this PRA analysis, the Board estimates that if approximately 100 of the 1,289 institutions subject to the Board's supervisory authority program their ATMs in this manner, the resulting total annual burden for this requirement would be 800 hours. This would increase the total annual burden of this information collection from 83,866 hours to 84,666 hours for the first year the financial institution elects to take advantage of the exception. Thereafter, the Board estimates that the burden of making receipts available will decrease as a result of the new exception. Nevertheless, as stated above, the Board anticipates that financial institutions will likely continue to make receipts available for all transactions regardless of the amount and therefore incur no costs in reprogramming their ATMs. The other federal financial agencies are responsible for estimating and reporting to OMB the total paperwork burden for the institutions for which they have administrative enforcement authority. They may, but are not required to, use the Board's burden estimates. The Board estimates that if 1,500 of the approximately 19,300 depository institutions program their ATMs to take advantage of the exception, the resulting increase in their total estimated annual burden for complying with Regulation E as a whole would be 12,000 hours. Because the records would be maintained by the institutions and the notices are not provided to the Board, no issue of confidentiality arises under the Freedom of Information Act. Text of Final Revisions Comments are numbered to comply with **Federal Register** publication rules. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 205 Consumer protection, Electronic fund transfers, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 12 CFR part 205 and the Official Staff is amended as follows: PART 205—ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (REGULATION E) 1. The authority citation for part 205 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1693b. 2. Section 205.9 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)introductory text and adding paragraph (e), to read as follows: § 205.9 Receipts at electronic terminals; periodic statements.
(a)*Receipts at electronic terminals—General.* Except as provided in paragraph
(e)of this section, a financial institution shall make a receipt available to a consumer at the time the consumer initiates an electronic fund transfer at an electronic terminal. The receipt shall set forth the following information, as applicable:
(e)*Exception for receipts in small-value transfers.* A financial institution is not subject to the requirement to make available a receipt under paragraph
(a)of this section if the amount of the transfer is $15 or less. 3. In Supplement I to part 205, under section 205.11—Procedures for Resolving Errors, under *11(a) Definition of Error,* paragraph 6 is added, to read as follows: Supplement I to Part 205—Official Staff Interpretations Section 205.11—Procedures for Resolving Errors 11(a) Definition of Error 6. *Terminal receipts for transfers of $15 or less.* The fact that an institution does not make a terminal receipt available for a transfer of $15 or less in accordance with § 205.9(e) is not an error for purposes of §§ 205.11(a)(1)(vi) or (vii). By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 27, 2007. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-12810 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27439; Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-04] Revision of Class E Airspace; Red Dog, AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action revises Class E airspace at Red Dog, AK to provide adequate controlled airspace to contain aircraft executing Instrument Approach Procedures. Two Area Navigation
(RNAV)Required Navigation Performance
(RNP)Special Instrument Approach Procedures and an RNAV RNP Special Departure Procedure
(DP)are being developed for the Red Dog Airport. This action revises existing Class E airspace upward from 1,200 feet (ft.) above the surface at Red Dog Airport, Red Dog, AK. DATES: *Effective Date:* 0901 UTC, August 30, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number
(907)271-5898; fax:
(907)271-2850; e-mail: *gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov.* Internet address: *http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On Monday, April 9, 2007, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise Class E airspace upward from 1,200 ft. above the surface at Red Dog, AK (72 FR 17445). The action was proposed in order to create Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft while executing Special Instrument Approach Procedures for the Red Dog Airport. A recent rulemaking action revealed that a small area of additional controlled airspace is required for these procedures. Additionally, the coordinates listed for the Red Dog Airport and the Selawik VOR/DME have been updated to reflect the most current location surveys. Class E controlled airspace extending upward from 1,200 ft. above the surface, in the Red Dog Airport area is revised by this action. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment in favor of the action was received. The rule is adopted as proposed. The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 ft. transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises Class E airspace at the Red Dog Airport, Alaska. This Class E airspace is revised to accommodate aircraft executing Special Instrument Approach Procedures, and will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules operations at the Red Dog Airport, Red Dog, Alaska. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it creates Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing instrument procedures for the Red Dog Airport and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable airspace. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AAL AK E5 Red Dog, AK [Revised] Red Dog Airport, AK (Lat. 68°01′56″ N., long. 162°53′57″ W.) Noatak NDB/DME, AK (Lat. 67°34′19″ N., long. 162°58′26″ W.) Selawik VOR/DME, AK (Lat. 66°35′58″ N., long. 159°59′27″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the Red Dog Airport, AK; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 ft. above the surface within a 14-mile radius of the Red Dog Airport, AK, and within 5 miles either side of a line from the Selawik VOR/DME, AK, to lat. 67°38′06″ N., long. 162°21′42″ W., to lat. 67°54′30″ N., long. 163°00′00″ W., and within 5 miles either side of a line from the Noatak NDB/DME, AK, to lat. 67°50′20″ N., long. 163°19′16″ W., and within 8 miles either side of the 219° bearing of the Red Dog NDB, AK, extending from the 14-mile radius from the Red Dog NDB, AK, to 30 miles southwest of the Red Dog Airport, AK. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on June 25, 2007. Anthony M. Wylie, Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group. [FR Doc. E7-12794 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of the Secretary 15 CFR Part 4 [Docket No.: 070613195-7196-01] RIN 0605-AA25 Disclosure of Government Information; Change to Designated Official AGENCY: Department of Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule amends the Department of Commerce's (Department) Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)regulations by changing the official authorized to deny requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act, and requests for correction or amendment under the Privacy Act (PA), for the Bureau of the Census. DATES: Effective July 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christa D. Jones, Chief of the Policy Office, Bureau of the Census, 301-763-7310. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Appendix B to 15 CFR Part 4 designates the officials authorized to deny requests for records under the FOIA, and requests for records and requests for correction or amendment under the PA. In order to change the designated official for the Bureau of the Census, we are amending the regulations. Classification It has been determined that this notice is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in E.O. 13132. Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act for rules concerning agency organization, procedure, or practice (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). The Department finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness because it is unnecessary. This rule merely changes the name of the official who is authorized to deny requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act, and requests for correction or amendment under the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C.(d)(3). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared. List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 4 Freedom of information, Privacy. For the reasons above, amend 15 CFR Part 4 as follows: PART 4—DISCLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for Part 4 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 3717; 44 U.S.C. 3101; Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1950. Appendix B to Part 4—[Amended] 2. In Appendix B to part 4, under the heading ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION, delete “Bureau of the Census: Manager, Freedom of Information Act” and replace with “Bureau of the Census: Freedom of Information Act Officer”. Dated: June 28, 2007. Brenda Dolan, Departmental Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13001 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 510 and 524 New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor's Name; Liquid Crystalline Trypsin, Peru Balsam, Castor Oil AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor's name from Mylan Bertek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to UDL Laboratories, Inc. DATES: This rule is effective July 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Newkirk, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-6967, e-mail: *david.newkirk@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mylan Bertek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 12720 Dairy Ashford, Sugar Land, TX 77478, has informed FDA that it has changed its name to UDL Laboratories, Inc., and is using a new drug labeler code. Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c) to reflect these changes. A conforming change is being made in 21 CFR 524.2620 for this sponsor's sole product. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 510 Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 21 CFR Part 524 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510 and 524 are amended as follows: PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e. 2. In § 510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1), remove the entry for “Mylan Bertek Pharmaceuticals, Inc.” and alphabetically add a new entry for “UDL Laboratories, Inc.”; and in the table in paragraph (c)(2) remove the entry for “062749” and numerically add a new entry for “051079” to read as follows: § 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of approved applications.
(c)* * *
(1)* * * Firm name and address Drug labeler code * * * * * UDL Laboratories, Inc., 12720 Dairy Ashford, Sugar Land, TX 77478 051079 * * * * *
(2)* * * Drug labeler code Firm name and address * * * * * 051079 UDL Laboratories, Inc., 12720 Dairy Ashford, Sugar Land, TX 77478 * * * * * PART 524—OPHTHALMIC AND TOPICAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 524 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. § 524.2620 [Amended] 4. In paragraph (a)(2) of § 524.2620, remove “062794” and add in its place “051079”. Dated: June 21, 2007. Bernadette Dunham, Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E7-13010 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 946 [VA-123-FOR] Virginia Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), Interior. ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment. SUMMARY: We are approving an amendment to the Virginia regulatory program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Virginia is revising its remining regulations to make three of those provisions permanent by deleting a termination date of September 30, 2004, from the regulations. The amendment is intended to render the State regulations consistent with recent amendments to SMCRA. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tim Dieringer, Director, Knoxville Field Office; Telephone:
(276)523-4303. Internet: *tdieringer@osmre.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Virginia Program II. Submission of the Amendment III. OSM's Findings IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments V. OSM's Decision VI. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Virginia Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “* * *a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Virginia program on December 15, 1981. You can find background information on the Virginia program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Virginia program in the December 15, 1981, **Federal Register** (46 FR 61088). You can also find later actions concerning Virginia's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 946.12, 946.13, and 946.15. II. Submission of the Amendment By letter dated February 13, 2007 (Administrative Record Number VA-1058), the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
(DMME)submitted an amendment to the Virginia program. In its letter, the DMME stated that the program amendment revises the Virginia Coal Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations to reflect the deletion from SMCRA, at section 510(e), of the termination date of section 510(e) of September 30, 2004. Section 510 of SMCRA concerns permit approval or denial. Subsection 510(e) provides an exception to the prohibition of subsection (c), which prohibits the issuance of a permit where any surface coal mining operation owned or controlled by an applicant is currently in violation of SMCRA or such other laws referenced at subsection 510(c). Prior to being amended by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, subsection 510(e) provided as follows:
(e)After the date of enactment of this subsection, the prohibition of subsection
(c)shall not apply to a permit application due to any violation resulting from an unanticipated event or condition at a surface coal mining operation on lands eligible for remining under a permit held by the person making such application. As used in this subsection, the term “violation” has the same meaning as such term has under subsection (c). The authority of this subsection and section 515(b)(20)(B) shall terminate on September 30, 2004. The effect of the deletion of the termination date in the SMCRA provision quoted above (the entire last sentence was deleted) is twofold:
(1)It makes permanent the authority at subsection 510(e) of SMCRA to approve a permit application for surface coal mining operations on lands eligible for remining notwithstanding the existence of a violation resulting from an unanticipated event or condition at the site, and
(2)it makes permanent the two-year revegetation responsibility period for lands eligible for remining at subsection 515(b)(20)(B) of SMCRA. In its amendment, Virginia is deleting the termination date of September 30, 2004, from three of its program regulations concerning remining. We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the April 9, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 17449). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the amendment's adequacy. We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment period ended on May 4, 2007. No comments were received. III. OSM's Findings 1. 4 VAC 25-130-785.25. Lands eligible for remining. This provision is amended by deleting subsection
(c)in its entirety. Currently, 4 VAC 25-130-785.25 provides as follows:
(a)This section contains permitting requirements to implement 4 VAC 25-130-773.15(b)(4). Any person who submits a permit application to conduct a surface coal mining operation on lands eligible for remining must comply with this section.
(b)Any application for a permit under this section shall be made according to all requirements of this subchapter applicable to surface coal mining and reclamation operations. In addition, the application shall:
(1)To the extent not otherwise addressed in the permit application, identify potential environmental and safety problems related to prior mining activity at the site and that could be reasonably anticipated to occur. This identification shall be based on a due diligence investigation which shall include visual observations at the site, a record review of past mining at the site, and environmental sampling tailored to current site conditions.
(2)With regard to potential environmental and safety problems referred in subdivision (b)(1) of this section, describe the mitigative measures that will be taken to ensure that the applicable reclamation requirements of this chapter can be met.
(c)The requirements of this section shall not apply after September 30, 2004. In its submittal letter, the DMME stated that the deletion of subsection
(c)containing the termination date of September 30, 2004, is intended to reflect the deletion of that same termination date at subsection 510(e) of SMCRA. We find that the deletion of the termination date of September 30, 2004, renders 4 VAC 25-130-785.25 consistent with and no less stringent than § 510(e) of SMCRA and can be approved. 2. 4 VAC 25-130-816.116(c)(2)(ii) and 817.116(c)(2)(ii). Revegetation; standards for success. These provisions are amended by deleting the phrase “included in permits issued before September 30, 2004, or any renewals thereof” at the end of the first sentence in subparts (c)(2)(ii). Currently, 4 VAC 25-130-816.116(c) and 817.116(c) provide as follows:
(1)The period of extended responsibility for successful revegetation shall begin after the last year of augmented seeding, fertilizing, irrigation, or other work, excluding husbandry practices that are approved by the division in accordance with subdivision (c)(3) of this section.
(2)The period of responsibility shall continue for a period of not less than:
(i)Five full years except as provided in subdivision (c)(2)(ii) of this section. The vegetation parameters identified in subsection
(b)of this section for grazing land or pastureland and cropland shall equal or exceed the approved success standard during the growing seasons of any two years of the responsibility period, except the first year. Areas approved for the other uses identified in subsection
(b)of this section shall equal or exceed the applicable success standard during the growing season of the last year of the responsibility period.
(ii)Two full years for lands eligible for remining included in permits issued before September 30, 2004, or any renewals thereof. To the extent that the success standards are established by subdivision (b)(5) of this section, the lands shall equal or exceed the standards during the growing season of the last year of the responsibility period.
(3)The division may approve selective husbandry practices, excluding augmented seeding, fertilization, or irrigation, without extending the period of responsibility for revegetation success and bond liability, if such practices can be expected to continue as part of the postmining land use or if discontinuance of the practices after the liability period expires will not reduce the probability of permanent revegetation success. Approved practices shall be normal conservation practices within the region for unmined lands having land uses similar to the approved postmining land use of the disturbed area, including such practices as disease, pest, and vermin control; and any pruning, reseeding and/or transplanting specifically necessitated by such actions. In its submittal letter, the DMME stated that the deletion of the September 30, 2004, termination date at subparts (c)(2)(ii) is intended to reflect the deletion of that same termination date at subsection 510(e) of SMCRA. We find that the deletion of the termination date of September 30, 2004, renders 4 VAC 25-130-816.116(c)(2)(ii) and 817.116(c)(2)(ii) consistent with and no less stringent than § 510(e) of SMCRA and can be approved. IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments Public Comments We asked for public comments on the amendment (Administrative Record Number VA-1068) and no comments were received. Federal Agency Comments Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, on February 22, 2007, we requested comments on the amendments from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Virginia program (Administrative Record Number VA-1060). The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management responded and stated that they found no inconsistencies with the proposed changes and the Federal Laws, which govern mining. The United States Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration responded and stated that there did not seem to be any conflicts with the changes and deemed the changes appropriate. The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service responded and stated that no impacts to Federally listed or proposed species or Federally designated critical habitat will occur and was in agreement with the changes made. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)Concurrence and Comments Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 *et seq.* ) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* ). None of the revisions that Virginia proposed to make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment. Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(II)(i), we requested comments on the amendment from the EPA (Administrative Record number VA-1060). No comments were received. V. OSM's Decision Based on the above findings, we are approving the amendment sent to us by Virginia on February 13, 2007. To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 946, which codify decisions concerning the Virginia program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this regulation effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards. VI. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings The provisions in the rule based on counterpart Federal regulations do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations. The revisions made at the initiative of the State that do not have Federal counterparts have also been reviewed and a determination made that they do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the fact that the provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a)and
(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve Federal regulations involving Indian lands. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is
(1)Considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that a portion of the provisions in this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) because they are based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. The Department of the Interior also certifies that the provisions in this rule that are not based upon counterpart Federal regulations 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.* ). This determination is based on the fact that the provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(c)Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that a portion of the State provisions are based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. For the portion of the State provisions that is not based upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based upon the fact that the State provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that a portion of the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate. For the portion of the State provisions that is not based upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based upon the fact that the State provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 946 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: May 29, 2007. Brent Wahlquist, Regional Director, Appalachian Region. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR Part 946 is amended as set forth below: PART 946—VIRGINIA 1. The authority citation for part 946 continues to read as follows: Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* 2. Section 946.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in chronological order by “Date of final publication” to read as follows: § 946.15 Approval of Virginia regulatory program amendments. Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description * * * * * * * February 13, 2007 July 5, 2007 4 VAC 25-130-785.25(c)(deleted); 4 VAC 25-130-816.116 and 817.116(c)(2)(ii). [FR Doc. E7-12979 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD09-07-052] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Port Huron to Mackinac Island Race AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce Special Local Regulations for the Port Huron to Mackinac Island Race. This action is necessary to safely control vessel movements in the vicinity of the race and provide for the safety of the general boating public and commercial shipping. During this period, no person or vessel may enter the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. DATES: Effective July 21, 2007 at 11 a.m. to July 24, 2007 at 11:59 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frank Jennings, Jr., Enforcement Branch, Ninth Coast Guard District, 1240 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH at
(216)902-6095. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are publishing this document to provide notice that under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.901, the Port Huron to Mackinac Race Special Local Regulations will be enforced from 11 a.m. on July 21, 2007 to 11:59 p.m. on July 24, 2007. The Special Local Regulations apply to the waters of the Black River, St. Clair River and lower Lake Huron from: Latitude Longitude 42[deg]58.8[min] N 082[deg]26[min] W, to 42[deg]58.4[min] N 082[deg]24.8[min] W, thence northward along the International Boundary to 43[deg]02.8[min] N 082[deg]23.8[min] W, to 43[deg]02.8[min] N 082[deg]26.8[min] W, thence southward along the U.S. shoreline to 42[deg]58.9[min] N 082[deg]26[min] W, thence to 42[deg]58.8[min] N 082[deg] 26[min] W. In order to ensure the safety of spectators and participating vessels, the Special Local Regulations will be enforced for the duration of the event. The Coast Guard will patrol the race area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) by the call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander.” Vessels not participating in the race shall not make a wake nor endanger participants in the event or any other craft. Vessels participating in the race and patrol craft may create a wake but shall not endanger other vessels and are not required to check-in nor out with the Patrol Commander while participating in the race. In the event these Special Local Regulations affect shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Patrol Commander to transit the area of the event by hailing call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander” on Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ). Dated: June 22, 2007. John E. Crowley, Jr., Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-13020 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0046; EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0891; EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0892; FRL-8335-6] Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; Correction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This document corrects an error in the final rule pertaining to the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for Washington County (Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH), Jefferson County, (Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH), Belmont County (Wheeling, WV-OH), Stark County (Canton, OH) and Allen County (Lima, OH). The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)proposed MVEBs for 2009 and 2018 for each of these Ohio counties. In the final approvals for the redesignation of these areas to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA provide the 2018 MVEBs for each county but inadvertently omitted the 2009 interim MVEBs that were discussed in the proposed rules. This technical correction to these final rules provides the 2009 MVEBs. EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on July 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Marquardt, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)353-3214, *marquardt.steve@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published four notices of final rulemaking to redesignate Washington County (Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH), Jefferson County, (Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH), Belmont County (Wheeling, WV-OH), Stark County (Canton, OH) and Allen County (Lima, OH) areas to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. For each of these counties EPA had proposed approval of the 2009 and 2018 MVEBs. In each of the final rulemaking notices, EPA omitted the 2009 MVEBs from the final rules. This is a correction to add these 2009 MVEBs. Correction For Allen County, and Stark County, Ohio, in the final rule published in the **Federal Register** on May 16, 2007 (70 FR 27647), on page 27649 in the first column, first paragraph: “In addition, and supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is approving the 2018 VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> MVEBs for each county for transportation conformity purposes. The 2018 motor vehicle * * *” is corrected to read: “In addition, and supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is approving the 2009 and 2018 VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> MVEBs for each county for transportation conformity purposes. The 2009 MVEB for Allen County, Ohio are 5.08 tons per day of VOC and 8.28 tons per day of NO <sup>X</sup> . The 2018 MVEBs for Allen County are 2.89 tons per day VOC and 3.47 tons per day of NO <sup>X</sup> . For Stark County, Ohio, the 2009 MVEB area 10.02 tons per day of VOC and 18.03 tons per day of NO <sup>X</sup> and the 2018 MVEBs are 5.37 tons per day of VOC and 7.08 tons per day of NO <sup>X</sup> . For Belmont County, Ohio, in the final rule published in the **Federal Register** on May 16, 2007 (70 FR 27644), on page 27645 in the first column, first paragraph: “In addition, and supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is approving the 2018 VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. The 2018 MVEBs * * *” is corrected to read: “In addition, and supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is approving the 2009 and 2018 VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. For Belmont County, Ohio, the 2009 MVEBs are 2.60 tons per day of VOC and 2.22 tons per day of NO <sup>X</sup> and the 2018 MVEBs are 1.52 tons per day of VOC and 1.91 tons per day of NO <sup>X</sup> . West Virginia develops MVEBs for its portion of the area.” For Jefferson County, Ohio, in the final rule published in the **Federal Register** on May 16, 2007 (70 FR 27640), on page 27641 in the first column, first paragraph: “In addition, and supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is approving the 2018 volatile organic compound
(VOC)and oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ) MVEBs for Jefferson County for transportation conformity purposes. The 2018 MVEBs * * *” is corrected to read: “In addition, and supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is approving the 2009 and 2018 volatile organic compound
(VOC)and oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ) MVEBs for Jefferson County for transportation conformity purposes. The 2009 MVEBs are 2.63 tons per day of VOC and 4.10 tons per day of NO <sup>X</sup> and the 2018 MVEBs are 1.37 tons per day of VOC and 1.67 tons per day of NO <sup>X</sup> .” For Washington County, Ohio, in the final rule published in the **Federal Register** on May 16, 2007 (70 FR 27652), on page 27653 in the first column, first paragraph: “In addition, and supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is approving the 2018 volatile organic compound
(VOC)and oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ) MVEBs for Washington County for transportation conformity purposes. The 2018 MVEBs * * *” is corrected to read: “In addition, and supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is approving the 2009 and 2018 volatile organic compound
(VOC)and oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ) MVEBs for Washington County for transportation conformity purposes. The 2009 MVEBs are 2.59 tons per day of VOC and 3.58 tons per day of NO <sup>X</sup> and the 2018 MVEBs are 1.67 tons per day of VOC and 1.76 tons per day of NO <sup>X</sup> . West Virginia develops MVEBs for its portion of the area.” EPA is also making changes to 40 CFR 52.1885(ff) in order to include the 2009 MVEBs for the Ohio Counties. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting an omission in a previous action. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 *et seq.* ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of governments, as specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This technical correction action does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* ), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of July 5, 2007. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This correction to 40 CFR part 52 for Ohio is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Dated: June 25, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. Parts 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart KK—Ohio 2. Section 52.1885 is amended by revising paragraphs
(ff)introductory text and (ff)(1) through
(4)to read as follows: § 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.
(ff)Approval—The 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the following areas have been approved:
(1)Jefferson County, as submitted on July 31, 2006 and supplemented on October 3, 2006. The maintenance plan establishes 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for Jefferson County of 2.63 tons per day
(tpd)of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)and 4.10 tpd of oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ), and 2018 motor vehicle emission budgets of 1.37 tpd of VOCs and 1.67 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> .
(2)Belmont County, as submitted on June 20, 2006, and supplemented on August 24, 2006, and December 4, 2006. The maintenance plan establishes 2009 MVEBs for Belmont County of 2.60 tpd of VOCs and 2.22 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> and 2018 MVEBs of 1.52 tpd of VOCs and 1.91 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> .
(3)Allen County and Stark County, as submitted on June 20, 2006, and supplemented on August 24, 2006, and December 4, 2006. The maintenance plan establishes 2009 MVEBs for Allen County of 5.08 tpd of VOCs and 8.28 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> , and 2018 MVEBs for Allen County of 2.89 tpd of VOCs and 3.47 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> . For Stark County the 2009 MVEBs are 10.02 tpd of VOCs and 18.03 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> , and the 2018 budgets are 5.37 tpd of VOC and 7.08 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> .
(4)Washington County, as submitted on September 22, 2006, and supplemented on November 17, 2006. The maintenance plan establishes 2009 MVEBs for Washington County of 2.59 tpd of VOCs and 3.58 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> , and 2018 MVEBs for Washington county of 1.67 tpd of VOCs and 1.76 tpd of NO <sup>X</sup> . [FR Doc. E7-13000 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-RO4-OAR-2006-0584-200723; FRL-8335-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Kentucky: Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion of the Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request, submitted on September 29, 2006, from the Commonwealth of Kentucky (Kentucky), through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Kentucky portion of the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the “Kentucky State Louisville Area”) is comprised of three Kentucky Counties—Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham. The Indiana portion of the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is comprised of two Indiana Counties—Clark and Floyd. EPA's approval of Kentucky's redesignation request is based upon the determination that Kentucky has demonstrated that the Kentucky State Louisville Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the determination that the entire (both the Kentucky and Indiana portions) bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, EPA is approving the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Kentucky State Louisville Area, including the regional motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)which cover the Kentucky and Indiana portions of this bi-State area. In July and September 2006, Indiana submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Indiana portion of this 8-hour ozone area with identical MVEBs to those reflected in Kentucky's maintenance plan. EPA is taking action on that redesignation request and maintenance plan in a separate action. This final rule also addresses a comment made on EPA's proposed rulemaking for this action, previously published April 27, 2007 (72 FR 20966). EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will be effective August 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-RO4-OAR-2006-0584. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. LeSane can be reached via telephone number at
(404)562-9074 or electronic mail at *LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Is the Background for the Actions? II. What Actions Is EPA Taking? III. Why Are We Taking These Actions? IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions? V. Response to Comments VI. Final Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Is the Background for the Actions? On September 29, 2006, Kentucky, through the KDAQ, submitted a request to redesignate the Kentucky bi-State Louisville Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, and for EPA approval of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision containing a maintenance plan for the Kentucky State Louisville Area. In an action published on April 27, 2007 (72 FR 20966), EPA proposed to approve the redesignation of the Kentucky State Louisville Area to attainment. EPA also proposed approval of Kentucky's plan for maintaining the 8-hour NAAQS as a SIP revision, and proposed to approve the regional MVEBs for the Kentucky bi-State Louisville Area that were contained in the maintenance plan. This rule is EPA's final action on the April 27, 2007, proposed rule. During the comment period for EPA's proposal, one commenter submitted an adverse comment. EPA is addressing that comment in this action, and is taking final action as described in Section II and Section V of this rulemaking. EPA is also providing information on the status of the Agency's transportation conformity adequacy determination for the new regional MVEBs for the years 2003 and 2020 that are contained in the maintenance plan for the Kentucky bi-State Louisville Area. These MVEBs are identical to those reflected in Indiana's maintenance plan for this bi-State area. The maintenance plans establish the following regional MVEBs for the Kentucky bi-State Louisville Area. Kentucky Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone MVEBs [Tons per day] 2003 2020 VOC 40.97 22.92 NO <sup>X</sup> 95.51 29.46 EPA's adequacy public comment period on these budgets (as contained in Kentucky's submittal) began on April 27, 2007, and closed on May 29, 2007. No comments related to the adequacy of the MVEBs were received during EPA's adequacy public comment period. Consequently, in a letter dated June 18, 2007, to John Lyons, Director of the Kentucky Department of Air Quality, and Art Williams, Director of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control District, EPA informed Kentucky of its intention to find the new 2003 and 2020 MVEBs for VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The State of Indiana was also informed of EPA's intentions in a letter date June 18, 2007. Subsequently, in a separate **Federal Register** notice, EPA is finding the 2003 and 2020 MVEBs, as contained in Kentucky's submittal, adequate. A similar notice was published for these MVEBs as contained in Indiana's submittal. These MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria contained in the Transportation Conformity Rule. The new regional MVEBs are thus currently being used for transportation conformity determinations. Various aspects of EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule were challenged in court and on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004.) *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (SCAQMD)* v. *EPA* , 472 F. 3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C. Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of title I, part D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8th decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8th decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations:
(1)Nonattainment area New Source Review
(NSR)requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;
(2)Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas;
(3)measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and
(4)certain transportation conformity requirements for certain types of federal actions. The June 8th decision clarified that the Court's reference to conformity requirements was limited to requiring the continued use of 1-hour MVEBs until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations. For the reasons set forth in the proposal action for the Kentucky bi-state Louisville Area, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because even in light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. II. What Actions Is EPA Taking? EPA is taking final action to approve Kentucky's redesignation request and to change the legal designation of the Kentucky bi-State Louisville Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's response to the only comment received on the April 27, 2007, proposed rule, is described in Section III below. The entire bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is comprised of three Kentucky Counties—Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham, and two Indiana Counties—Clark and Floyd. This final action addresses only the Kentucky portion of the bi-state Louisville 8-hour ozone area. EPA will take action on the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Indiana portion of this area in a separate action. EPA is also approving Kentucky's 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham counties (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to help keep the Kentucky state Louisville Area in attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2020. These approval actions are based on EPA's determination that Kentucky has demonstrated that the Kentucky state Louisville Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the CAA, including a demonstration that the entire bi-state Louisville area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA's analyses of Kentucky's 8-hour ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan are described in detail in the proposed rule published April 27, 2007 (72 FR 20966). Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is approving today also includes 2003 and 2020 regional MVEBs for NO <sup>X</sup> and VOCs. In this action, EPA is approving these 2003 and 2020 MVEBs. For regional emission analysis years that involve years prior to 2020, the applicable budget, for the purpose of conducting transportation conformity analyses, are the new 2003 MVEBs. For regional emission analysis years that involve the year 2020 and beyond, the applicable budget, for the purpose of conducting transportation conformity analyses, are the new 2020 MVEBs. EPA determined that the 2003 and 2020 MVEBs are adequate through a previous action. EPA is approving such MVEBs in this action. Additionally, in this action, EPA is responding to the one comment received on the April 27, 2007 (72 FR 20966), rulemaking proposing to approve the redesignation request and the maintenance plan SIP revision. III. Why Are We Taking These Actions? EPA has determined that the entire bi-state Louisville area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and has also determined that Kentucky has demonstrated that all other criteria for the redesignation of the Kentucky State Louisville Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS have been met. See, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is also taking final action to approve the maintenance plan for the Kentucky State Louisville Area as meeting the requirements of sections 175A and 107(d) of the CAA. Furthermore, EPA is approving the 2003 and 2020 MVEBs contained in Kentucky's maintenance plan because these MVEBs are consistent with maintenance for the entire bi-state Louisville area. In the April 27, 2007, proposal to redesignate the Kentucky State Louisville Area, EPA described the applicable criteria for redesignation to attainment and its analysis of how those criteria have been met. The rationale for EPA's findings and actions is set forth in the proposed rulemaking and summarized in this rulemaking. IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions? Approval of the redesignation request changes the official designation of Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40 CFR Part 81. It also incorporates into the Kentucky SIP a plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area through 2020. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes MVEBs for the years 2003 and 2020 for the entire bi-state Louisville area. V. Response to Comments EPA received comments from one individual in response to the April 27, 2007, proposal to redesignate the Kentucky State Louisville Area. 72 FR 20966. The following is a summary of the adverse comment received and EPA's response to that comment. *Comment:* Kentucky Resource Council states that the data reflects that Louisville Gas & Electric's (LG&E) power plants, Trimble, Ghent and Mill Creek, are running at low NO <sup>X</sup> emission rates due to recent installation of selective catalytic reduction control technology. To the extent that these reductions achieved by the utilities to aid compliance with the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP call are relied upon by the District and Kentucky in order to demonstrate attainment or maintenance of attainment, those emission reductions must be made permanent and enforceable. As a cap and trade program, the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP call would not itself require that the utilities continue to operate at such a low emissions rate from these units. *Response:* In evaluating attainment and future maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Louisville area, the Commonwealth of Kentucky and EPA utilized current air quality monitoring data and future projected emissions data based upon enforceable, permanent reductions. Some of these reductions are related to regional NO <sup>X</sup> reduction programs, such as the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call and the Clean Air Interstate Rule. As discussed in the redesignation proposal, the emissions analysis for the Louisville area indicates that the area will continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard until at least 2020 without taking into account the reductions from LG&E's use of specific control technology. The projected NO <sup>X</sup> levels without reductions from the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call for the years 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017 and 2020, continue to show reductions below the base year, which demonstrate maintenance as summarized in the table below. We expect the area will continue to benefit from the reductions due to control equipment installed to meet the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call. However, EPA's analysis indicates that the area will continue to maintain even without those reductions. Actual and Projected NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions for Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties [Tons per day] Categories 2003 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 Point Bullitt 0.60 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.72 Jefferson 74.48 53.95 53.63 50.91 51.76 51.24 46.49 Oldham 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Area Subtotal 75.47 54.65 54.36 51.66 52.54 52.05 47.31 Point Bullitt 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 Jefferson 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Oldham 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 Area Subtotal 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.99 Mobile* Bullitt 7.52 7.23 5.99 4.83 3.84 3.17 2.73 Jefferson 63.29 54.96 41.55 29.62 19.76 13.87 11.02 Oldham 4.43 4.36 3.58 2.88 2.34 1.96 1.72 Mobile Subtotal 75.24 66.55 51.12 37.33 25.94 19.00 15.47 Nonroad Bullitt 1.81 1.78 1.70 1.60 1.47 1.35 1.27 Jefferson 31.94 31.11 29.36 27.37 25.26 23.44 22.17 Oldham 1.63 1.59 1.49 1.37 1.22 1.07 0.95 Nonroad Total 35.38 34.48 32.55 30.34 27.95 25.86 24.39 Total with NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call Reductions 187.02* 156.62 138.98 120.29 107.41 97.89 88.16 Reductions due to NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call 20.88 21.25 23.93 23.05 23.54 28.25 Total without NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call reductions 177.50 160.23 144.22 130.46 121.43 116.41 * Actual baseline emissions. Without taking credit for NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call reductions, projected emissions are below the baseline emissions for attainment. VI. Final Action After evaluating Kentucky's redesignation request and the comments received, EPA is taking final action to approve the redesignation and change the legal designation of the Kentucky state Louisville Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Through this action, EPA is also approving into the Kentucky SIP, the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties, which includes the new 2003 MVEBs of 40.97 tpd for VOC, and 95.51 tpd for NO <sup>X</sup> , and 2020 MVEBs of 22.92 tpd for VOC, and 29.46 tpd for NO <sup>X</sup> for the entire bi-state Louisville area. These identical MVEBs are reflected in Indiana's 8-hour maintenance plan which was developed for Clark and Floyd Counties, as part of this bi-state 8-hour ozone area. EPA is taking action on the Indiana SIP through a separate rulemaking. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources or allow a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and because the Agency does not have reason to believe that the rule concerns an environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA.) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: June 27, 2007. J.I. Palmer Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 52 and 81 are amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart S—Kentucky 2. Section 52.920(e) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the table for “Louisville 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan” to read as follows: § 52.920 Identification of plan.
(e)* * * EPA-Approved Kentucky Non-regulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * * Louisville 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan Bullitt County, Jefferson County, Oldham County 07/05/07 [Insert first page of publication] PART 81—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 2. In § 81.318, the table entitled “Kentucky-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for “Louisville, KY-IN”, “Bullitt County”, “Jefferson County”, and “Oldham County” to read as follows: § 81.318 Kentucky. Kentucky-Ozone (8-Hour Standard) Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Louisville, KY-IN: Bullitt County 08/06/07 Attainment Jefferson County 08/06/07 Attainment Oldham County 08/06/07 Attainment * * * * * * * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E7-13003 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0560; FRL-8335-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio Rules to Control Emissions From Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incinerators AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is giving final approval to a State plan submitted by Ohio concerning criteria pollutant and toxic emissions from Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) in the State. Ohio prepared a plan based on Clean Air Act
(CAA)sections 111(d) and 129 for existing hospital, medical and infectious waste incinerators and asked that it be reviewed and approved as the State plan. The State's HMIWI plan sets out requirements for affected units at least as stringent as the EPA requirements entitled “Emission Guidelines
(EG)and Compliance Times for Hospital/Medical/ Infectious Waste Incinerators” published in the **Federal Register** dated September 15, 1997. For approval, the State plan must include requirements for emission limits at least as protective as those requirements stated in the emission guideline. We are approving, with some exceptions, items requested in Ohio's letter of October 18, 2005, including limits for a variety of emissions from HMIWI units including mercury, cadmium, lead, hydrogen chloride, and dioxin and criteria pollutants. The rules in the plan apply to existing sources only, for which construction commenced on or before June 20, 1996. New sources constructed after this date are covered by a Federal new source performance standard. The Ohio rules, contained in the plan, were proposed on March 22, 2002, and a public hearing was held on April 29, 2002. The rules became effective in Ohio on March 23, 2004. EPA proposed approval in the **Federal Register** on January 10, 2007, and received no comments on the proposal. We are approving the Ohio plan, with several noted exceptions, because it meets the requirements of the EPA emission guideline affecting hospital incinerators. DATES: This final rule is effective on August 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0560. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *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 Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone John Paskevicz, Engineer, at
(312)886-6084 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Paskevicz, Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)886-6084, *paskevicz.john@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 action is being taken by EPA? II. The HMIWI State Plan Requirement III. What does the Ohio plan contain? IV. Is my HMIWI subject to these regulations? V. Why is the Ohio HMIWI plan approvable? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is being taken by EPA? We are approving selected portions of the Ohio plan to control the air emissions from HMIWI units in the State. Our approval is based on EPA's review of the Ohio plan compared to the EPA Emission Guideline
(EG)document dated September 15, 1997, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for HMIWIs, see 62 FR 48348-48391). As noted in our proposed rule approval, (72 FR 1197, dated January 10, 2007) we are not taking action on the following portions of the Ohio Rule 3745-75-02(I)(1) (arsenic), -02(I)(2) (beryllium), -02(I)(4) (chromium), and -02(I)(7) (nickel) because these pollutants and the emission limits noted in the State rule for these pollutants are not part of the EPA emission guideline document. EPA approves all other items requested in the Ohio letter of October 18, 2005. II. The HMIWI State Plan Requirement A HMIWI plan is a plan to control air pollutant emissions from existing incinerators which burn hospital waste or medical or infectious waste. States were required under section 111(d) and 129 of the CAA to submit State plans to control emissions from existing HMIWI units. The requirement for a State plan was triggered when EPA published the EG for HMIWI under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce (62 FR 48348, September 15, 1997). The State plan is required to reduce several types of air pollutants associated with waste incineration. The State plan includes control requirements which will reduce emissions of criteria pollutants including: particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. The approved plan will also control the emissions of toxic pollutants including: hydrogen chloride, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxin/furans. All of these pollutants cause adverse effects to public health and the environment. Dioxin, lead, and mercury bio-accumulate through the food chain. Serious developmental and adult effects in humans, primarily damage to the nervous system, have been associated with exposures to mercury. Exposure to dioxin and furans can cause skin disorders, cancer, and reproductive effects such as endometriosis. Dioxin and furans can also affect the immune system. Acid gases affect the respiratory tract, as well as contribute to the acid rain that damages lakes and harms agriculture and forests and man-made structures. Particulate matter has been linked with adverse health effects, including aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease and increased risk of premature death. Nitrogen oxide emissions contribute to the formation of acid rain and ground level ozone, which is associated with a number of adverse health and environmental effects. III. What does the Ohio plan contain? The Ohio Plan contains: 1. A demonstration of the State's legal authority to implement the section 111(d)/129 State Plan; 2. State rule, known as OAC 3745-75, as the enforceable mechanism; 3. An inventory of known active and exempt facilities, along with estimates of their potential air emissions; 4. Emission limits that are as protective as the EG; 5. A compliance date accomplished under the Federal Plan; 6. Testing, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the designated facilities; 7. Records from the public hearing on the State Plan; and, 8. Provisions for progress reports to EPA. IV. Is my HMIWI subject to these regulations? If your HMIWI as defined by Ohio is presently in operation and you rely on it to get rid of your hospital, medical and infectious waste and it was built on or before June 20, 1996, then it is subject to the State's regulation. V. Why is the Ohio HMIWI plan approvable? We compared the Ohio rules to the EPA's EG for HMIWI and found the Ohio rules matching very closely with the EPA EG with one exception. The exception is the Ohio rules also cover additional toxic pollutants including arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and nickel. These additional toxic pollutants are not part of the HMIWI EG and EPA is not including these pollutants in today's approved rule. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 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). Regulatory Flexibility Act This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments This 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 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 approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( *See* Section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Waste treatment and disposal, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 25, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 62, chapter I, of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 62—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart KK—Ohio 2. Subpart KK is amended by adding an undesignated center heading and § 62.8880 to read as follows: Emissions From Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) § 62.8880 Identification of plan.
(a)*Identification of plan.* Ohio rules to Control Emissions from Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI), submitted by the Ohio EPA on October 18, 2005. Rules 3745-75-01, 3745-75-02, 3745-75-03, 3745-75-04, 3745-75-05, and 3745-75-06 of the Ohio Administrative Code, effective in the state March 23, 2004, with the exception of rules 3745-75-02(I)(1), 3745-75-02(I)(2), 3745-75-02(I)(4), and 3745-75-02(I)(7).
(b)*Identification of sources.* The plan applies to existing hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators for which construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced on or before June 20, 1996, as described in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce.
(c)*Effective date.* The effective date of the plan is August 6, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-13002 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-8335-9] National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Direct final notice of partial deletion of the Uravan Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)Region 8 is publishing a direct final notice of partial deletion of approximately 7 acres within the Uravan Superfund Site (Site), located in Montrose County, Colorado, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The acerage comprises a one mile section of Colorado State Highway 141 between mile posts 75 and 76. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final partial deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Colorado, through the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions, under CERCLA, for the approximate 7 acres have been completed and, therefore, further remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is not appropriate. DATES: This direct final deletion will be effective September 4, 2007. If adverse comments are received by August 6, 2007, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the deletion will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Rebecca Thomas, Project Manager, 8EPR-SR, *thomas.rebecca@epa.gov* , U.S. EPA, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,
(303)312-6552 or 1-800-227-8917, extension 6552. Information Repositories: Comprehensive information about the Site is available for viewing and copying at the Site information repository located at U.S. EPA Region 8 Records Center, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,
(303)312-6473, hours of operation M-F 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., or at the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, Records Center, Building B, Second Floor, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, CO 80246-1530, hours of operation M-F 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Thomas, Project Manager, 8EPR-SR, *thomas.rebecca@epa.gov* , U.S. EPA, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,
(303)312-6552 or toll free 1-800-227-8917, extension 6552. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Site Deletion V. Deletion Action I. Introduction EPA Region 8 is publishing this direct final notice of partial deletion of approximately 7 acres within the Uravan Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. The EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions if conditions at a deleted site warrant such action. Because EPA considers this action to be non-controversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of intent to delete. This action will be effective September 4, 2007, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 6, 2007, on this document. If adverse comments are received within the 30 day public comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final partial deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment. Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Uravan Superfund Site and demonstrates how a portion of the site meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period. II. NPL Deletion Criteria Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making a determination to delete a Site from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met: i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; ii. All appropriate Fund-financed (Hazardous Substance Superfund Response Trust Fund) response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the deleted site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c) requires that a subsequent review of the site be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the remedial action at the deleted site to ensure that the action remains protective of public health and the environment. If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may initiate remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. III. Deletion Procedures The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site: 1. The EPA consulted with Colorado on the deletion of the Site from the NPL prior to developing this direct final notice of partial deletion. 2. Colorado concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL. 3. Concurrently with the publication of this direct final notice of partial deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel notice of intent to partially delete published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the **Federal Register** is being published in a major local newspaper of general circulation at or near the Site and is being distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local government officials and other interested parties; the newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the notice of intent to delete the Site from the NPL. 4. The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in the Site information repository identified above. 5. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final notice of partial deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to partially delete and the comments already received. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's right or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions. IV. Basis for Site Deletion The following information provides EPA's rationale for partially deleting the Site from the NPL. Site Location The Uravan site is located in western Colorado in the western portion of Montrose County on Highway 141 approximately 13 miles northwest of the Town of Nucla. The town of Uravan was demolished during remedial activities at the Site. The Site is located adjacent to the San Miguel River which drains into the Dolores River and hence to the Colorado River. This partial deletion pertains to approximately 7 acres, a one mile section of Colorado State Highway 141, comprised of a right-of-way up to 60 feet in width between mile posts 75 and 76. Site History Colorado State Highway 141 traverses the Uravan Superfund site in western Colorado. The Uravan site is included on the National Priorities List
(NPL)and is undergoing remedial work pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT)has completed cleanup activities along the portion of Highway 141 impacted by radioactive mill tailings generated from the Manhattan Project in the 1940's. A curve in State Highway 141 between mile posts 75 and 76 was identified as having significant safety issues related to its design. Highway 141 in this area was thought to be underlain by radioactive materials. Gamma data and 26 soil borings along the roadway confirmed that the roadway was underlain by radioactive materials. Construction activities associated with the road realignment exposed approximately 1 mile of road bed containing radioactive materials and these waste materials were removed and relocated to a secure on-site repository on Club Mesa for long-term isolation. Institutional controls or future site inspections of the highway are not warranted because of the successful removal of contaminated materials. Site Investigation Post-remedial action conditions at the Highway 141 site were evaluated using penetrating radiation surveys and laboratory analyses conducted on surface and subsurface soil samples collected in 2006. All of the pertinent details concerning site activities were taken from the September 2006 *Final Construction and Soil Confirmation Investigation Report* prepared by Umetco Minerals Corporation (Umetco). Twelve representative soil sample locations were randomly selected using the U.S. Department of Energy's
(DOE)Visual Sampling Plan Version 2.2 software. Investigative procedures followed site-specific guidance documents regarding data collection. CDPHE conducted walking surveys of the highway right-of-way after excavation was complete. In addition, CDPHE obtained splits of selected samples and conducted soil sample analyses in their laboratory. Both of these activities confirmed that the measurements and analytical results obtained during Umetco's investigation were reasonable, repeatable and valid. Cleanup criteria for soils in the Uravan area were established in Umetco's report titled *Soil Cleanup Program Methodology for Uravan, Colorado* dated June 1999. The report sets forth two criteria for unrestricted use of the property. Category 1 criteria are based on attaining soil cleanup levels that are within background ranges and Category 2 criteria represent soil cleanup levels that are health-risk based. Both Category 1 and 2 cleanup levels are protective of human health and allow for unrestricted use of the property. Remedy Decision Evaluation of radioactive materials and contaminated soils along Highway 141 was initiated in 1996 with the development of a remedial investigation plan for the highway right-of-way and surrounding environs that Umetco reported in a March 1996 *Remedial Investigation Plan for Surface and Subsurface Soils and Structures Northeast of Highway 141.* This investigation plan described field techniques and methods to be used during site characterization activities and set forth data quality objectives for conducting on-site gamma measurements and obtaining analytical data from the laboratory testing of surface and subsurface soil samples. The April 2000 *Characterization Report and Remedial Action Plan* prepared by Umetco shows that contaminated materials were likely present beneath the roadway between mileposts 75 and 76 but that the remaining part of the roadway from milepost 76 and 78 did not contain uranium mill tailing materials. This conclusion was in conformance with known, historical processing activities that only occurred in the area between mileposts 75 and 76 (the Manhattan Project). CDOT characterized the area utilizing 26 soil borings along the highway shoulders to obtain subsurface geological, environmental and geotechnical information. Boring depths ranged from 4 to 20 feet and all were logged with a gamma scintillometer. The borings were advanced until native soils were encountered, generally 10 to 20 feet, or until refusal. Umetco supplied trained radiological technicians and equipment to assist in logging the borings, and to maintain control of contaminated materials. Direct surface and subsurface field measurements included the use of scintillation penetrating radiation measurements. Gamma radiation measurements were performed at the soil surface and subsurface at approximately 1 foot intervals along the vertical bore path. Gamma radiation measurements were collected in-situ to appraise penetrating radiation exposure rates and to estimate soil radionuclide concentrations. Characterization of Risk A characterization investigation was conducted in accordance with established procedures that indicated radioactive materials were present in the area from mileposts 75 and 76 but that such materials were not present in the remaining Highway 141 right-of-way. Following site cleanup, the average contaminant concentrations of radionuclides and heavy metals in soil in the CDOT Highway 141 project area have been reduced to levels below appropriate soil cleanup objectives. Remedial actions were successful in restoring the land to concentrations at or below background ranges and, thus, assuring that there is no incremental human risk from any of the eleven constituents of concern. Response Actions CDOT's contractor began the removal of contaminated materials in the southwest area of Highway 141 on January 16, 2006. The contractor removed contaminated debris and excavated contaminated soils from specified areas within the highway right-of-way. Radiologically elevated soils were removed to depths determined by real time scintillometer surveys. Approximately 51,000 cubic yards of contaminated materials were removed from the CDOT right-of-way and an additional 2,800 cubic yards were removed from Umetco's property adjacent to the right-of-way. All material excavated from the roadway was dry and groundwater was not encountered while conducting the remedial activities. In addition, there was a sharp boundary between the tailings material and the underlying native, clayey soils. Contaminated materials did not migrate into the soils or into groundwater in the subject area. The area was backfilled and regraded. On numerous occasions, CDPHE verified that cleanup activities were being conducted properly. Contaminated materials were removed from the access to county road EE-22 and the bypass was backfilled. All disturbed areas were graded to blend with the surrounding topography and provide, as far as practicable, the original drainage features. The area was revegetated in May 2006. Cleanup Standards Remedial activities were conducted in accordance with the Uravan Consent Decree and Remedial Action Plan that sets forth cleanup goals for the removal and disposal of radioactive materials. These cleanup goals were established using applicable, relevant and appropriate standards described in the Consent Decree. The Final Construction and Soil Confirmation Report describes the remedial actions performed along the roadway and assesses the effectiveness of the soil cleanup activities. Operation and Maintenance The remedial actions attained the goal of unrestricted use of the property. Future institutional controls or future site inspections are not warranted in the Highway 141 project area because all soil cleanup criteria for unrestricted use of the land have been attained at the site. Community Involvement Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for recommendation of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the information repository. V. Deletion Action The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Colorado, has determined that all appropriate responses, for the approximate 7 acres within the Uravan Superfund Site, under CERCLA have been completed, and that no further response actions, under CERCLA, are necessary. Therefore EPA is partially deleting the Site from the NPL. Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective September 4, 2007, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 6, 2007. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion and it will not take effect and, EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: June 26, 2007. Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, Region 8. For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended by revising the entry under Colorado for “Uravan Uranium Project (Union Carbide)” to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List Table 1.—General Superfund Section State Site name City/county Notes
(a)* * * * * * * CO Uravan Uranium Project (Union Carbide) (former town of) Uravan P * * * * * * * *
(a)* * * *P = sites with partial deletion(s). [FR Doc. E7-13056 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration 42 CFR Part 100 RIN 0905-AA68 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Calculation of Average Cost of a Health Insurance Policy AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the Public Health Service Act, as enacted by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended (the Act), governs the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The VICP, administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary), provides that a proceeding for compensation for a vaccine-related injury or death shall be initiated by service upon the Secretary, and the filing of a petition with the United States Court of Federal Claims (the Court). In some cases, the injured individual may receive compensation for future lost earnings, less appropriate taxes and the “average cost of a health insurance policy, as determined by the Secretary.” The final rule establishes the new method of calculating the average cost of a health insurance policy and determines the amount of the average cost of a health insurance policy to be deducted from the compensation award. DATES: This regulation is effective August 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Overby, Chief, Policy Analysis Branch, Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Room 11C-26, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; e-mail: *toverby@hrsa.gov;* telephone number:
(301)443-6593. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 9, 2006, the Secretary published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 33420), a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)to revise regulations for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
(VICP)to establish a new method of calculating the average cost of a health insurance policy. The public comment period on the NPRM closed on August 8, 2006. The Secretary received one written comment. The one commenter stated that the proposed rule raises both Federalism and Constitutional issues. The Secretary has considered this comment and notes that section 2115(a)(3)(B) of the Public Health Service Act gives explicit authority to the Secretary to determine the average cost of a health insurance policy. Based on the new methodology, the amount of a health insurance policy to be deducted from a compensation award for the 12-month period, October 1, 2006—September 30, 2007 is $363.12 per month. In August 2006, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component (MEPS-IC), available at *http://www.meps.ahrq.gov,* published the annual 2004 average total single premium per enrolled employee at private-sector establishments that provide health insurance. The figure published was $3,705. This figure is divided by 12 months to determine the cost per month of $308.75 which is the proposed new baseline figure for 2004. The baseline of $308.75 shall be increased or decreased by the percentage change reported by the most recent “Employer Health Benefits” Annual Survey, Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust (KFF/HRET) survey at *http://www.kff.org.* The percentage increase from 2004-2005 was 9.2 percent. By adding this percentage increase, the calculated average monthly cost of a health insurance policy in 2005 is $337.16. The KFF/HRET reported increase from 2005-2006 was 7.7 percent. By adding this percentage increase to the calculated $337.16 for 2005, the calculated average cost of a health insurance policy in 2006 is $363.12 per month. Because the KFF/HRET survey is published annually, the Department will periodically (generally on an annual basis) recalculate the average cost of a health insurance policy by obtaining a new baseline from the latest MEPS-IC data and updating this baseline using the percentage change(s) reported by the most recent data from KFF/HRET or other authoritative source that may be more accurate or appropriate in the future. The updated calculation will be published as a notice in the **Federal Register** and filed with the Court. Economic and Regulatory Impact Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when rulemaking is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that provide the greatest net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, safety distributive and equity effects). In addition, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), if a rule has a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, the Secretary must specifically consider the economic effect of a rule on small entities and analyze regulatory options that could lessen the impact of the rule. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 12866 requires that all regulations reflect consideration of alternatives, of costs, of benefits, of incentives, of equity, and of available information. Regulations must meet certain standards, such as avoiding an unnecessary burden. Regulations that are “significant” because of cost, adverse effects on the economy, inconsistency with other agency actions, effects on the budget, or novel legal or policy issues, require special analysis. The Secretary has determined that minimal resources, if any, are required to implement the provisions included in this regulation. Therefore, in accordance with the RFA, and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which amended the RFA, the Secretary certifies that this Final Rule will not affect any entities defined as small under this Act and will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This Final Rule does not meet the criteria for a major rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. The Secretary has determined that this Final Rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the statute providing for Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking, 5 U.S.C. 801. The Secretary conducted a cost analysis comparing the two methodologies using a single claim. This difference was multiplied by the annual average percent of claims compensated that include this calculation (20 percent) in which the award for lost wages is reduced by this more accurate amount, resulting in a slightly larger award. The new methodology is estimated to increase the annual total amount of awards by $50,000. Therefore, the additional cost to the Federal Government will be about $50,000 per year. The table below compares the average cost of a health insurance policy using MEPS-IC only, KFF/HRET only and the new methodology. Year KFF/HRET only MEPS-IC only New methodology 2000 $202 $221.22 1 $206.44 2001 221 240.77 2 232.46 2002 255 265.75 3 276.98 2003 282 290.08 4 309.61 2004 308 308.75 5 336.59 2005 335 NA 6 352.25 2006 354 NA 7 363.12 1 1998 MEPS-IC increased by 1999 and 2000 percent changes from KFF/HRET. 2 1999 MEPS-IC increased by 2000 and 2001 percent changes from KFF/HRET. 3 2000 MEPS-IC increased by 2001 and 2002 percent changes from KFF/HRET. 4 2001 MEPS-IC increased by 2002 and 2003 percent changes from KFF/HRET. 5 2002 MEPS-IC increased by 2003 and 2004 percent changes from KFF/HRET. 6 2003 MEPS-IC increased by the 2004 and 2005 percent changes from KFF/HRET. 7 2004 MEPS-IC increased by the 2005 and 2006 percent changes from KFF/HRET. N/A—Not available due to 2-year lag in reporting data. The table below shows a comparison of the average cost of a health insurance policy using both methodologies, and the percent change between these methodologies. Year Old methodology New methodology Percent change (old vs. new) 2000 $276.28 $206.44 −25 2001 294.24 232.46 −21 2002 313.78 276.98 −12 2003 332.60 309.61 −7 2004 353.81 336.59 −5 2005 374.82 352.25 −6 2006 a 397.45 363.12 −9 a Revise this number when September 2006 CPI is published on October 31, 2006. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The Secretary has determined that this Final Rule will not have effects on State, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector such as to require consultation under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Federalism Impact Statement The Secretary has also reviewed this Final Rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” The Final Rule would not “have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Impact on Family Well-Being This Final Rule will not adversely affect the following elements of family well-being: family safety, family stability, marital commitment; parental rights in the education, nurture and supervision of their children; family functioning, disposable income or poverty; or the behavior and personal responsibility of youth, as determined under section 654(c) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999. Impact of the New Rule This Final Rule revises § 100.2 to incorporate a new methodology for calculating the average cost of a health insurance policy. This new methodology will result in a more accurate reflection of the actual average cost of a health insurance policy as compared to the old methodology which resulted in a number that was too high. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 This Final Rule has no information collection requirements. List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 100 Biologics, Compensation, Health insurance, Immunizations. Dated: January 28, 2007. Elizabeth M. Duke, Administrator, HRSA. Approved: March 29, 2007. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on June 29, 2007. For the reasons stated above, HHS amends part 100 of 42 CFR as follows: PART 100—VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION 1. The authority section for 42 CFR part 100 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 312 and 313 of Pub. L. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3779-3782 (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1 note); sec. 2114(c) and
(e)of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-14(c) and (e)); sec. 2115(a)(3)(B) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-15(a)(3)(B)); sec. 904(b) of Pub. L. 105-34, 111 Stat. 873; sec. 1503 of Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-741; and sec. 523(a) of Pub. L. 106-170, 113 Stat. 1927-1928. 2. Section 100.2 is revised to read as follows: § 100.2 Average cost of a health insurance policy. For purposes of determining the amount of compensation under the VICP, section 2115(a)(3)(B) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-15(a)(3)(B), provides that certain individuals are entitled to receive an amount reflecting lost earnings, less certain deductions. One of the deductions is the average cost of a health insurance policy, as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary has determined that the average cost of a health insurance policy is $363.12 for 2006. This figure is calculated periodically (generally on an annual basis) using the most recent Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) data available as the baseline for the average monthly cost of a health insurance policy. This baseline is adjusted by the annual percentage increase/decrease obtained from the most recent annual Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust (KFF/HRET) Employer Health Benefits survey or other authoritative source that may be more accurate or appropriate in the future. The revised amount will be effective upon its delivery by the Secretary to the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the amount will be published as a notice in the **Federal Register** periodically (generally on an annual basis). [FR Doc. E7-13039 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 412 and 413 [CMS-1529-N] RIN 0938-AO30 Medicare Program; Hospital Direct and Indirect Graduate Medical Education Policy Changes; Notice AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Final rule; clarification. SUMMARY: This notice clarifies the availability of certain physician salary proxy data for purposes of the hospital direct and indirect graduate medical education policy adopted in the “Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System for Long-Term Care Hospitals RY 2008: Annual Payment Rate Updates, and Policy Changes; and Hospital Direct and Indirect Graduate Medical Education Policy Changes” final rule that appeared in the May 11, 2007 **Federal Register** . EFFECTIVE DATE: This notice is effective on July 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tzvi Hefter,
(410)786-4487 (General information). Miechal Lefkowitz,
(410)786-5316 (Graduate Medical Education payments). Renate Rockwell,
(410)786-4645 (Graduate Medical Education payments). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In FR Doc. 07-2206 (72 FR 26870), there was an erroneous statement of fact relating to the GME policy adopted in the final rule. In light of the error, this notice serves to clarify the availability of certain salary proxy data that can be used for purposes of the hospital direct and indirect graduate medical education policy adopted in the final rule. II. Provisions of the Notice In the final rule that appeared in the May 11, 2007 **Federal Register** (72 FR 26958), we responded erroneously to the following comment, “One commenter stated that CMS should use average compensation figures for dental faculty based on specialty and regional variation. The commenter stated that the commenter would be happy to work with CMS to develop compensation figures for dental programs.” We responded, “The AMGA [American Medical Group Association] data does not apply to dental faculty, at this point we are unaware of a comparable data source for dental faculty salaries. We will work with the commenter to determine whether we can develop proxy salary amounts for supervisory dentists.” After the final rule was issued, we were made aware that the AMGA data, in fact, do apply to dentists and podiatrists. Because AMGA data are available for the dental and podiatry specialties, the AMGA *2006 Medical Group Compensation and Financial Survey* data can be used as the salary proxy for both dentistry and podiatry in accordance with the policies adopted in the final rule. We will also correct our posting of 2006 AMGA salary data at the following Web site address to include the median salary data for both dentistry and podiatry: *http://www.cms.hhs.gov/AcuteInpatientPPS/Downloads/Specialty_Table_050107.pdf* . Authority (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program). Dated: June 29, 2007. Leslie V. Norwalk, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. [FR Doc. 07-3260 Filed 6-29-07; 3:21 pm]
Connectionstraces to 50
Traces to 50 documents
U.S. Code
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 1693
- Civil liability§ 1693m
- Documentation of transfers§ 1693d
- Regulations§ 1693b
- Definitions§ 601
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Rule making§ 553
- Departmental regulations§ 301
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Records maintained on individuals§ 552a
- Interest and penalty on claims§ 3717
- Records management by agency heads; general duties§ 3101
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Definitions; generally§ 321
- New animal drugs§ 360b
- State programs§ 1253
- Congressional declaration of goals and policy§ 1251
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Other Federal laws§ 1292
- Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of information; recommendations; international and national coordination of efforts§ 4332
- Public information collection activities; submission to Director; approval and delegation§ 3507
- Congressional findings§ 1201
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Purposes§ 3501
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- Effective date of certain rules§ 808
- Cleanup standards§ 9621
- Civil proceedings§ 9613
- Public participation§ 9617
- Oil and hazardous substance liability§ 1321
- Establishment§ 300aa–1
- Vaccine Injury Table§ 300aa–14
- Compensation§ 300aa–15
CFR
- Receipts at electronic terminals; periodic statements.§ 205.9
- Applicability.§ 71.1
- Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of approved applications.§ 510.600
- Liquid crystalline trypsin, Peru balsam, castor oil.§ 524.2620
- State program provisions and amendments not approved.§ 946.12
- State program amendments.§ 732.17
- Inconsistent and more stringent State laws and regulations.§ 730.11
- Great Lakes annual marine events.§ 100.901
- Control strategy: Ozone.§ 52.1885
register
public-private-law
26 references not yet in our index
- 15 CFR 732
- 12 CFR 205
- 5 CFR 1320
- 14 CFR 71
- 15 CFR 4
- 5 USC 801-808
- 21 CFR 510
- 21 CFR 524
- 30 CFR 946
- 33 CFR 100
- 40 CFR 52
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 472 F.3d 882
- 40 CFR 81
- 40 CFR 62
- 40 CFR 60
- 40 CFR 300
- 42 USC 9601-9657
- 42 CFR 100
- Pub. L. 99-660
- 100 Stat. 3779
- Pub. L. 105-34
- 111 Stat. 873
- Pub. L. 105-277
- Pub. L. 106-170
- 113 Stat. 1927
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule; official staff interpretation
F. App'x472 F.3d 882
Cite15 CFR 732
Cite12 CFR 205
Cites 76 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources