Rules and Regulations. Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation
47,106 words·~214 min read·
/register/2007/08/17/07-4030A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD08-07-019] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Ouachita River, Louisiana AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation. SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operations of the Kansas City Southern Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 167.1, Monroe, Louisiana across the Ouachita River.
This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed-to-navigation from 8 a.m., beginning November 1, 2007 for up to 18 consecutive days. The deviation is necessary in order to finish repairs on the pivot pier and connect the navigation span to the pivot pier. DATES: This temporary deviation is effective from 8 a.m., November 1, 2007 until November 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Room 2.107F in the Robert A. Young Federal Building, 1222 Spruce Street, St.
Louis, MO 63103-2832, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator,
(314)269-2378. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Kansas City Southern Railway Company requested a temporary deviation for the Kansas City Southern Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 167.1, Monroe, Louisiana across the Ouachita River in order to finish repairs to the pivot pier and connect the navigation span to the pivot pier. The Kansas City Southern Railroad Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5 which requires the drawbridge to open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to open is given. In order to facilitate the repairs to the pivot pier, the drawbridge must be kept in the closed-to-navigation position. This deviation allows the drawbridge to remain closed-to-navigation from 8 a.m., beginning November 1, 2007 for a maximum of 18 consecutive days. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Ouachita River. The Kansas City Southern Railroad Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 28.0 feet above normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received. Dated: August 7, 2007. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-16193 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. CGD09-07-109] Security Zone: Captain of the Port Sault Ste. Marie Zone AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of enforcement. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is enforcing a security zone approximately one quarter mile on each side of the Mackinac Bridge in the Straits of Mackinac near Mackinaw City, MI. The purpose of this security zone is to protect pedestrians and vessels during the event from vessel to bridge collision. The security zone will place navigational and operational restrictions on all vessels transiting through the Straits area, under and around the Mackinac Bridge, located between Mackinaw City, MI, and St. Ignace, MI. DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m to 11:59 a.m. on September 3, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Christopher R. Friese, Prevention Dept. Chief, Sector Sault Ste. Marie, 337 Water St, Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783;
(906)635-3220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard is enforcing the permanent security zone in 33 CFR 165.928 for the Mackinac Bridge Walk on Labor Day, September 3, 2007. The following security zone is in effect for September 3, 2007:
(1)*Mackinac Bridge Walk.* *Location:* All waters enclosed by a line connecting the following points: 45°50.763N: 084°43.731W, which is the northwest corner; then east to 45°50.705N: 084°43.04W, which is the northeast corner; then south to 45°47.242N: 084°43.634W, which is the southeast corner; then west to 45°47.30N: 084°44.320W, which is the southwest corner; then north to the point of origin. [DATUM: NAD 1983]. The zone described above includes all waters on either side of the Mackinac Bridge within one-quarter mile of the bridge. In order to ensure the safety of spectators and transiting vessels, this security zone will be in effect for the duration of the event. In the event that this security zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Sault Ste. Marie to transit through the security zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of Port before transits will be authorized. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Sault Ste. Marie on channel 16, VHF-FM. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Dated: August 3, 2007. M.J. Huebschman, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of Port Sault Ste. Marie. [FR Doc. E7-16205 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 36 CFR Part 1258 RIN 3095-AB49 [FDMS Docket # NARA-07-0001] NARA Reproduction Fees AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NARA is revising its fees for reproduction of records and other materials in the custody of the Archivist of the United States. This rule covers reproduction of Federal records created by other agencies that are in the National Archives of the United States, donated historical materials, Presidential records, Nixon Presidential historical materials, and records filed with the Office of the **Federal Register** . The fees are being changed to reflect current costs of providing the reproductions. This rule will affect the public and Federal agencies. DATES: *Effective date:* October 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Davis Heaps at 301-837-1850 or fax at 301-837-0319. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule was originally published in the February 26, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 8327) for a sixty day comment period. We notified several listservs and researcher organizations about this proposed rule and its availability on regulations.gov. We also posted a notice about the rule on our Web site, *http://www.archives.gov,* and in our research rooms. NARA received 1,281 timely comments on the proposed rule. We received 1,198 timely comments via regulations.gov and 83 timely comments by letter, fax, communications forwarded from Congressional offices, or other means. Comments received on or before 11:59 p.m. on April 27, 2007, were considered timely. NARA electronically scanned all comments submitted outside of www.regulations.gov and posted them to the proposed rule docket (NARA-07-0001) at www.regulations.gov for public viewing. In this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, we provide a summary of the provisions of the final rule with an explanation of the changes we have made in response to the comments on the proposed rule. We then summarize the public comments and the reasons for adopting or not adopting the recommendations in those comments in the section “Summary of Public Comments.” Changes Made in This Final Rule In response to public comments, we re-evaluated some of the assumptions used when preparing the proposed rule. Doing so allowed us to alter the formulas for calculating the costs for fixed fee reproductions and enabled us to lower the fee for copies of Civil War pension files from the proposed $125 for a full file regardless of page count to $75 for up to 100 pages. In cases where the number of pages in a pension file exceeds 100, NARA reference staff will contact the customer to advise on the number of remaining pages in the file and offer to produce a price quote for those pages at $0.65 (65 cents) per page. The customer then has the option of remitting payment for the remaining pages or declining to order them. These fees will also apply to post-Civil War pension files. We selected 100 pages as the limit for the $75 fee based on a further analysis of Civil War pension file reproduction orders over the last several years. Orders averaged 106 pages because of the wide range in number of pages per individual order; however, more than 65% percent of the files ordered were 100 pages or less. Setting the number of pages at 100 allows the fee to cover the complete file for a majority of orders while minimizing the cost risk to NARA. We are able to reduce the per-page fee for copies beyond the first 100 pages because some of the overhead in making copies of the additional pages is avoided. We also lowered the fee for copies of pre-Civil War pension files from $60 to $50 regardless of page count. Pre-Civil War pension files are much more consistent in page count, particularly Revolutionary War pension files; we would be more likely to recover costs with a $50 fixed fee. The changed cost elements that contributed to our ability to reduce the pension file fixed fees were elimination of certain National Archives Trust Fund (Trust Fund) support for existing order fulfillment systems, curtailed savings for fulfillment system replacement, and adjustment to projected copy contractor costs. We received relatively few comments about other fixed fees, such as for land records or pension packets. We also received few comments on the other fee changes in the proposed rule. On that basis, we have made no other fee adjustments in this final rule. Summary of Public Comments Received Of the commenters who identified their profession or interest in NARA reproductions, about half identified themselves as genealogists or as researchers of their family history. Some of the latter individuals cited their affiliation with historical societies or hereditary organizations dependent on copies of certain NARA records to obtain new members or fulfill their mission. Almost every responsive comment objected to at least one of the proposed fees. The majority of comments protested the proposed fee for Civil War pension files. We heard from only a few self-identified academic researchers and commercial firms, who objected to the self-service and NARA-made proposed fees for electrostatic copies. Discussion of Adopted Comments for Fixed-Fee Reproductions A majority of commenters criticized the proposed $125 fee for copies of Civil War pension files, as mentioned earlier. Because the Civil War full pension files require the largest portion of reproduction order resources, we re-allocated our costs for those files compared to other records accordingly. The public comments led us to reconsider the $125 price and lower the fee increase as previously described. Comments Relating to NARA's Fixed-Fee Reproduction Costs Commenters challenged the proposed fees by comparing the cost to obtain a copy of a record from commercial duplication facilities, local and state governments, or other institutions. On the basis of such comparisons, some commenters said that NARA was falsifying or exaggerating costs to supplement funding for the agency or raising fees in order to discourage the public from ordering copies of records. Commenters said that most files should not take long to copy. *NARA response:* As indicated by preservation concerns stated in the proposed rule, the reproduction of archival materials cannot meaningfully be compared to the public use of automatic document feeder duplication equipment at high-volume commercial facilities. Furthermore, legal requirements relating to cost recovery and cost components at other institutions or local governments may vary considerably from those at NARA. The copying process for archival records, such as the 19th century pension files, includes separating documents having fasteners, placing non-standard sized documents on a copier's glass platen, generating legible copies, and staff time to transport the file from the archival stack area to the copying contractor and refiling files in their proper places. We firmly reject allegations that the fees are being raised capriciously for the purpose of supplementing funding for the agency or reducing the number of reproduction orders received. The law does not permit the Archivist to make any profit from reproduction of records for the public. As explained in the proposed rule, the fees for reproduction of records in 36 CFR part 1258 are set under the Archivist's authority in 44 U.S.C. 2116(c): “The Archivist may charge a fee set to recover the costs for making or authenticating copies or reproductions of materials transferred to his custody. Such fee shall be fixed by the Archivist at a level which will recover, so far as practicable, all elements of such costs, and may, in the Archivist's discretion, include increments for the estimated replacement cost of equipment. Such fees shall be paid into, administered, and expended as a part of the National Archives Trust Fund* * *.” As we clearly state in our Strategic Plan, NARA's goal is to increase public access to our holdings, not artificially hold down the number of reproduction requests: “The records we hold belong to the public—our mission is to ensure the public can discover, use, and learn from the records of their Government.” Comments Suggesting Digitization as an Alternative for Civil War Files Some commenters said that NARA should provide digital copies of the Civil War pension files; some suggested that NARA digitize on demand and e-mail the copies, others that NARA provide online digital copies of all files. Commenters stressed that online digital copies would eliminate some of NARA's cost considerations because staff would no longer be involved in providing the copies and the public would use their own equipment, paper, and toner to print copies. *NARA Response:* Digitization on demand would incur the same NARA costs as photocopying the records and NARA does not have funding for full-scale digitization of the many thousands of Civil War pension files. NARA has been exploring digitization partnerships over the past few years and considers the Civil War pension files prime candidates for digitization under a partnership. Nevertheless, the scope of such a project and the need to ensure appropriate archival handling of the fragile records during digitization means that there is no near-term alternative to the current process for fulfilling fixed-fee order requests for reproductions of Civil War pension files. Comments Suggesting Fee Alternatives We received numerous comments recommending alternate methods of recovering NARA's costs for fixed fee reproductions relating to the perception of fairness. Commenters who made such recommendations said that a $125 fee was unfair regardless of whether a Civil War pension file contained a few or 200 pages. Comments from those who mentioned digitization of the records are addressed in the previous section of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION and are not repeated here. *Per page pricing.* Numerous commenters said that charging a price per page copied was the fairest method of devising fees. Relatively few commenters stipulated what the per-page price should be, but of those who did, the price ranged from $0.25 to $1.00. *Block pricing for a set number of pages.* Although fewer in number, other commenters said that a set fee for up to a certain number of pages would be more equitable. If a file contained more pages than the set fee allotted for that file type, a per-page fee would apply to those extra pages if the customer requested all the pages in the file. This alternative pricing is the basis for the fixed fee for full Civil War pension files in this final rule. *Search fee.* Several commenters said that NARA should charge a search fee for every reproduction request as a way to recover costs even when no file is found. *No increases.* Quite a few commenters said that the current fees were high enough. Among the arguments against any fee increases was that the cost of living increases for Social Security benefits and the inflation rate fall short of the percentage increases NARA proposed. *No fee.* Many of the commenters charged that their taxes already pay for NARA's staff and copies. Others said that their taxes should cover those costs or argued that their ancestors' military service and taxes already paid for the public's right to free copies. Some commenters said that there should be no charge for copies of records relating to their ancestors and expressed that free copies were an entitlement. *NARA Response:* At first glance, fees set by a per page price seem the most fair. However, because NARA has to recover its costs regardless of pricing structure, the per page reproduction fee would rise above the $0.75 per page fee set out in the proposed rule. We calculated that if all the costs for our current fixed-fee records were allocated to the NARA-made costs, the per page price would exceed $1.00 per page. In other words, the fee for a Civil War pension file would likely rise to close to the $125 proposed fee for the majority of customers. Searches for records are covered by appropriations and as such, cannot be counted among our recoverable costs. Because of legal requirements regarding NARA's recovery of costs for providing reproductions, we rejected comments that stipulated no increases in fees or no fees at all. NARA cannot continue to provide reproductions at existing rates or for free. To choose either approach would lead to rapid insolvency of the Trust Fund and eliminate NARA's capability to provide reproductions. Other Comments Relating to Fees We also received comments that criticized various Federal government programs that commenters blamed for draining resources away from NARA; we considered these comments nonresponsive. How do NARA's costs for reproduction services differ from costs for other NARA services to the public? Some of NARA's costs for reproduction services cover the administration of the fee collection, as stated in the proposed rule. The Trust Fund, which has its own authorizing legislation (44 U.S.C. 2307) from the U.S. Congress, performs that function for reproductions of NARA's archival holdings. The Trust Fund pays for all copying equipment used to generate reproductions for the public and reimburses archival units for the staff time spent on the reproduction for records (including retrieval of records for copying). In order to continue to provide reproductions to the public, NARA must charge fees that cover these costs; otherwise, NARA cannot gain revenue to keep the Trust Fund operational. Paperwork Reduction Act NATF Forms 81 through 86 in this rule were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act and bear approval number 3095-0027 on the face of the forms. The proposed rule stated that NATF Form 85 required modification to separate Civil War pension file requests from those of other wars and that other forms are being modified only to update the stated fee, and invited public comment. All comments received addressed the fees, not the content or format of the forms. No comments were received on the information collection requirements. The forms expire April 30, 2008. This rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individual researchers. This regulation does not have any federalism implications. This rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking. List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1258 Archives and records. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NARA amends part 1258 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 1258—FEES 1. The authority citation for part 1258 continues to read as follows: Authority: 44 U.S.C. 2116(c) and 2307. 2. Amend § 1258.4 by revising paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 1258.4 What reproductions are not covered by the NARA fee schedule?
(d)Reproduction of the following types of records using the specified order form: Type of record Order form Fee
(1)Passenger arrival lists NATF Form 81 $25.00
(2)Federal Census requests NATF Form 82 25.00
(3)Eastern Cherokee applications to the Court of Claims NATF Form 83 25.00
(4)Land entry records NATF Form 84 40.00
(5)Full pension file more than 75 years old (Civil War and after), up to and including 100 pages NATF Form 85 75.00
(6)Full pension file (pre-Civil War) NATF Form 85 50.00
(7)Pension documents packet (selected records) NATF Form 85 25.00
(8)Bounty land warrant application files NATF Form 85 25.00
(9)Military service files more than 75 years old NATF Form 86 25.00 3. Amend § 1258.10 by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 1258.10 What is NARA's mail order policy?
(a)There is a minimum fee of $15.00 per order for reproductions that are sent by mail to the customer. 4. Revise § 1258.12 to read as follows: § 1258.12 NARA reproduction fee schedule.
(a)Certification: $15.00.
(b)Electrostatic copying (in order to preserve certain records that are in poor physical condition, NARA may restrict customers to photographic or other kinds of copies instead of electrostatic copies): Service Fee Paper-to-paper copy made by the customer on a NARA self-service copier in the Washington, DC, area $0.25 Paper-to-paper copy made by the customer on a NARA self-service copier outside the Washington, DC, area (regional archives and Presidential libraries) 0.20 Paper-to-paper copy made by NARA 0.75 Paper-to-paper copy made by NARA for full Civil War pension files (NATF Form 85) beyond the first 100 pages 0.65 Microfilm-to-paper copy made by the customer on a NARA self-service copier 0.50
(c)Unlisted processes: For reproductions not covered by this fee schedule, see also § 1258.4. Fees for other reproduction processes are computed upon request. 5. Revise § 1258.16 to read as follows: § 1258.16 Effective date. The fees in this part are effective on October 1, 2007. If your order was received by NARA before this effective date, we will charge the fees in effect at the time the order was received. Dated: August 13, 2007. Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States. [FR Doc. E7-16233 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0465; FRL-8453-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Revised Denver and Longmont Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plans, and Approval of Related Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Colorado. On September 25, 2006, the Governor's designee submitted revised carbon monoxide
(CO)maintenance plans for the Denver metropolitan and Longmont areas for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These revised maintenance plans address maintenance of the CO standard for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation, extends the horizon years, and contains revised transportation conformity budgets. In addition, Regulation No. 11, “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program,” and Regulation No. 13, “Oxygenated Fuels Program,” are removed from Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans. EPA is approving Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans, and the revised transportation conformity budgets. In addition, EPA is also approving the removal of Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 from Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. DATES: This direct final rule is effective on October 16, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 17, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0465, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *videtich.callie@epa.gov* and *fiedler.kerri@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*
(303)312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). • *Mail:* Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. • *Hand Delivery:* Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0465. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available at * http:// www.regulations.gov, * including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g. CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerri Fiedler, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone
(303)312-6493, and e-mail at: *fiedler.kerri@epa.gov.* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. General Information II. What is the purpose of this action? III. What is the State's process to submit these materials to EPA? IV. EPA's Evaluation of Denver's and Longmont's Revised CO Maintenance Plans V. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements VI. EPA's Evaluation of Regulation No. 11 Revisions VII. EPA's Evaluation of Regulation No. 13 Revisions VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act IX. Final Action X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Definitions For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i)The words or initials *Act* or *CAA* mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii)The words *EPA,* *we, us* or *our* mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii)The initials *NAAQS* mean National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
(iv)The initials *SIP* mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(v)The word *State* means the State of Colorado, unless the context indicates otherwise. I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). b. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What is the purpose of this action? In this action, we are approving revised maintenance plans for the Denver and Longmont CO attainment/maintenance areas, that are designed to keep the areas in attainment for CO for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation. In addition, we are approving revised transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs), and the removal of Regulation No. 11, “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program,” and Regulation No. 13, “Oxygenated Fuels Program,” from Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans. We approved the original CO redesignation to attainment and maintenance plan for the Denver area on December 14, 2001 (see 66 FR 64751), and a revised CO maintenance plan for the Denver area on September 16, 2004 (see 69 FR 55752). The State has made the following changes:
(1)Revised and updated the mobile source CO emissions with MOBILE6.2, based on the pending removal of Regulation No. 11, the inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and Regulation No. 13, the oxygenated fuels program;
(2)updated the transportation projections and stationary source inventories;
(3)revised the MVEBs including applying a selected amount of the available safety margin to the transportation conformity MVEBs; and,
(4)extended the horizon year to 2021. We have determined that these changes are approvable as further described below. We approved the original CO redesignation to attainment and maintenance plan for the Longmont area on September 24, 1999 (see 64 FR 51694), and a revised CO maintenance plan for the Longmont area on September 30, 2004 (see 69 FR 58264). The State has made the following changes:
(1)Revised and updated the mobile source CO emissions with MOBILE6.2, based on the pending removal of the I/M and oxygenated fuels programs;
(2)updated the transportation projections and stationary source inventories;
(3)revised the MVEBs including applying a selected amount of the available safety margin to the transportation conformity MVEBs; and,
(4)extended the horizon year to 2020. We have determined that these changes are approvable as further described below. III. What is the State's process to submit these materials to EPA? Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of revisions to a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur prior to the revision being submitted by a State to us. The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission
(AQCC)held a public hearing for the revised Denver and Longmont carbon monoxide
(CO)maintenance plans, Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 on December 15, 2005. The AQCC adopted the revised CO maintenance plans and removal of Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 from Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans directly after the hearing. This SIP revision became State effective on March 2, 2006, and was submitted by the Governor's designee to us on September 25, 2006. We have evaluated the revised maintenance plans and have determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As required by section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, we reviewed these SIP materials for conformance with the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V and determined that the submittal was administratively and technically complete. Our completeness determination was sent on February 21, 2007, through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, to Governor Bill Ritter. IV. EPA's evaluation of Denver's and Longmont's Revised CO Maintenance Plans EPA has reviewed the State's revised CO maintenance plans for the Denver and Longmont attainment/maintenance areas and believes that approval is warranted. The following are the key aspects of these revisions along with our evaluation of each:
(a)The State has revised the Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans and has provided air quality data that show continuous attainment of the CO NAAQS. As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the national primary ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts per million (10 milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8 continues by stating that the levels of CO in the ambient air shall be measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C and designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53. The original Denver CO maintenance plan, approved by EPA on December 14, 2001, relied on ambient air quality data from 1996 through 1999. The previously revised Denver CO maintenance plan, approved by EPA on September 16, 2004, relied on ambient air quality data from 2000 through 2002. This revised Denver CO maintenance plan submitted September 25, 2006, relies on ambient air quality data from 2002 through 2004. Further, we have reviewed ambient air quality data from 2005 and 2006 and the Denver area shows continuous attainment of the CO NAAQS from 2000 to present. The original Longmont CO maintenance plan, approved by EPA on September 24, 1999, relied on ambient air quality data from 1989 through 1996. The previously revised Longmont CO maintenance plan, approved by EPA on September 30, 2004, relied on ambient air quality data from 1993 through 2003. This revised Longmont CO maintenance plan submitted September 25, 2006, relies on ambient air quality data from 1999 through 2004. Further, we have reviewed ambient air quality data from 2005 and 2006 and the Longmont area shows continuous attainment of the CO NAAQS from 1993 to present. All the above-referenced air quality data are archived in our Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS).
(b)Using the MOBILE6.2 emission factor model, the State updated the attainment year, projected years and the maintenance year emission inventories.
(1)The State updated the attainment year (2001), projected years (2009, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2020) and the maintenance year
(2021)emission inventories for Denver's revised CO maintenance plan. Denver's revised CO maintenance plan submitted on September 25, 2006, included comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the Denver area. These inventories include emissions from stationary point sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road mobile sources. More detailed descriptions of the 2001 attainment year inventory, the revised 2013 projected inventory, the new 2009, 2010, 2015, and 2020 projected inventories, and the 2021 maintenance year projected inventory are documented in the revised maintenance plan in section C, “Emission Inventories” and in the State's Technical Support Document (TSD). The State's submittal contains emission inventory information that was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. Summary emission figures from the 2001 attainment year and the projected years are provided in Table IV-1 below. Table IV-1.—Summary of CO Emissions in Tons per Day for Denver 2001 2009 2010 2013 2015 2020 2021 Point Sources 15.3 18.1 18.5 19.8 20.4 22.9 23.3 Area Sources 74.1 80.5 81.2 83.4 84.9 88.7 89.4 Non-Road Mobile Sources 199.4 239.0 241.3 245.6 250.4 262.6 265.6 On-Road Mobile Sources 1708.1 1476.8 1523.9 1429.2 1416.0 1362.7 1372.1 Total 1997.0 1814.5 1864.9 1778.1 1771.7 1736.9 1750.3 Note: The significant figures in this table are used to show the small contribution of certain source categories. They are not intended to indicate a level of accuracy in the inventories. Totals may not add due to rounding.
(2)The State updated the attainment year (1993), projected years (2009, 2010, 2015) and the maintenance year
(2020)emission inventories for Longmont's revised CO maintenance plan. Longmont's revised CO maintenance plan submitted on September 25, 2006, included comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the Longmont area. These inventories include emissions from stationary point sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road mobile sources. More detailed descriptions of the 1993 attainment year inventory, the revised 2010, and 2015 projected inventories, the new 2009 projected inventory, and the 2020 maintenance year projected inventory are documented in the revised maintenance plan in section C, “Emission Inventories and Maintenance Demonstration,” and in the State's TSD. The State's submittal contains emission inventory information that was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. Summary emission figures from the 1993 attainment year and the projected years are provided in Table IV-2 below. Table IV-2.—Summary of CO Emissions in Tons per Day for Longmont Source category 1993 2009 2010 2015 2020 Point 0.18 0.053 0.055 0.059 0.066 Area 3.503 2.948 2.956 3.0 3.048 Non-Road Mobile 6.36 5.983 6.012 5.829 5.988 On-Road Mobile 43.255 39.952 40.452 36.459 35.456 Total 53.298 48.938 49.565 45.348 44.558 Note: The significant figures in this table are used to show the small contribution of certain source categories. They are not intended to indicate a level of accuracy in the inventories. Totals may not add due to rounding. The State's approach follows EPA guidance on projected emissions and we believe it is acceptable. 1 Further information on these projected emissions may also be found in the State's TSD. The revised mobile source emissions show the largest change from the original and previously revised maintenance plans and this is primarily due to the removal of the vehicle inspection/maintenance (I/M) (Regulation No. 11) and oxygenated fuels (Regulation No. 13) programs, effective January 1, 2008. The phase-out of residual I/M program benefits is estimated in the 2009 and 2010 analysis years. January 1, 2009 will have half the benefit of a biennial I/M program and January 1, 2010 will have no residual benefit due to the I/M program. The MOBILE6.2 modeling information is contained in the State's TSD. Much of the modeling data, input-output files, fleet makeup, MOBILE6.2 input parameters, etc. are on a compact disc (CD), included with the docket for this action, and available from either EPA or the State. Other revisions to the mobile sources categories were due to revised vehicle miles traveled
(VMT)estimates that were provided to the State from the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) which is the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO)for both the Denver and Longmont areas. The revised VMT were extracted from DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan of January, 2005. In summary, the revised maintenance plans and State TSDs contain detailed emission inventory information, that was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance, and are acceptable to EPA. 1 “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO)Nonattainment Areas”, signed by D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993.
(c)The State revised the maintenance demonstration used in the original and previously revised maintenance plans.
(1)Denver The original Denver CO redesignation maintenance plan, approved on December 14, 2001, was revised and approved by EPA on September 16, 2004. The State has revised and updated the maintenance plan for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation. The September 25, 2006 revised maintenance plan updated mobile source CO emissions with MOBILE6.2, based on the pending removal of Regulation No. 11, the vehicle I/M program and Regulation No. 13, the oxygenated fuels program (from the CO maintenance plan), and using the most recent planning assumptions for the Denver metropolitan area from DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The modeling domain-wide vehicle miles traveled
(VMT)are presented in section C.2.(a) of Denver's revised CO maintenance plan and Table IV-3 below. Table IV-3.—Estimated Daily VMT Year 2001 2005 2015 2020 2030 57,984,600 61,842,200 77,544,600 84,765,600 98,499,600 Section C.2.(b) of Denver's revised CO maintenance plan contains a discussion of the State's assessment of point source emissions. Point source inventories were updated including new sources permitted since the previously approved maintenance plan. The State indicates point sources have little or no impact on the maintenance demonstration, consistent with what EPA has approved in previous maintenance plans. We find the State's overall analysis of revised point source emissions acceptable. For the non-road and area source emissions, the State relied upon updated demographic information from DRCOG. Several of the non-road and area source emissions are dependent on demographic data as a surrogate emission factor. DRCOG demographics are presented below from section C.1 (Table 4) of Denver's revised CO maintenance plan and a further discussion is presented in the State's TSD. Table IV-4.—Demographics Year 2001 2005 2015 2020 2030 Population 2,304,700 2,454,300 2,853,200 3,099,300 3,591,600 Households 916,480 988,000 1,156,300 1,262,300 1,474,400 Employment 1,306,800 1,267,100 1,612,300 1,721,300 1,939,500 We have concluded that the revised maintenance demonstration is approvable.
(2)Longmont The original Longmont CO redesignation maintenance plan, approved on September 24, 1999, was revised and approved by EPA on September 30, 2004. The State has revised and updated the maintenance plan for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation. This revised maintenance plan updated mobile source CO emissions with MOBILE6.2, based on the pending removal of Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 (from the CO maintenance plan), and using the latest transportation and demographic data from DRCOG. All emission source categories (point, area, non-road, and mobile) were updated using the latest version of applicable models (including MOBILE6.2), transportation data sets, emissions data, emission factors, population figures and other demographic information. As discussed above, the State prepared emission inventories for the years 1993, 2009, 2010, 2015 and 2020. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 3, “1993-2020 Longmont CO Attainment Area Emissions (Tons per Day),” on page 7 of the Longmont CO revised maintenance plan and are also summarized in our Table IV-2 above. Emissions for all future years are less than emissions for the 1993 attainment year. Therefore, maintenance of the CO NAAQS is demonstrated and is approvable.
(d)Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in both the Denver and Longmont areas depend, in part, on the State's efforts to track indicators throughout the maintenance period. This requirement is met in section F, “Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment” of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan and section E, “Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment” of the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan. In these sections, the State commits to continue operating the CO monitors in both the Denver and Longmont areas, and to annually review the monitoring networks and make changes as appropriate. Also, in these sections, the State commits to track CO emissions from mobile sources (which are the largest component of the inventories) through the ongoing regional transportation planning process done by DRCOG. Since regular revisions to the transportation improvement programs are prepared every two years, and must go through a transportation conformity finding, the State will use this process to periodically review the Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT)and mobile source emissions projections used in the revised maintenance plans. This regional transportation process is conducted by DRCOG in coordination with the Regional Air Quality Council
(RAQC)(in Denver), the City of Longmont (in Longmont), the State's Air Pollution Control Division (APCD), the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC), and EPA. Based on the above, we are approving these commitments as satisfying the relevant requirements <sup>[R3]</sup> from “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” signed by John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992. We note that our final rulemaking approval renders the State's commitments federally enforceable. These commitments are also the same as those we approved in the original and the previously revised maintenance plans.
(e)Contingency Plan Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include contingency provisions. To meet this requirement, the State has identified appropriate contingency measures along with a schedule for the development and implementation of such measures. As stated in section G of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan and section F of the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan, the contingency measures for both the Denver and Longmont areas will be triggered by a violation of the CO NAAQS. (However, the maintenance plans note that an exceedance of the CO NAAQS may initiate a voluntary, local process by the RAQC (in Denver) or the City of Longmont (in Longmont), and APCD to identify and evaluate potential contingency measures.) The RAQC (in Denver) or the City of Longmont (in Longmont), in coordination with the APCD and AQCC, will initiate a subcommittee process to begin evaluating potential contingency measures no more than 60 days after being notified by the APCD that a violation of the CO NAAQS has occurred. The subcommittee will present recommendations within 120 days of notification and recommended contingency measures will be presented to the AQCC within 180 days of notification. The AQCC will then hold a public hearing to consider the recommended contingency measures, along with any other contingency measures that the AQCC believes may be appropriate to effectively address the violation of the CO NAAQS. The necessary contingency measures will be adopted and implemented within one year after the violation occurs. The potential contingency measures that are identified in section G.1 of Denver's revised CO maintenance plan and section F.3 of Longmont's revised CO maintenance plan include:
(1)A 3.1% oxygenated fuels program from November 8 through February 7, with a 2.0% oxygen content required from November 1 through November 7, and
(2)reinstatement of the enhanced I/M program in effect before January 10, 2000. Denver's revised CO maintenance plan also includes a third potential contingency measure: Transportation Control Measures
(TCM)such as financial incentives for Ecopass, Auraria transit pass, and improved traffic signalization. Longmont's revised CO maintenance plan also includes a third potential contingency measure: Nonattainment New Source Review permitting requirements. Based on the above, we find that the contingency measures provided in Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans are sufficient and meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA. We note the contingency measures and methodology to implement them are the same as those we approved in the original and previously revised maintenance plans.
(f)Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
(1)Denver The previously approved maintenance plan addressed the period 2001 through 2013 and demonstrated, in accordance with section 175A(a) of the CAA, that the CO standard will be maintained for the initial ten-year period (through 2011). In accordance with section 175A(b), Colorado has submitted a revised maintenance plan eight years after our approval of the original redesignation. The purpose of this revised maintenance plan is to provide for maintenance of the CO standard for the additional ten years (through 2021) following the first ten-year period.
(2)Longmont The previously approved maintenance plan addressed the period 1999 through 2009 and demonstrated, in accordance with section 175A(a) of the CAA, that the CO standard will be maintained for the initial ten-year period (through 2009). In accordance with section 175A(b), Colorado has submitted a revised maintenance plan eight years after our approval of the original redesignation. The purpose of this revised maintenance plan is to provide for maintenance of the CO standard for the additional ten years (through 2020) following the first ten-year period. Based on our review of the components of the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans, as discussed in items IV.(a) through IV.(f) above, we have concluded that the State has met the necessary requirements for us to fully approve the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans. It is important to note that neither the maintenance plans nor the control measures relied upon in these maintenance plans simply go away after the maintenance year (2021 for Denver, 2020 for Longmont). Both the maintenance plans and control measures relied upon in these maintenance plans will continue to be a part of Colorado's SIP unless we approve their removal. Both maintenance plans will remain in effect until they are revised and we approve the revision. V. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements One key provision of our conformity regulation requires a demonstration that emissions from the Long Range Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program are consistent with the emissions budgets in the SIP (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124). The emissions budgets are defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area. The rule's requirements and EPA's policy on emissions budgets are found in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62193-62196) and in the sections of the rule referenced above. With respect to maintenance plans, our conformity regulation requires that motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) must be established for the last year of the maintenance plan and may be established for any other years deemed appropriate (40 CFR 93.118). For transportation plan analysis years after the last year of the maintenance plan, a conformity determination must show that emissions are less than or equal to the maintenance plan's MVEBs for the last year of the implementation plan. EPA's conformity regulation (40 CFR 93.124) also allows the implementation plan to quantify explicitly the amount by which motor vehicle emissions could be higher while still demonstrating compliance with the maintenance requirement. The implementation plan can then allocate some, or all, of this additional safety margin to the emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes.
(1)Denver Section E.2 of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan describes the applicable transportation conformity requirements and updated MVEBs for the revised Denver CO maintenance plan. The State has established a MVEB for 2013 through 2020 and 2021 and beyond. Specifically, the CO MVEBs are defined as 1625 tons per day for 2013 through 2020, and 1600 tons per day for 2021 and beyond. As we explain more fully below, we view these as the budgets for 2013, and 2021 respectively. Under our conformity rules, a MVEB is established for a given year, not for a range of years. This is because the MVEB reflects the inventory value for motor vehicle emissions in a given year, plus, potentially, any safety margin in that year. (We explain the concept of safety margin more fully below.) It is not possible to specify the same MVEB for a range of years absent specific analysis supporting the derivation of that budget for each year in the range. As a practical matter, this is not usually important because our conformity rules also say that a MVEB for a particular year applies for conformity analyses of emissions in that year and all subsequent years before the next budget year. See 40 CFR 93.118(b)(1)(ii), “Emissions in years for which no motor vehicle emissions budget(s) are specifically established must be less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) established for the most recent prior year.” Therefore, the “2013 through 2020” and the “2021 and beyond” budgets were derived from, the 2013 and 2021 inventory values, respectively, for on-road vehicle emissions and available safety margin. Thus, we will refer to these as the 2013 and 2021 budgets in the remainder of this action. Section E. “Carbon Monoxide Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget” of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan describes the applicable transportation conformity requirements and updated MVEBs. The State has revised the 2013 MVEB, and established a new MVEB for the last year of the revised maintenance plan, 2021. Based on this, in order for a positive conformity determination to be made, transportation plan analyses for years between 2013 and 2020 must show that motor vehicle emissions will be less than or equal to the MVEB in 2013. In addition, transportation plan analyses for years after 2021 must show that motor vehicle emissions will be less than or equal to the MVEB in 2021. Our conformity regulation also allows the implementation plan (maintenance plan in this case) to quantify explicitly the amount motor vehicle emissions that could be higher in 2013, while allowing a demonstration of maintenance of the NAAQS (40 CFR 93.124). This process is known as allocating all or a portion of the designated safety margin to the MVEB and is further described in 40 CFR 93.124 and below. In addition, our January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy states that “ * * * regardless of the technique used for attainment or maintenance demonstrations, a more rigorous assessment of the SIP's demonstration may be necessary if a State decides to reallocate possible excess emission reductions to the motor vehicle emissions budget safety factor.” Since the State decided to allocate available excess emissions reductions in the revised maintenance plan to the 2013 and 2021 MVEBs, we required a “more rigorous assessment” in order to ensure that even with the allocation of safety margin to the 2013 and 2021 MVEBs, the revised maintenance plan would continue to demonstrate maintenance. The “more rigorous assessment” is described in section E.2 of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan, in the State's TSD, and below. In section E.2 of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan, the State revises the 2013 MVEB and establishes a MVEB for 2021 and these MVEBs are applicable to the boundaries of the Denver CO attainment/maintenance area. The revised maintenance plan estimates the available safety margin using the EPA recommended “more rigorous assessment” methodology and allocates a portion of the available safety margin to the MVEBs in 2013 and 2021 as illustrated in Table V-2 below. Table V-2.—Derivation of the MVEBs for 2013 and 2021 and Allocation of the Safety Margin Budget years 2013 2021 Explanation 2001 Total Attainment Inventory 1997 1997 2001 attainment year inventory from all sources that established attainment level of emissions in the attainment/maintenance area. Area and Point Source Emissions 349 378 Total estimated emissions from point and area sources. Mobile Source Emissions 1429 1372 Estimated mobile source emissions based on MOBILE6.2 and State control strategies. Total Emission Inventory 1778 1750 Potential Safety Margin 219 247 Difference between the 2001 and 2013 and 2021 total emission inventories, respectively. Allowable Mobile Source Emissions 1648 1619 Total mobile source emissions that demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS based on EPA's recommended “more rigorous assessment”. Available Safety Margin 219 247 Difference between allowable mobile source emissions and estimated mobile source emissions which equals the available safety margin that may be allocated to the MVEB. Portion of the Safety Margin Reserved 23 19 Portion of the available safety margin that is reserved to account for point/area growth and other modeling uncertainties. Safety Margin allocated to the MVEB 196 228 Difference between available safety margin and the reserved safety margin. 2013 and 2021 MVEBs 1625 1600 Total of estimated mobile source emissions and safety margin assigned to the budget, which establishes the MVEB for 2013 and 2021. As stated above, our January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy required a “more rigorous assessment” in order to ensure that even with the allocation of safety margin emissions to the MVEBs, the revised maintenance plan would continue to demonstrate maintenance. We determined that a “more rigorous assessment” for the revised Denver CO maintenance plan would be an intersection modeling analysis similar to that performed by the State for the original EPA-approved Denver CO maintenance plan and the previously revised EPA-approved Denver CO maintenance plan. The State's intersection analysis used a background CO concentration combined with CAL3QHC intersection (“hot spot”) modeling of the same six high-volume, high congestion intersections that were analyzed for the original and previously revised maintenance plan. The background CO concentration for each intersection used the second highest 8-hour maximum monitored value at a nearby CO ambient air quality monitor for the time period of 2000 through 2002. The CAL3QHC intersection modeling used 2013 and 2021 MOBILE6.2 mobile sources emissions and DRCOG projected traffic data. The background concentration and results from the CAL3QHC modeling were then combined for each intersection. If the resulting concentration was greater than 9 ppm (the CO NAAQS), the background concentration was reduced by the necessary percentage to bring the total intersection value below 9 ppm. Since it is assumed that background concentrations are influenced by regional emissions of CO, the State, in order to determine the allowable regional emissions, reduced the base regional emissions (1997 tons per day in 2001) by the same percentage it had to reduce the initial background concentration. The State modeled the six intersections based on the 2013 MVEB of 1625 tons per day and the 2021 MVEB of 1600 tons per day of CO. The results are shown in Table 13 on page 23, of the State's revised maintenance plan and are reproduced in Table V-3 below. Table V-3.—Intersection Modeling Results [In parts per million] Intersection 2013 Total ppm 2021 Total ppm 28th & Arapahoe (Boulder) 7.8 7.3 University & Belleview 7.1 6.8 University & 1st Ave. 7.5 7.1 Foothills & Arapahoe (Boulder) 7.3 6.9 Wadsworth & Alameda 6.5 6.0 20th & Broadway
(CAMP)6.6 6.5 The modeling results presented in the revised Denver CO maintenance plan and the State's TSD, and repeated in Table V-3 above, show that CO concentrations are not estimated to exceed the 9.0 ppm 8-hour average CO NAAQS for 2013 or 2021. We have concluded that the State has satisfactorily addressed the requirements of our January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy for a “more rigorous assessment” of MVEBs and has also demonstrated maintenance of the CO NAAQS while using a transportation conformity MVEB of 1625 tons per day for 2013 and 1600 tons per day for 2021. Therefore, we are approving the transportation conformity MVEB of 1625 tons per day of CO, for the Denver attainment/maintenance area, for 2013 and 1600 tons per day of CO, for the Denver attainment/maintenance area, for 2021. Pursuant to § 93.118(e)(4) of EPA's transportation conformity rule, as amended, EPA must determine the adequacy of submitted MVEBs. EPA reviewed the Denver CO 2021 budget for adequacy using the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and determined that the 2021 budget was adequate for conformity purposes. EPA's adequacy determination was made in a letter to the State on May 3, 2007, and was announced in the **Federal Register** on June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32646). As a result of this adequacy finding, the 2021 budget took effect for conformity determinations in the Denver area on June 28, 2007. However, we are not bound by that determination in acting on the maintenance plan.
(2)Longmont Section D, “Transportation Conformity and Mobile Source Carbon Monoxide Emission Budgets,” of the Longmont CO revised maintenance plan briefly describes the applicable transportation conformity requirements, provides MVEB calculations, identifies safety margin, and indicates that the City of Longmont and DRCOG elected to apply the identified safety margin to the MVEB for 2010 through 2014, 2015 through 2019, and 2020 and beyond. Specifically, the CO MVEBs are defined as 43 tons per day for 2010 through 2014, 43 tons per day for 2015 through 2019, and 43 tons per day for 2020 and beyond. As we explained more fully above in V.(1), “Denver,” we view these as the budgets for 2010, 2015, and 2020 respectively. For the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan, the safety margin is the difference between the attainment year
(1993)total emissions and the projected future year's total emissions. Part, or all, of the safety margin may be added to projected mobile source CO emissions to arrive at a motor vehicle emissions budget to be used for transportation conformity purposes. The safety margins, less one ton per day, were added to projected mobile source CO emissions for 2010, 2015, and 2020. The derivation and determination of safety margins and motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Longmont CO maintenance plan is further illustrated in Table V-4 below and in section D of the revised maintenance plan. Table V-4.—Mobile Sources Emissions, Safety Margins, and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets In Tons of CO per Day
(tpd)Year Mobile source emissions
(tpd)Total emissions
(tpd)Math Margin of safety
(tpd)Motor vehicle emission budget
(tpd)1993 53.298 2010 40.452 49.565 53.298 − 49.565 = 3.733 3.733 − 1 = 2.733 2.733 + 40.452 = 43.185 2.733 43 2015 36.459 45.348 53.298 − 45.348 = 7.95 7.95 − 1 = 6.95 6.95 + 36.459 = 43.409 6.95 43 2020 35.456 44.558 53.298 − 44.558 = 8.74 8.74 − 1 = 7.74 7.74 + 35.456 = 43.196 7.74 43 Our analysis indicates that the above figures are consistent with maintenance of the CO NAAQS throughout the maintenance period. Therefore, we are approving the 43 tons per day CO MVEB for 2010, 2015, and 2020 for the Longmont area. As described above, EPA must determine the adequacy of submitted MVEBs. EPA reviewed the Longmont CO 2020 budget for adequacy using the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and determined that the 2020 budget was adequate for conformity purposes. EPA's adequacy determination was made in a letter to the State on May 3, 2007, and was announced in the **Federal Register** on June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32646). As a result of this adequacy finding, the 2020 budget took effect for conformity determinations in the Longmont area on June 28, 2007. However, we are not bound by that determination in acting on the maintenance plan. VI. EPA's Evaluation of the Regulation No. 11 Revisions Colorado's Regulation No. 11 is entitled, “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program.” In developing the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans, the State conducted a comprehensive reevaluation of mobile source control programs with MOBILE6.2 and the latest transportation sets from DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. Based on the results from the modeling demonstration in the State's TSD [R4] , Colorado's Regulation No. 11 can be removed from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans effective December 31, 2007. These revised maintenance plans reflect the removal of Regulation No. 11 in that the mobile source CO emissions were calculated without the CO emissions reduction benefit of an inspection and maintenance (I/M) program starting January 1, 2008 and continuing through 2021 for Denver and 2020 for Longmont. The phase-out of residual I/M program benefits is estimated in the 2009 and 2010 analysis years. January 1, 2009 will have half the benefit of a biennial I/M program and January 1, 2010 will have no residual benefit due to the I/M program. Even with the elimination of the I/M program from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans beginning on January 1, 2008, the areas were still able to meet our requirements to demonstrate maintenance of the CO standard through 2021 for Denver and 2020 for Longmont. We note that the removal of the I/M program from Denver's revised CO maintenance plan does not mean the I/M program is eliminated. The State relies on the I/M program in Denver's 1-hour ozone maintenance plan and Denver's 8-hour ozone Early Action Compact (EAC). Therefore, the motor vehicle I/M program will remain intact in the Denver-metro area. We have reviewed and are approving the removal of Regulation No. 11 from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans. Additionally, we note that the State had made previous revisions to Regulation No. 11 regarding the repeal of the basic vehicle emissions inspection program in the Fort Collins and Greeley areas that were adopted by the Colorado AQCC on November 17, 2005, and submitted to us for approval by the Governor on August 8, 2006. We previously approved Fort Collins' and Greeley's revised CO maintenance plans which eliminated the Basic I/M program from the Federal SIP on July 22, 2003 and August 19, 2005, respectively (68 FR 43316 and 70 FR 48650). Without the CO emissions reduction benefit of a Basic I/M program, these areas were still able to meet our requirements to demonstrate maintenance of the CO standard. The August 8, 2006 submittal merely clarifies the geographical applicability in Part A.1 and Part A.IV. In addition, the August 8, 2006 submittal also eliminates the inspection requirement for vehicles that have not yet reached their fourth model year, registering in the I/M program area for the first time. This is consistent with the regulation and the mobile source modeling that the first four model years are exempt from the I/M program. We have reviewed and are approving Part A.1 and Part A.IV of Regulation No. 11 as submitted on August 8, 2006, to repeal the Basic Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program in the Fort Collins and Greeley areas. [R5] Please note we are not acting on other Regulation No. 11 revisions submitted on August 8, 2006 at this time. These other revisions are located in Part F and revise the emissions limits for motor vehicle exhaust, evaporative and visible emissions for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. VII. EPA's Evaluation of the Regulation No. 13 Revisions Colorado's Regulation No. 13 is entitled, “Oxygenated Fuels Program.” The purpose of this regulation is to reduce CO emissions from gasoline powered motor vehicles through the wintertime use of oxygenated gasoline. In developing the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans, the State conducted a comprehensive reevaluation of mobile source control programs with MOBILE6.2 and the latest transportation sets from DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. Based on the results from the modeling demonstration in the State's TSD [R6] , Colorado's Regulation No. 13 can be removed from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans effective December 31, 2007. These maintenance plans reflect the removal of Regulation No. 13 in that the mobile source CO emissions were calculated without the CO emissions reduction benefit of an oxygenated fuels program starting January 1, 2008 and continuing through 2021 for Denver and 2020 for Longmont. Even with the elimination of the oxygenated fuels program from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans beginning on January 1, 2008, the areas were still able to meet our requirements to demonstrate maintenance of the CO standard through 2021 for Denver and 2020 for Longmont. Additionally, we note that the State had made previous revisions to Regulation No. 13 regarding methyl tert-butyl ether
(MTBE)that were adopted by the Colorado AQCC on January 11, 2001, and submitted to us for approval by the Governor on July 31, 2002. With our approval of the removal of Regulation No. 13 from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans, the oxygenated fuels program is not federally required and will no longer be federally applicable in any area. Regulation No. 13 will, however, remain as a state only regulation. Therefore, this July 31, 2002 submittal does not require further EPA action. We have reviewed and are approving the removal of Regulation No. 13 from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans. VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As stated above, the revised CO maintenance plans show continuous attainment of the CO NAQAQS since 2001 for Denver and 1993 for Longmont. The revised maintenance plans along with the removal of Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. IX. Final Action In this action, EPA is approving the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans, that were submitted on September 25, 2006, and we are also approving the revised transportation conformity motor vehicle emission budgets for CO for the years 2013 and 2021 for Denver, and 2010, 2015, and 2020 for Longmont. Furthermore, we are approving the removal of Regulation No. 11 (I/M) and Regulation No. 13 (Oxygenated Fuels) from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 16, 2007 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September 17, 2007. If the EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). 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 approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 16, 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 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 31, 2007. Kerrigan G. Clough, Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII. 40 CFR part 52 is amended to read 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 G—Colorado 2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(111) [R7]to read as follows: § 52.320 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(111)On August 8, 2006, the Governor of Colorado submitted SIP revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 11 “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program” that repeals the basic vehicle emissions inspection program in the Fort Collins and Greeley areas.
(i)Incorporation by reference.
(A)Regulation No. 11 “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program,” 5CCR1001-13, Part A.1 and Part A.IV, as adopted on November 17, 2005, and effective January 30, 2006. 3. Section 52.349 is amended by adding paragraphs
(m)and
(n)to read as follows: § 52.349 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.
(m)Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Denver, as adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on December 15, 2005, State effective on March 2, 2006, and submitted by the Governor's designee on September 25, 2006.
(n)Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Longmont, as adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on December 15, 2005, State effective on March 2, 2006, and submitted by the Governor's designee on September 25, 2006. [FR Doc. E7-16146 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2007-0110; FRL-8456-3] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho and Washington; Interstate Transport of Pollution; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the June 26, 2007 direct final rule (72 FR 35015) to approve the actions of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
(IDEQ)and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to address the provisions of the Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In the June 26, 2007 direct final rule, we stated that if we received adverse comments by July 26, 2007, EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule would not take effect. EPA subsequently received adverse comment on that direct final rule. EPA will address all comments received in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published on June 26, 2007 (72 FR 35022). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. DATES: *Effective Date:* The direct final rule published on June 26, 2007 (72 FR 35015) is withdrawn as of August 17, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vaupel, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT-107), EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number:
(206)553-6121; fax number:
(206)553-0110; e-mail address: *vaupel.claudia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct final rule published in the **Federal Register** on June 26, 2007 (72 FR 35015). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: August 9, 2007. Julie M. Hagensen, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.670(e) and 52.2470(c)(89) published in the **Federal Register** on June 26, 2007 (72 FR 35015) which were to become effective on August 27, 2007 are withdrawn. [FR Doc. E7-16217 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0163; FRL-8452-9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana; Missoula Carbon Monoxide Redesignation to Attainment, Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, and Approval of Related Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revisions submitted by the State of Montana. EPA is approving a request submitted by the State of Montana on May 27, 2005 requesting to redesignate the Missoula “moderate” carbon monoxide
(CO)nonattainment area to attainment for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is also approving the CO maintenance plan, which was also submitted on May 27, 2005 and includes transportation conformity motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEB)for 2000, 2010, and 2020. Lastly, EPA is approving CO periodic emission inventories for 1993 and 1996 that the State had previously submitted for the Missoula nonattainment area. The intended effect of this action is to make federally enforceable those provisions that EPA is approving. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0163. All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Russo, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,
(303)312-6757, *russo.rebecca@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Redesignation From Nonattainment to Attainment for CO for the Missoula Area III. Approval of the Missoula Area's 2000 Attainment Emission Inventory and Maintenance Plan IV. Approval of the Transportation Conformity Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets V. Approval of 1993 and 1996 CO Periodic Emission Inventories VI. Final Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Definitions For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i)The words or initials *Act* or *CAA* mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii)The words *EPA* , *we* , *us* or *our* mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii)The initials *SIP* mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(iv)The words *State* or *Montana* mean the State of Montana, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(v)The initials *NAAQS* mean National Ambient Air Quality Standard. I. Background On April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20480), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the State of Montana. The NPR proposed approval of the change in the legal designation of the Missoula area from nonattainment for CO to attainment. The NPR also proposed approval of the year 2000 attainment emission inventory and the maintenance plan that is designed to keep the area in attainment for CO for the next 13 years. The NPR also proposed approval of the transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEB)for 2000, 2010, and 2020, and proposed approval of the 1993 and 1996 CO periodic emission inventories (PEI). On May 27, 2005, the Governor of Montana submitted a request to redesignate the Missoula “moderate” CO nonattainment area to attainment for the CO NAAQS. The Governor also submitted a CO maintenance plan, which includes transportation conformity MVEBs for 2000, 2010, and 2020. Before EPA can approve a redesignation request, we must decide that all applicable SIP provisions have been fully approved. Approval of the applicable SIP provisions may occur simultaneously with our final approval of the redesignation request, which is why we are also approving the 1993 and 1996 CO periodic emission inventories. The NPR provided the public until May 25, 2007 to provide comments. Because no adverse comments were received by EPA, we are finalizing this rulemaking. II. Redesignation From Nonattainment to Attainment for CO for the Missoula Area Under the CAA, we can change designations if acceptable data are available and if certain other requirements are met. See CAA section 107(d)(3). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may not promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment unless five conditions have been met. Each one will be discussed below.
(i)*The Administrator determines that the area has attained the national ambient air quality standard* . Montana's CO redesignation request for the Missoula area is based on an analysis of quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data that are relevant to the redesignation request. As presented in section 2.1.1 of the maintenance plan, ambient air quality monitoring data for consecutive calendar years 2000 through 2003 show a measured exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of 1.0 or less per year, per monitor, in the Missoula nonattainment area. Further, we have reviewed ambient air quality data from 2004 through December 2006 and the Missoula area continues to show attainment of the CO NAAQS. Therefore, we believe the Missoula area has met the first component for redesignation: Demonstration of attainment of the CO NAAQS. We note that the State has also committed, in the maintenance plan, to continue the necessary operation of the CO monitor in compliance with all applicable Federal regulations and guidelines.
(ii)*The Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k)* . EPA previously approved SIP revisions based on the pre-1990 CAA and its implementing regulations as well as SIP revisions required under the CAA 1990 amendments. In this action, EPA is approving the Missoula area's 1993 periodic CO emissions inventory, the 1996 periodic CO emissions inventory, and the 2000 CO emission inventory (for 1999) as meeting the periodic emissions inventory requirement. Thus, with our final approval of these SIP revisions, we will have fully approved the Missoula area's CO inventory provisions of the SIP under CAA section 110(k).
(iii)*The Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions* . The CO emissions reductions for the Missoula area were achieved primarily through an oxygenated fuels program, the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, residential woodburning regulations, changes in the transportation infrastructure involving the reconstruction of the Brooks/South/Russell (B/S/R) intersection, and outdoor open burning regulations. These five control strategies are fully discussed in section 2.3 of the maintenance plan. We have evaluated the various local, state, and federal control measures, the original 1990 base year CO emission inventory, the 1993 periodic CO emission inventory, the 1996 periodic CO emission inventory, and the 2000 attainment year CO inventory that was provided with the State's May 27, 2005 submittal and have concluded that the improvement in air quality in the Missoula nonattainment area has resulted from emission reductions that are permanent and enforceable.
(iv)*The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A* . Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the promulgation of the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for a subsequent ten-year period following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule for adoption and implementation that are adequate to assure prompt correction of a violation. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Missoula nonattainment area because we have determined that the State's maintenance plan meets the requirements of section 175A.
(v)*The State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA* . On January 10, 1980, we approved revisions to Montana's SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA (see 45 FR 2034). Although section 110 of the CAA was amended in 1990, most of the changes were not substantial. Thus, we have determined that the SIP revisions approved in 1980 continue to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2). In addition, we have analyzed the SIP provisions we are approving as part of this action, and we have determined they comply with the relevant requirements of section 110(a)(2). Before the Missoula “moderate” CO nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment, the State must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of CAA part D. See, CAA section 172 *et seq.* Under part D, an area's classification indicates the requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas, whether classified or nonclassified. Subpart 3 of part D contains specific provisions for “moderate” CO nonattainment areas. The relevant subpart 1 requirements are contained in CAA sections 172(c) and 176. Our General Preamble (see 57 FR 13529, 13533, April 16, 1992) provides EPA's interpretations of the CAA requirements for “moderate” CO areas, and states that the applicable requirements of CAA section 172 are 172(c)(3) (emissions inventory), 172(c)(5) (new source review permitting program), 172(c)(7) (section 110(a)(2) air quality monitoring requirements), and 172(c)(9) (contingency measures). For the CAA section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement, the State submitted a 1990 base year CO inventory for the Missoula area on July 18, 1995 which met the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. We approved this inventory on December 15, 1997 (62 FR 65613). For CAA section 172(c)(5) New Source Review
(NSR)requirements, the State has a fully-approved NSR program (60 FR 36715, July 18, 1995.) The State also has a fully approved PSD program (60 FR 36715, July 18, 1995) that will now apply, instead of nonattainment NSR. For CAA section 172(c)(7) provisions (compliance with CAA section 110(a)(2) Air Quality Monitoring Requirements), Montana's CO redesignation request for the Missoula area is based on an analysis of quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data that are relevant to the redesignation request. As presented in section 2.1.1 of the maintenance plan, ambient air quality monitoring data for consecutive calendar years 2000 through 2003 show a measured exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of 1.0 or less per year, per monitor, in the Missoula nonattainment area. Further, we have reviewed ambient air quality data from 2004 through December 2006 and the Missoula area continues to show attainment of the CO NAAQS. All of these data were collected and analyzed as required by EPA (see 40 CFR 50.8 and 40 CFR 50, Appendix C) and have been archived by the State in our Air Quality System
(AQS)national database. Therefore, we have determined that the Missoula area has met the applicable air quality monitoring requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). For CAA section 172(c)(9) contingency measures requirements, the State submitted a contingency measure, involving residential woodburning devices, on March 2, 1994. We approved this CO contingency measure on December 13, 1994 (59 FR 64133). The relevant subpart 3 provisions appear in CAA section 187. The CAA requirements for a CO nonattainment area, classified as “moderate” with a design value of 12.7 ppm or less, that are applicable to Missoula are a 1990 base year inventory (CAA section 187(a)(1)), contingency provisions (CAA section 187(a)(3)), and periodic emission inventories (CAA section 187(a)(5)). For CAA section 187(a)(1) emissions inventory requirement, the State submitted a 1990 base year CO emissions inventory for the Missoula area on July 18, 1995 which met the requirements of CAA section 187(a)(1). We approved this inventory on December 15, 1997 (62 FR 65613). For CAA section 187(a)(3) contingency provisions requirement, as discussed above the State submitted a contingency measure involving residential woodburning devices on March 2, 1994. We approved this CO contingency measure on December 13, 1994 (59 FR 64133). For CAA section 187(a)(5) PEI requirements, the State submitted CO PEIs for 1993 and 1996 on January 27, 2000. In addition, the State submitted a year 2000 CO emission inventory, on July 19, 2004, that qualifies for the 1999 PEI and is also the basis for the attainment year 2000 CO emission inventory that is part of the State's Missoula CO maintenance plan. We have reviewed these CO PEIs and have determined they contain comprehensive information with respect to point, area, non-road, and on-road mobile sources and were prepared in accordance with EPA guidance and meets the requirements of CAA section 187(a)(5). III. Approval of the Missoula Area's 2000 Attainment Emission Inventory and Maintenance Plan We are approving the year 2000 attainment emission inventory and the maintenance plan that is designed to keep the area in attainment for CO for the next 13 years. The year 2000 attainment emission inventory is discussed in the paragraph above concerning CAA section 187(a)(5) PEI requirements. The State submitted a maintenance plan on May 27, 2005 for the Missoula nonattainment area. The plan uses a year 2000 attainment inventory and includes interim-year projections with a final maintenance year of 2020. EPA is approving the maintenance plan because we have determined that it meets the requirements of CAA section 175A. IV. Approval of the Transportation Conformity Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets In this action we are also approving the transportation conformity MVEBs for 2000, 2010, and 2020. The Missoula CO maintenance plan defines the CO MVEBs in the Missoula maintenance area. Our analysis indicates that the submitted budgets are consistent with maintenance of the CO NAAQS throughout the maintenance period. Therefore, we are approving the 44.86 tons per day budget for 2000, 43.22 tons per day budget for 2010, and 42.67 tons per day budget for 2020 for the Missoula area. V. Approval of 1993 and 1996 CO Periodic Emission Inventories The State submitted CO PEI for 1993 and 1996 on January 27, 2000. We have reviewed these CO PEI and have determined they contain comprehensive information with respect to point, area, non-road, and on-road mobile sources and were prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. VI. Final Action In this action, EPA is approving the request for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for CO for the Missoula area. In this action, EPA is also approving the Missoula area's 2000 attainment emission inventory and the maintenance plan that is designed to keep the area in attainment for CO for the next 13 years. In this action we are also approving the transportation conformity MVEB for 2000, 2010, and 2020. And finally, in this action we are approving the 1993 and 1996 CO PEI. 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 (Pub. L. 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 approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. 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 approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. 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. section 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 16, 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 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: July 30, 2007. Kerrigan G. Clough, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 40 CFR parts 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 BB—Montana 2. Section 52.1373 is amended by adding paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 52.1373 Control Strategy: Carbon monoxide.
(d)Revisions to the Montana State Implementation Plan, Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Missoula, as approved by the Missoula City-County Air Pollution Control Board on January 20, 2005, by the Missoula County Commissioners on January 26, 2005 and by the Missoula City Council on March 7, 2005; and submitted by the Governor on May 27, 2005. PART 81—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart C—[Amended] 2. In § 81.327, the table entitled “Montana-Carbon Monoxide” is amended by revising the entry for the “Missoula area” to read as follows: § 81.327 Montana. Montana—Carbon Monoxide Designated area Designation Date 1 Type Classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Missoula Area: September 17, 2007 Attainment Missoula County
(part)Missoula and vicinity including the following (Range and Township) sections: R19W T14N—sections: 29 and 32; R19W T13N—sections 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14 through 24, and 26 through 34; R19W T12N—sections: 4 through 7; R20W T13N—sections: 23 through 26, 35 and 36 * * * * * * * 1 This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E7-15784 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-1028; FRL-8455-3] Approval and Promulgation of State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Louisiana; Clean Air Mercury Rule
(CAMR)AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve the State Plan submitted by Louisiana on October 25, 2006. The plan addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), promulgated on May 18, 2005 and subsequently revised on June 9, 2006. EPA is taking direct final action determining that the submitted State Plan fully implements the CAMR requirements for Louisiana. CAMR requires States to regulate emissions of mercury
(Hg)from large coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). CAMR establishes State budgets for annual EGU Hg emissions and requires States to submit State Plans that ensure that annual EGU Hg emissions will not exceed the applicable State budget. States have the flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt in order to achieve the budgets, including participating in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. In the State Plan that EPA is approving, Louisiana would meet CAMR requirements by participating in the EPA administered cap-and-trade program addressing Hg emissions. DATES: This rule will be effective on October 16, 2007 unless the EPA receives adverse comments by September 17, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-1028, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. EPA Region 6 “Contact Us” Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm* Please click on “6PD” (Multimedia) and select “Air” before submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Matthew Loesel at *loesel.matthew@epa.gov.* • *Fax:* Mr. Matthew Loesel, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), at fax number 214-665-7263. • *Mail:* Mr. Matthew Loesel, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. • *Hand or Courier Delivery:* Mr. Matthew Loesel, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-1028. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through *www.regulations.gov* , or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Permitting Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Environmental Quality Assessment, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning today's proposal, please contact Mr. Matthew Loesel, Air Permitting Section (6PD-R) U.S. EPA, Region 6, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, telephone
(214)665-8544; fax number 214-665-7263; or electronic mail at *loesel.matthew@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. Table of Contents I. What Does This Action Do? II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAMR? III. What Are the General Requirements of CAMR State Plans? IV. How Can States Comply With CAMR? V. Analysis of Louisiana's CAMR State Plan Submittal A. State Budgets B. CAMR State Plan VI. Final Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Does This Action Do? EPA is taking direct final action to approve Louisiana's State Plan, submitted on October 25, 2006. In its State Plan, Louisiana would meet CAMR requirements by requiring certain coal-fired EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program addressing Hg emissions. EPA is taking direct final action on all of the provisions in the State Plan. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** , we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve the State Plan if relevant adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We would address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAMR? CAMR was published by EPA on May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28606, “Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Final Rule”). In this rule, acting pursuant to its authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7411(d), EPA required that all States and the District of Columbia (all of which are referred to herein as States) meet Statewide annual budgets limiting Hg emissions from coal-fired EGUs (as defined in 40 CFR 60.24(h)(8)) under Clean Air Act
(CAA)section 111(d). EPA required all States to submit State Plans with control measures that ensure that total, annual Hg emissions from the coal-fired EGUs located in the respective States do not exceed the applicable statewide annual EGU mercury budget. Under CAMR, States may implement and enforce these reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program or by adopting any other effective and enforceable control measures. CAA section 111(d) requires States, and, along with CAA section 301(d) and the Tribal Air Rule (40 CFR part 49), allows Tribes granted treatment as States (TAS), to submit State Plans to EPA that implement and enforce the standards of performance. CAMR explains what must be included in State Plans to address the requirements of CAA section 111(d). The State Plans were due to EPA by November 17, 2006. Under 40 CFR 60.27(b), the Administrator will approve or disapprove the State Plans. III. What Are the General Requirements of CAMR State Plans? CAMR establishes Statewide annual EGU Hg emission budgets and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase of reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2017. The second phase of reductions starts in 2018 and continues thereafter. CAMR requires States to implement the budgets by either:
(1)Requiring coal-fired EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program; or
(2)adopting other coal-fired EGU control measures of the respective State's choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with the applicable State annual EGU Hg budget. Each State Plan must require coal-fired EGUs to comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 75 concerning Hg mass emissions. Each State Plan must also show that the State has the legal authority to adopt emission standards and compliance schedules necessary for attainment and maintenance of the State's annual EGU Hg budget and to require the owners and operators of coal-fired EGUs in the State to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 75. IV. How Can States Comply With CAMR? Each State Plan must impose control requirements that the State demonstrates will limit Statewide annual Hg emissions from new and existing coal-fired EGUs to the amount of the State's applicable annual EGU Hg budget. States have the flexibility to choose the type of EGU control measures they will use to meet the requirements of CAMR. EPA anticipates that many States will choose to meet the CAMR requirements by selecting an option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. EPA also anticipates that many States may chose to control Statewide annual Hg emissions for new and existing coal-fired EGUs through an alternative mechanism other than the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. Each State that chooses an alternative mechanism must include with its plan a demonstration that the State Plan will ensure that the State will meet its assigned State annual EGU Hg emission budget. A State submitting a State Plan that requires coal-fired EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program may either adopt regulations that are substantively identical to the EPA model Hg trading rule (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH) or incorporate by reference the model rule. CAMR provides that States may only make limited changes to the model rule if the States want to participate in the EPA-administered trading program. A State Plan may change the model rule only by altering the allowance allocation provisions to provide for State-specific allocation of Hg allowances using a methodology chosen by the State. A State's alternative allowance allocation provisions must meet certain allocation timing requirements and must ensure that total allocations for each calendar year will not exceed the State's annual EGU Hg budget for that year. V. Analysis of Louisiana's CAMR State Plan Submittal A. State Budgets In today's action, EPA is taking direct final action to approve Louisiana's State Plan that adopts the annual EGU Hg budgets established for the State in CAMR, 0.601 tons for EGU Hg emissions in 2010-2017 and 0.237 tons for EGU Hg emissions in 2018 and thereafter. Louisiana's State Plan sets these budgets as the total amount of allowances available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. B. CAMR State Plan The Louisiana State Plan requires coal-fired EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. The State Plan incorporates by reference the EPA model Hg trading rule (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH) in its entirety. Louisiana's State Plan requires coal-fired EGUs to comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 75 concerning Hg mass emissions. Louisiana's State Plan also demonstrates that the State has the legal authority to adopt emission standards and compliance schedules necessary for attainment and maintenance of the State's annual EGU Hg budget and to require the owners and operators of coal-fired EGUs in the State to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 75. As part of its State Plan, Louisiana provided a demonstration through citation of legal authority to adopt and implement the regulations. VI. Final Action The public was provided the opportunity to comment at public hearings on June 28, 2006, August 24, 2006 and September 25, 2006, on Louisiana's adoption of 40 CFR part 60—Subpart HHHH, and Louisiana's Proposed Section 111(d) Plan for Coal-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units prior to submittal to EPA for approval. EPA specifically stated at 40 CFR 60.24(h)(6)(i) that if a State adopts regulations substantively identical to 40 CFR part 60—subpart HHHH or incorporates the subpart by reference into its State regulations, that the allowance system under the State plan is automatically approved as meeting the requirements of establishing emissions standards and compliance schedules of the CAMR requirements. The State must also demonstrate that it has the legal authority to take such action and to implement its responsibilities under the regulations. Louisiana has adopted regulations substantively identical to 40 CFR part 60—subpart HHHH, and provided a demonstration of legal authority in the section 111(d) plan submittal, therefore EPA finds that the plan may be automatically approved. This action will be effective on October 16, 2007 without further notice. 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 (Pub. L. 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, the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 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, the relationship between the national government and the States, or 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 Clean Air Act. The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it would approve a state program. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Because this rule merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, EPA lacks the discretionary authority to modify today's regulatory decision on the basis of environmental justice considerations. In reviewing State plans, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a State plan for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State plan to use VCS in place of a State plan that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 16, 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, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: This action is issued under the authority of section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412. Dated: August 8, 2007. Lawrence Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 40 CFR part 62 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 T—Louisiana 2. Section 62.4620 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(7) and (c)(8) to read as follows: § 62.4620 Identification of plan.
(b)* * *
(7)Control of mercury emissions from coal-fired electric steam generating units and coal-fired electric generating units as defined in 40 CFR 60.24(h)(8): Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Plan for Coal-Fired Electrical Steam Generating Units, submitted by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality on October 25, 2006 (LAC 33:III.3003.A).
(c)* * *
(8)Coal-fired electric steam generating units and coal-fired electric generating units as defined in 40 CFR 60.24(h)(8). 3. Subpart T is amended by adding a new undesignated center heading followed by new §§ 62.4680 and 62.4681 to read as follows: MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC STEAM GENERATING UNITS § 62.4680 Identification of sources. The plan applies to Coal-fired electric steam generating units and coal-fired electric generating units as defined in 40 CFR 60.24(h)(8) including the following existing coal-fired electric generating units:
(a)Big Cajun 2 (Unit 1) at New Roads, LA.
(b)Big Cajun 2 (Unit 2) at New Roads, LA.
(c)Big Cajun 2 (Unit 3) at New Roads, LA.
(d)Rodemacher (Unit 2) at Lena, LA.
(e)R.S. Nelson (Unit 6) at Westlake, LA.
(f)Dolet Hills at Mansfield, LA. § 62.4681 Effective date. The effective date for the portion of the plan applicable to mercury budget units at coal-fired electric steam generating units and coal-fired electric generating units as defined in 40 CFR 60.24(h)(8) is effective October 16, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-16171 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [FRL-8455-6] New Mexico: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Immediate final rule. SUMMARY: The State of New Mexico has applied to the EPA for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final action. The EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. Unless we receive written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize New Mexico's changes to its hazardous waste program will take effect. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will publish a document in the **Federal Register** withdrawing this rule before it takes effect, and a separate document in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** will serve as a proposal to authorize the changes. DATES: This final authorization will become effective on October 16, 2007 unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by September 17, 2007. If the EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this immediate final rule in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that this authorization will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *patterson.alima@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. *Instructions:* Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. You can view and copy New Mexico's application and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following locations: New Mexico Environment Department, 2905 Rodeo Park Drive East, Building 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505-6303, phone number
(505)476-6035 and EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number
(214)665-8533. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson Region 6 Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,
(214)665-8533, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, and e-mail address *patterson.alima@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary? States which have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279. B. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule? We conclude that New Mexico's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant New Mexico final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. New Mexico has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in New Mexico including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so. C. What Is the Effect of Today's Authorization Decision? The effect of this decision is that a facility in New Mexico subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. New Mexico has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to: • Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports; • Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and • Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions. This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which New Mexico is being authorized by today's action are already effective under State law, and are not changed by today's action. D. Why Wasn't There a Proposed Rule Before Today's Rule? The EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's **Federal Register** we are publishing a separate document that proposes to authorize the State program changes. E. What Happens if the EPA Receives Comments That Oppose This Action? If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the **Federal Register** before the rule becomes effective. The EPA will base any further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time. If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will withdraw only that part of this rule, but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The **Federal Register** withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will become effective, and which part is being withdrawn. F. For What Has New Mexico Previously Been Authorized? The State of New Mexico initially received final authorization on January 25, 1985, (50 FR 1515) to implement its base hazardous waste management program. New Mexico received authorization for revisions to its program on February 9, 1990 (55 FR 4604) effective April 10, 1990; March 19, 1990 (55 FR 10076); July 11, 1990 (55 FR 28397) effective July 25, 1990; October 5, 1992 (57 FR 45717) effective December 4, 1992; June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29734) effective August 23, 1994; October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51122) effective December 21, 1994; April 25, 1995 (60 FR 20238) effective July 10, 1995; (61 FR 2450) January 2, 1996; December 23, 1996 (61 FR 67474) effective March 10, 1997 and August 10, 2001 (66 FR 42140) effective October 9, 2001. The authorized New Mexico RCRA program was incorporated by reference to the CFR, effective December 13, 1993 (58 FR 52677); November 18, 1996 (61 FR 49265); July 13, 1998 (63 FR 23221) and effective October 27, 2003. On August 4, 2006, New Mexico applied for approval of its program revisions for RCRA Clusters X through XII, including Rule Checklists 26.2, 54, 54.1, 80.1, 80.2, 84, 89, 107, 117A, 117A.1, 117A.2, 119.1, 127, 129, 126.1, 133, and 142E listed in this document in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. On August 5, 2003, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board
(EIB)adopted the amendments to Hazardous Waste Management Regulations
(HWMR)as permanent rules. The HWMR amendments became effective on October 1, 2003. Thus, 20.4.1 NMAC provides equivalent and no less stringent authority than the adoption of Federal RCRA Subtitle C program in effect through July 1, 2002. This is the version that is referred to in the Attorney General's Statement and Certification for RCRA Clusters X, XI, XII and Checklists 26.2, 54, 54.1, 80.1, 80.2, 84, 89, 107, 117A, 117A.1, 117A.2, 119.1, 127, 129, 126.1, 113, and 142E submitted with this program revision. The 20 NMAC 4.1. became effective on October 1, 2003. New Mexico Statutes Annotated
(NMAC)1978 Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F
(2002)provides New Mexico with authority to adopt Federal regulations by reference with exceptions to federal rules that are not delegated to the State of New Mexico. Since the latest authorization the scope, structure, coverages, and processes have not materially changed with the exception of the Used Oil program. The Used Oil program has been adopted within the Hazardous Waste Management Program but New Mexico does not have statutory authority for criminal penalties as required by EPA for program authorization. Therefore, we are not authorizing the State of New Mexico for the Used Oil regulations in this **Federal Register** document. G. What Changes Are We Authorizing With Today's Action? On August 4, 2006, New Mexico submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that New Mexico's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we grant the State of New Mexico Final authorization for the following changes: The State of New Mexico's program revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern RCRA Clusters X through XII and also Checklists 26, 54, 80, 84, 89, 107, 117A, 126, 129, 133, and 142E as documented below: Description of federal requirement (include checklist #, if relevant) Federal Register date and page (and/or RCRA statutory authority Analogous state authority 1. Listing of Spent Pickle Liquor (KO62). (Checklist 26) 51 FR 19320-19322, May 28, 1986 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC, 20.4.1. 200, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 2. Permit Modification for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities. (Checklist 54) 53 FR 37912-37942, September 28,1988 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC, 20.4.1. 1102, .500, .600, and .900, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 3. Permit Modification for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (Correction 1). (Checklist 54.1) 53 FR 41649 October 24, 1988 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC, 20.4.1. 1102, .500, .600, and .900, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 4. Toxicity Characteristics Hydrocarbon Recovery Operations. (Checklist 80) 55 FR 40834-40837 October 5, 1990 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC, 20.4.1. 200, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 5. Toxicity Characteristics Hydrocarbon Recovery Operations (Correction 1). (Checklist 80.1) 56 FR 3978 February 1, 1991 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC, 20.4.1. 200, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 6. Toxicity Characteristics Hydrocarbon Recovery Operations (Correction 2). (Checklist 80.2) 56 FR 13406 April 2, 1991 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC, 20.4.1. 200, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 7. Toxicity Characteristic; Chloroflourocarbon Refrigerants. (Checklist 84) 56 FR 5910-5915 February 13, 1991 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.200, adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 8. Revision to the Petroleum Refining Primary and Secondary Oil/Water/Solids Separation Sludge Listings (F037 and F038). (Checklists 89) 56 FR 21955-21960 May 13, 1991 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.200, as adopted August, 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 9. Used, Oil Filter Exclusion; Technical Corrections. (Checklists 107) 57 FR 29220, July 1, 1992 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.200, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 10. Reissuance of the “Mixture and Derived-From” Rule. (Checklists 117A, 117A.1, 117A.2) 57 FR 7628; 57 FR 23062; 57 FR 49278; March 3, 1992; June 1, 1992; October 30, 1992 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.200, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 11. Testing and Monitoring Activities. (Checklist 126) 58 FR 46040-46051 August 31, 1993; 59 FR 47980-47982 September 19, 1994 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.100, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 12. Testing and Monitoring Activities. (Checklists 126 and 126.1) 58 FR 46040-46051 August 31, 1993 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.100, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 13. Toxicity Characteristic Revision; TCLP Correction. (Checklists 119) 57 FR 55114-5517, November 24, 1992 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.200, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 14. Toxicity Characteristic Revision; TCLP Correction. (Checklists 119.1) 57 FR 55114, 58 FR 6854 November 24, 1992; February 2, 1993 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.200, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 15. Boilers and Industrial Furnaces; Administrative Stay and Interim Standards for Bevill Residues. (Checklists 127) 58 FR 59598-59603 November 9, 1993 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.700, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 16. Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Treatability Studies Sample Exclusion (Checklist 129) 59 FR 8362-8366 February 18, 1994 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.200, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 17. Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, Underground Storage Tanks, and Underground Injection Control Systems; Financial Assurance; Letter of Credit. (Checklist 133) 59 FR 29958-29960 June 10, 1994 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.500 and .501, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 18. Universal Waste Rule (Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Recycling Regulatory Program); Final Rule (Checklist 142E) 60 FR 25492 May 11, 1995 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.1000, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 19. Amendments to the Definition of Solid Waste; Amendment II. (Checklist 150) 61 FR 13103-13106 March 26, 1996 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.200, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 20. Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements (HWIR-Media). (Checklist 175) 63 FR 65874-65947 November 30, 1998 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.100, .200, .500, .600, .800 and .900, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 21. Universal Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program; Hazardous Waste Lamps. (Checklist 181) 64 FR 36466-36490 July 6, 1999 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1 100, .500, .600, .800, .900, and 1000, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 22. NESHAPS: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustor. (Checklist 182) 64 FR 52828; 64 FR 63209 September 30, 1999; and November 19, 1999 Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1 100, .200, .500, .600, .700, and .900, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 23. Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV: Final Rule Promulgating Treatment Standards for Metal Wastes and Mineral Processing Wastes; Mineral Processing Secondary Materials and Bevill Exclusion Issues; Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soils, and Exclusion of Recycled Wood Preserving (Checklist 183) 64 FR 56469 October 20, 1999 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1 .200, .300 and .800, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 24. Waste Water Treatment Sludges From the Metal Finishing Industry; 180-day Accumulation Time. (Checklist 184) 65 FR 12378-12398 March 8, 2000 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1 .300, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 25. Organobromine Production Wastes; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Land Disposal Restrictions; Listing of CERCLA Hazardous Substances, Reportable Quantities; Final Rule. (Checklist 185) 65 FR 14472-14475 March 17, 2000 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1 .200, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 26. Organobromines Production Wastes; Petroleum Refining Wastes; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Land Disposal Restrictions; Final Rule and Correcting Amendments. (Checklist 187) 64 FR 36365-36367 June 8, 2000 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1 .200, and .800, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 27. NESHAPS: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustor. (Checklist 188) 65 FR 42292-42302 July 10, 2000 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1 .200, .500 and .900, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 28. NESHAPS: Second Technical Correction Vacatur. (Checklist 188.1) 66 FR 24270-42302 May 14, 2001 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1 .200, .500 and .900, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 29. NESHAPS: Second Technical Correction Vacatur. (Checklist 188.2) 66 FR 35087 October 16, 2001 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1 .200, .500 and .900, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 30. Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Chlorinated Aliphatics Production Wastes; Land Disposal Restictions for Newly Identified Wastes; and CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designation and Reportable Quantities. (Checklist 189) 65 FR 81373 December 26, 2000 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.200, .500, and .800, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 31. Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Deferral for PCBs in Soil. (Checklist 190) 65 FR 81373-81381 December 26, 2000 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.800, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 32. Land Disposal Restrictions Correction. (Checklist 192B) 66 FR 27266-2727 May 16, 2001 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.800, as adopted June 14, 2000, effective October 1, 2003. 33. Change of Official Mailing Address. (Checklist 193) 66 FR 34374-34376 June 28, 2001 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.100, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 34. Mixture and Derived—From Rules Revision II. (Checklist 194) 66 FR 50332-50334 October 3, 2001 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.200, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 35. Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Waste Identification and Listing. (Checklist 195) 66 FR 58258-58300 November 20, 2001; April 9, 2002 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.200, and .800, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 36. Corrective Action Management Units. (Checklist 196) 67 FR 2962-2002 January 22, 2002 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.1.100, and .500, as adopted June 14, 2000, effective October 1, 2003. 37. Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Combustors: Interim Standards. (Checklist 197) 67 FR 6792-6818 February 13, 2002 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.500, .600, .700, and .900, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 38. Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Combustor: Correction. (Checklist 198) 67 FR 6968-6996 February 14, 2002 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.700, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. 39. Vacatur of Mineral Processing Spent Materials Being Reclaimed as Solid Waste and TCLP Use with MGP Wastes. (Checklist 199) 67 FR 11251-11254 March 13, 2002 New Mexico Statute Annotated
(NMSA)1978, Sections 74-4-4A(1) and 74-4-4F (2002). Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWMR), New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 20 NMAC 20.4.200, as adopted August 5, 2003, effective October 1, 2003. H. Where Are the Revised State Rules Different From the Federal Rules? In this authorization of the State of New Mexico's program revisions for RCRA Clusters X, XI, XII, Checklists 26, 54, 80, 84, 89, 107, 117A, 126, 129, 133, and 142E), there are no provisions that are more stringent or broader in scope. Broader in scope requirements are not part of the authorized program and EPA can not enforce them. I. Who Handles Permits After the Authorization Takes Effect? New Mexico will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table in this document after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which New Mexico is not yet authorized. J. What Is Codification and Is the EPA Codifying New Mexico's Hazardous Waste Program as Authorized in This Rule? Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart T for this authorization of New Mexico's program changes until a later date. In this authorization application the EPA is not codifying the rules documented in this **Federal Register** notice. K. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action 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 action authorizes preexisting 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). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This 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. The EPA will submit a report containing this document 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 in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective October 16, 2007. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b). Dated: July 25, 2007. Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E7-16244 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [FRL-8456-1] National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List Update AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Direct final notice for partial deletion of the RSR Corporation Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 4 and Subarea 1 of Operable Unit No. 5 from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)Region 6 is publishing a direct final notice for partial deletion of the RSR Corporation Superfund Site (RSR Site), Operable Unit
(OU)No. 4 and Subarea 1 of Operable Unit
(OU)No. 5, located in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, from the National Priorities List (NPL). This partial deletion does not include OU No. 1, OU No. 2, OU No. 3 or Subareas 2, 3, and 4 of OU NO. 5. The partial deletion for OU No. 4 and Subarea 1 of OU No. 5 came at the request of a developer to help facilitate the purchase of these properties. The EPA plans to delete the other operable units and areas of the RSR Superfund Site in 2008. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final notice for partial deletion is being published by the EPA with the concurrence of the State of Texas, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), because the EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed and, therefore, further remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is not appropriate for OU No. 4 and Subarea 1 of OU No. 5. DATES: This direct final notice for partial deletion will be effective October 16, 2007 unless the EPA receives adverse comments by September 17, 2007. If adverse comments are received, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final notice of partial deletion in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the partial deletion will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1995-0005, Notice Phase-1, by one of the following methods: *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instruction for submitting comments. *E-mail:* mail to *coates.janetta@epa.gov.* *Fax:* 214-665-6660 *Mail:* Janetta Coats, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-PO), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733,
(214)665-7308 or 1-800-533-3508. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1995-0005, Notice Phase-1. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the information repositories. *Information Repositories:* Comprehensive information about the Site is available for viewing and copying during central standard time at the Site information repositories located at: U.S. EPA Region 6 Library, 7th Floor, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,
(214)665-6424, Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.; Dallas West Branch Library, 2332 Singleton Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75212,
(214)670-6445, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Wednesday and Saturday 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Central File Room Customer Service Center, Building E, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753,
(512)239-2900, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlos A. Sanchez, Remedial Project Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-R), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733,
(214)665-8507 or 1-800-533-3508 ( *sanchez.carlos@epa.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Partial Deletion V. Partial Deletion Action I. Introduction The EPA Region 6 office is publishing this direct final notice for partial deletion of the RSR Corporation Superfund Site, OU No. 4 and Subarea 1 of OU No. 5 from the NPL. 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 the EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine for these RSR operable units, the EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of intent to partial delete. This action will be effective October 16, 2007 unless the EPA receives adverse comments by September 17, 2007 on this document. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice for partial deletion before the effective date of the partial deletion and the partial deletion will not take effect. The EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the partial deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to partial 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 the EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the RSR Corporation Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses the EPA's action to delete OU No. 4 and Subarea 1 of OU No. 5 from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period. II. NPL Deletion Criteria The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate to protect human health or the environment. In making such a determination pursuant to § 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met: i. Section 300.425(e)(1)(i). Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; or ii. Section 300.425(e)(1)(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. Section 300.425(e)(1)(iii). The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for subsequent Fund-financed actions at the area deleted if future site conditions warrant such actions. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP provides that Fund-finances actions may be taken at sites that have been deleted from the NPL. A partial deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect or impede EPA's ability to conduct CERCLA response activities at areas not deleted and remaining on the NPL. In addition, deletion of a portion of site from the NPL does not affect the liability of responsible parties or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts. III. Deletion Procedures Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any person's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency management. The following procedures apply to deletion of OU No. 4 and Subarea 1 of OU No. 5:
(1)The EPA has recommended the partial deletion and has prepared the relevant documents.
(2)The State of Texas through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality concurs with the partial deletion of the RSR Site from the NPL.
(3)Concurrently with the publication of this direct final notice for partial deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel notice of intent for partial deletion 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 RSR 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 for partial deletion the RSR Site from the NPL.
(4)The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the partial deletion in the Site information repositories identified above.
(5)If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, the EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final notice for partial deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the partial deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent for partial deletion and the comments already received. IV. Basis for Partial Deletion The following information provides the EPA's rationale for partial deletion of the RSR Site from the NPL. This partial deletion only includes OU No. 4 and Subarea 1 of OU No. 5. Figures, with coordinates, of the areas to be deleted will be made available at the Site information repositories and included with the deletion docket. Deletion of these areas of the RSR Site was requested by a developer to help facilitate the purchase of these properties. Cleanup activities have been completed for the other operable units and areas of the RSR Site. However, institutional controls are needed for OU No. 3 before the rest of the RSR Site can be deleted from the NPL. Plans are to have the institutional controls in place and to delete the other operable units and areas of the RSR Site in 2008. Site Location The RSR Site is located in west Dallas, Texas and encompasses an area approximately 13.6 square miles in size. The RSR Site is very diverse and includes large single and multi-family residential neighborhoods, multi-family public housing areas and some industrial, commercial and retail establishments. The population in this area is more than 17,000. The RSR site consists of five operable units (OUs); • OU No. 1—Residential Properties. • OU No. 2—Dallas Housing Authority Property. • OU No. 3—Landfills/Slag Piles. • OU No. 4—Smelter Facility. • OU No. 5—Battery Breaking Facility/Other Industrial Property. Site History For approximately 50 years from the 1930s to 1984, a secondary lead smelting facility (OU No. 4), located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Westmoreland Road and Singleton Boulevard, processed used batteries and other lead-bearing materials into pure lead, lead alloys, and other lead products. The basic inputs into the smelting process were lead scrap and lead from used car batteries. In the first step of the smelting process the batteries were disassembled at the battery wrecking facility (OU No. 5) using hammer-mills to break the batteries into small pieces (e.g., battery chips). The lead posts and grids were then sent across the street to the smelter facility (OU No. 4) to produce soft pure lead or specialty alloys. In the refining process alloy elements, such as antimony, arsenic, and cadmium, were added as necessary to produce the desired product. Slag was generated as part of the smelting process and is made up of oxidized impurities and molten lead. Slag that was not reprocessed in the smelter furnace and battery chips that were not reprocessed, were considered waste material. Historical information indicates that from approximately 1934 until 1971 the lead smelting facility and associated battery wrecking operations were operated by Murph Metals, Inc. or its predecessors. In 1971, RSR Corporation acquired the lead smelting operation and operated under the name Murph Metals. RSR continued to operate the smelter and associated battery wrecking operations until the acquisition of the facility by Murmur Corporation (Murmur). In 1984, the City of Dallas declined to renew the smelter's operating permit. The smelter and associated battery wrecking facility have not been operated since 1984. During 1984 and 1985, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ)[formerly the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC)] conducted inspections on the smelter and battery wrecking facilities and identified several violations that involved the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous wastes. In 1986, TNRCC approved a closure plan to be implemented by Murmur for portions of the battery wrecking facility located at OU No. 5. However, Murmur was unable to obtain certification by TNRCC of final closure, due to a dispute between Murmur and its contractor. In June of 1991 the State of Texas referred the case regarding the closure to the Superfund program for assessment. Immediately following this referral, TNRCC began receiving complaints from residents alleging that slag and battery chips had been disposed of on their properties. In 1991, the EPA began soil sampling in west Dallas to determine the presence of soil lead contamination. The results indicated that contamination existed in some residential areas near the smelter (OU No. 1) where fallout of contamination from the smelter stack had occurred and where battery chips or slag was used as fill in residential yards and driveways. As a result, the EPA initiated an emergency removal action in the residential areas consisting of removal and off-site disposal of contaminated soil and debris in excess of removal action cleanup levels. This removal action in the residential area (OU No. 1) was completed in June of 1994. On May 10, 1993, the EPA proposed the RSR Site to the National Priorities List
(NPL)of Superfund sites (58 FR 27507). On September 29, 1995, the EPA finalized listing of the RSR Corporation Superfund Site on the NPL (60 FR 50435). Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) OU No. 4 A comprehensive remedial investigation was conducted at the former smelter facility from March through June 1994. Results of the investigation indicated the following: • Site building, structures, and equipment were in various stages of deterioration. The process building, structures and equipment were found to have very high concentration of lead, cadmium, and arsenic. • Surface soil results indicated widespread distribution of site-related contaminants such as lead, arsenic, and cadmium at high concentrations. • Subsurface soil contamination was identified at variable locations with no specific distribution of site contaminants. • Ground water contamination was indicated in the shallow ground water at the site. However, subsequent pump tests, conducted during the remedial investigation for OU No. 5, indicated that the shallow ground water does not meet the criteria as a potential drinking water source. The City of Dallas provides drinking water to the west Dallas community. • Drums, waste piles, and debris and laboratory containers were identified during the remedial investigation. These materials were addressed under a non-time critical removal action conducted from May through July 1995. OU No. 5, Subarea 1 • Deficiencies were observed at the Former Battery Wrecking Facility, including deteriorated concrete, and weakened column bases and roof beams. The former Vehicle Maintenance Building was considered to be structurally sound. Dust on the building surfaces was found to have elevated concentrations of lead, cadmium, and arsenic. • The former Surface Impoundment was used to collect and neutralize wastewater and waste byproducts from the lead-acid battery crushing operations. Samples drilled through the impoundment indicated that contaminant concentrations decreased with depth. The maximum contaminant concentrations were encountered at the 5 to 6 foot interval. • Field investigations for other site soils indicted the presence of high contaminants levels in surface and subsurface soils. Record of Decision OU No. 4 The major components of the selected remedy for OU No. 4 included: • Demolition of site building and off-site disposal; • Demolition of the smelter stack and off-site disposal; • Excavation of the concrete foundations and contaminated soil and off-site disposal; • Cap and/or backfill the aerial extent of the site with two
(2)feet of clean soil. OU No. 5, Subarea 1 The major components of the selected remedy for Subarea 1 of OU No. 5 included: • Decontamination of the former battery wrecking building and the vehicle maintenance building; • Demolition of the former battery wrecking building and off-site disposal of debris; • Evaluate existing cap on the former surface impoundment, upgrade or replace as necessary, in order to complete RCRA closure; • Cap the Slag Burial Area/other Soils Areas that exceed Remedial Action Goals with two
(2)feet of clean backfill and re-vegetate with native grasses; • No action is recommended for the shallow ground water. The shallow ground water beneath OUs Nos. 4 and 5 is not considered to be a potential drinking water supply. Response Actions OU No. 4 and OU No. 5 Removal Action Three areas of immediate concern were identified at OUs 4 and 5 during the field investigation conducted in May 1994. The areas of concern included the presence of 500 waste drums, 73 uncontrolled residual waste/debris piles and approximately 50 laboratory containers. EPA Region 6 conducted a Non-Time Critical Removal Action from May 30, 1995 through July 14, 1995. Remedial Action OU No. 4 The remedial action for OU No. 4 started on September 26, 2000 and the final field inspection conducted on November 6, 2001. Remedial Action activities for OU No. 4 included: • Demolition of the smelter facility, bag house building, 250-foot smelter stack, batch house, hog storage building, former cafe building, office/laboratory complex, cafeteria (lunch room) building, filter building, bath house, vehicle maintenance building, former gas station, and miscellaneous structures. • A total of 1,088 tons of steel from demolition activities were recycled. • Approximately 11,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil was treated in-situ and disposed of at off-site permitted facilities. • Approximately 915 cubic yards of debris were treated and disposed at an off-site facility. • A total of 2,137 cubic yards of construction debris were also treated and disposed of at an off-site permitted facility. • A total of 910 cubic yards of concrete materials were sent off-site for recycling. • The site was backfilled with imported clay fill materials and topsoil to a maximum depth of two
(2)feet. • Seven
(7)monitoring wells were closed. Remedial Action OU No. 5, Subarea 1 The Remedial Action activities for Subarea 1 of OU No. 5 began on January 19, 2004, and the final field inspection was conducted on August 3, 2004. Remedial Action activities included: • Decontamination of site buildings followed by demolition of the Battery Wrecking Building. • Approximately 245 tons of steel and metal and 923 tons of concrete were recycled at off-site facilities. • Excess building debris was disposed of at an off-site permitted landfill. • Contaminated soils and slag materials from throughout the site were consolidated in the Buried Slag Area and capped with a total of two
(2)feet of soil material. • The former Surface Impoundment was cleared of vegetation, re-graded, sloped, and soil added where needed to upgrade the soil cap. • Two
(2)underground storage tanks encountered during the remedial action activities were removed and disposed of at off-site permitted facilities. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) The purpose of the O&M activities is to monitor the implemented remedy and insure that the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment. The Operation and Maintenance Plan for Subarea 1 of OU No. 5 was approved by EPA on September 27, 2004. The O&M Plan includes site inspections for the former surface impoundment area, the soil cover for the slag consolidated area, and ground water monitoring of the former surface impoundment. The EPA will implement the O&M Plan with PRP funding. Institutional Controls The owner for OU No. 4 and Subarea 1 of OU No. 5 recorded institutional controls in Dallas County on March 29, 2006. The recorded restrictive covenant for OU No. 4 states that: “Invasive digging, unsafe site development or drilling that would disturb the capped areas in place on the land, or any deterioration or damaging of any element of the selected remedy or ROD is prohibited, unless approved by EPA in writing.” The recorded restrictive covenant for Subarea 1 of OU No. 5 states that: “Invasive digging, unsafe site development or drilling that would disturb the capped areas in place or shallow groundwater use on the land, or any deterioration or damaging of any element of the selected remedy or ROD is prohibited, unless approved by EPA in writing.” Five-Year Review Consistent with Section 121(c) of CERCLA and requirements of the OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (“Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance”, June 2001), a five-year review is required at the RSR Site. The Directive requires the EPA to conduct statutory five-year reviews at sites where, upon attainment of ROD cleanup levels, hazardous substances remaining within restricted areas onsite do not allow unlimited use of the entire site. Since hazardous substances remain onsite, the RSR Site is subject to five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of the remedy. Based on the five-year results, the EPA will determine whether human health and the environment continue to be adequately protected by the implemented remedy. The first Five-Year Review was completed on September 29, 2005. The reviews found that the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment. 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 partial deletion docket which the EPA relied on for recommendation for the partial deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories. V. Partial Deletion Action The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Texas, has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and that no further response actions, under CERCLA, other than O&M and five-year reviews, are necessary. Therefore, the EPA is deleting OU No. 4 and Subarea 1 of OU No. 5 from the NPL. Because the EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine for these operable units, the EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective October 16, 2007 unless the EPA receives adverse comments by September 17, 2007. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice for partial deletion before the effective date of the partial deletion and it will not take effect. The EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the partial deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent for partial deletion 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: August 1, 2007. Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. Appendix B—[Amended] 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended by amending the Superfund site entry for the “RSR Corp, Dallas, TX” by adding a note “P”. [FR Doc. E7-16062 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 402 [CMS-6146-CN2; CMS-6019-CN] RINs 0938-AM98; 0938-AN48 Medicare Program; Revised Civil Money Penalties, Assessments, Exclusions, and Related Appeals Procedures; Correction AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Correction of final rule. SUMMARY: This document corrects a typographical error that appeared in the final rule published in the **Federal Register** on July 20, 2007 entitled “Medicare Program; Revised Civil Money Penalties, Assessments, Exclusions, and Related Appeals Procedures.” DATES: *Effective Date:* August 20, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Cohen,
(410)786-3349. Joe Strazzire,
(410)786-2775. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In FR Doc. E7-13535 of July 20, 2007 (72 FR 39746), there was a typographical error that is identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section below. The provision in this correction notice is effective as if it had been included in the July 20, 2007 final rule. Accordingly, the correction is effective August 20, 2007. II. Correction of Errors In FR Doc. E7-13535 of July 20, 2007 (72 FR 39746), make the following correction: § 402.105 [Corrected] 1. On page 39752, in the 3rd column, in the 5th paragraph, the amendatory statement for § 402.105(d), the phrase “redesignate paragraph (d)(1)(xix) as paragraph (d)(1)(ix)” is corrected to read “redesignate paragraph (d)(2)(xix) as paragraph (d)(2)(ix).” III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the **Federal Register** to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a notice such as this take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). We also ordinarily provide a 30-day delay in the effective date of the provisions of a notice in accordance with section 553(d) of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). However, we can waive both the notice and comment procedure and the 30-day delay in effective date if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that a notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice. We find it unnecessary to undertake notice and comment rulemaking because this notice merely provides a typographical correction to the regulations. We are not making substantive changes to our regulations, but rather, are simply correcting a typographical error. Therefore, we believe that undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate this correction into the final rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Further, we believe a delayed effective date is unnecessary because this correction notice merely corrects a typographical error. The correction does not make any substantive changes to our regulations. Moreover, we regard imposing a delay in the effective date as being contrary to the public interest. Therefore, we find good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program) Dated: August 10, 2007. Ann C. Agnew, Executive Secretary to the Department. [FR Doc. E7-16167 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 545 [Docket No. NHTSA-05-21233] RIN 2127-AJ51 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule, correcting amendment. SUMMARY: On May 19, 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration of a final rule published on April 6, 2004. As part of that final rule, we added a new part 545 containing the reporting requirements for the phase-in to the amendments to part 541. We inadvertently incorrectly cited some cross-references in the regulatory text of part 545. This document corrects those errors. DATES: Effective September 17, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues, you may call Deborah Mazyck, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, (Telephone: 202-366-0846) (Fax: 202-493-2990). For legal issues, you may call Ed Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 19, 2005, the agency published a final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration of an April 6, 2004, final rule extending the anti-theft parts marking requirements (part 541) to
(1)All below median theft rate passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles
(MPVs)that have a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR)of 6,000 pounds or less, and
(2)all below median theft rate light duty trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less and major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of passenger cars or MPVs subject to the parts marking requirements. (70 FR 28843 and 69 FR 17960) As part of the May 2005 final rule, the agency changed the effective date of the April 2004 final rule to phase-in the new requirements over a two-year period. The reporting requirements for this phase-in were found in new 49 CFR part 545. This new part contained six incomplete cross-references to the parts marking requirements in 49 CFR part 541. This notice corrects those errors. Correcting these errors will not impose or relax any additional substantive requirements or burdens on manufacturers. Therefore, NHTSA finds for good cause that any notice and opportunity for comment on these correcting amendments are not necessary. For the reasons set out in the preamble, NHTSA is correctly amending 49 CFR part 545 as follows: PART 545—[AMENDED] 1. The authority for part 545 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 33101, 33102, 33103, 33104, 33105; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Section 545.1 is revised to read as follows: § 545.1 Scope. This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles to respond to NHTSA inquiries, to submit reports, and to maintain records related to the reports, concerning the number of vehicles that meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 541, and the number of vehicles that are excluded from the requirements of 49 CFR part 541 pursuant to 49 CFR 541.3(b)(2). 3. The first paragraph of § 545.4 is designated as paragraph
(a)and the second paragraph of § 545.4 is designated as paragraph
(b)and revised to read as follows: § 545.4 Response to inquiries.
(a)* * *
(b)At any time prior to August 31, 2007, each manufacturer must, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make, model, and vehicle identification number) that are excluded from the requirements of 49 CFR part 541 pursuant to 49 CFR 541.3(b)(2). 4. Section 545.6 is amended by revising the heading, paragraph
(a)introductory text, and paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: § 545.6 Reporting requirements for vehicles listed in § 541.3(a)(1).
(a)*General reporting requirements.* Within 60 days after the end of the production year ending August 31, 2007, each manufacturer shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its compliance with 49 CFR part 541 for vehicles listed in § 541.3(a)(1) that were manufactured between September 1, 2006 and August 31, 2007. Each report must—
(b)*Report content* —(1) *Basis for Statement of Compliance.* Each manufacturer shall provide the number of motor vehicles listed in § 541.3(a)(1) that were manufactured between September 1, 2006 and August 31, 2007 (excluding those motor vehicles that were subject to the requirements of 49 CFR part 541 before September 1, 2006). 5. Section 545.7 is amended by revising the heading to read as follows: § 545.7 Reporting requirements for vehicles listed in § 541.3(b)(2). Issued on: August 10, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-16125 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 070404078-0778-01] RIN 0648-XB00 Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; End of the Pacific Whiting Primary Season for the Catcher-processor, Mothership and Shore-based Sectors AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Fishing restrictions; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the end of the 2007 Pacific Whiting (whiting) primary Season for the catcher-processor, mothership and shore-based sectors at 1800 local time (l.t.) July 26, 2007. This action is intended to minimize impacts on widow rockfish and to keep the harvest of widow rockfish, an overfished species, within its 2007 optimum yield (OY). DATES: Effective from 1800 l.t. July 26, 2007, until the start of the 2008 primary seasons, unless modified, superseded or rescinded in which NMFS will publish a notification in the **Federal Register** . Comments will be accepted through September 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [ *RIN number 0648-XB00* ], by any of the following methods: 1. E-mail:. *Whitingclosureall.nwr@noaa.gov* Include [ *RIN number 0648-XB00* ] in the subject line of the message. 2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 3. Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Becky Renko. 4. Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Becky Renko. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Renko at 206-526-6110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is authorized by regulations implementing the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which governs the groundfish fishery off Washington, Oregon, and California. The 2007 non-tribal commercial optimum yield
(OY)for whiting is 208,091 mt. Regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(a)(4) divide the commercial whiting OY into separate allocations for the catcher-processor, mothership, and shore-based sectors. The catcher-processor sector is composed of vessels that harvest and process whiting. The mothership sector is composed of catcher vessels that harvest whiting and mothership vessels that process, but do not harvest whiting. The shore-based sector is composed of vessels that harvest whiting for delivery to land-based processors. Each commercial sector receives a portion of the commercial OY. For 2007, the catcher-processors received 34 percent (70,751 mt), motherships received 24 percent (49,942 mt), and the shore-based sector received 42 percent (87,398 mt). Overfished Species The limited availability of overfished species that can be taken as incidental catch in the whiting fisheries, particularly canary, darkblotched and widow rockfish led to NMFS implementing bycatch limits for those species. With bycatch limits, the industry has the opportunity to harvest a larger whiting OY, providing the incidental catch of overfished species does not exceed the adopted bycatch limits. If a bycatch limit is reached, all non-tribal sectors of the whiting fishery are closed for the remainder of the year. For 2007, the following bycatch limits were specified for the non-tribal whiting sectors: 4.7 mt for canary rockfish, 25 mt for darkblotched rockfish and 220 mt for widow rockfish. The best available information on July 25, 2007, indicated that 220.7 mt of widow rockfish had been taken in the whiting fisheries in 2007. Accordingly, the primary seasons for the catcher-processor sector, mothership sector and the shore-based sectors were ended at 1800 l.t. July 26, 2007 through actual notice to the fishers. Actual notice was made by fax, VHS radio notice to mariners, internet postings on the Northwest Region's whiting web site and the Oregon Department of Wildlife's whiting web site, and by emails sent to a public groundfish listserve maintained by NMFS Northwest Region. NMFS Action This notice announces that the primary seasons for the catcher-processor, mothership and shore-based sectors of the whiting fishery, was ended at 1800 l.t. July 26. The best available information on July 25, 2007, indicated that 220.7 mt of widow rockfish has been taken by these sectors of the whiting fisheries. Because the bycatch limit had been reached and in accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 660.373(b)(4), NMFS announced that effective 1800 l.t. July 26, 2007:
(1)further taking and retaining, receiving or at-sea processing of whiting by a catcher-processor is prohibited;
(2)further taking and retaining, receiving or at-sea processing of whiting by a mothership processor is prohibited, and
(3)no more than 10,000-lb (4,536 kg) of whiting may be taken and retained, possessed or landed by any vessel participating in the shore-based sector of the whiting fishery, unless otherwise announced in the **Federal Register** . For vessels in the at-sea processing sectors, no additional unprocessed whiting may be brought on board after at-sea processing is prohibited, but a catcher-processor or mothership may continue to process whiting that was on board before at-sea processing was prohibited. For vessels in the shore-based sector fishing shoreward of the 100 fm (183 m) contour in the Eureka area (43O - 40O30' N. lat.) at any time during a fishing trip, the 10,000-lb (4,536 kg) trip limit applies, as announced in the management measures 660.373 (d). Classification This action is authorized by the regulations implementing the FMP. The determination to take this action is based on the most recent data available. Actual notice of the closure was provided to the fishers prior to the effective date. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for comment on this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (3)(b)(B), because providing prior notice and opportunity would be impracticable. It would be impracticable because if this closure were delayed in order to provide notice and comment, the catch of widow rockfish would be expected to result in the rebuilding-based OY being exceeded. The delay needed to provide a cooling off period also could be expected to result in the rebuilding-based OY for widow rockfish being exceeded. Therefore, good cause also exists to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(3). The aggregate data upon which the determination is based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES ) during business hours. This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.373
(b)and is exempt from review under E.O. 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: August 10, 2007. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-16234 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 159 Friday, August 17, 2007 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 850 RIN 3206-AL34 Retirement Systems Modernization AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)is issuing proposed rules to authorize alternative provisions for processing retirement and health and life insurance applications, notices, elections, and records under the agency's Retirement Systems Modernization
(RSM)project. The RSM project is OPM's strategic e-Gov initiative to improve the quality and timeliness of services to employees and annuitants covered by the Civil Service Retirement System
(CSRS)and the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), as well as the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI), the Federal Employees Health Benefits
(FEHB)and Retired Federal Employees Health Benefits (RFEHB) Programs, by modernizing business processes and the technology that supports them. Certain regulatory provisions governing the processing of benefits under CSRS, FERS, FEGLI, FEHB and RFEHB are incompatible with the effort to modernize retirement and insurance applications and claims processing. Therefore, exceptions from these provisions need to be authorized. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Giuseppe,
(202)606-0299. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or RIN number by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: combox@opm.gov.* Include the docket number and/or RIN number in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:*
(202)606-0990. • *Mail:* John Panagakos, Manager, Retirement Group, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 4351, Washington, DC 20415. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview of Retirement Systems Modernization Retirement Systems Modernization
(RSM)is a strategic initiative of the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)to improve the quality and timeliness of services to individuals covered by the Civil Service Retirement System
(CSRS)and the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), as well as those covered by the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI), the Federal Employees Health Benefits
(FEHB)and Retired Federal Employees Health Benefits (RFEHB) Programs, by modernizing business processes and the technology that supports them. The RSM program will transform the retirement process, and health and life insurance elections, by devising more efficient and effective business systems to respond to increased customer demand for higher levels of customer service and online self-service tools. New Web-based tools will be available on demand for Federal employees to plan early for their retirement and for annuitants to make health and life insurance elections. System operators will have secure access to Federal employees' and annuitants' information in the system, allowing for enhanced retirement and post-retirement counseling. The automation of claims processing will be done more efficiently and consistently and will provide Federal employees and annuitants with access to their retirement and insurance information that was not previously available to them. However, some current regulatory provisions, especially the procedures they prescribe, are based on outdated technology. Those provisions are suitable for a paper-based system that will eventually cease to exist, but which will continue to operate concurrently for some time with respect to at least some aspects of retirement and insurance processing for some individuals. The nature of this initiative requires regulations to accommodate two somewhat unusual program needs. First, the regulations must allow for the differing requirements of two retirement processing programs operating simultaneously. Second, because the technology and procedures of the initiative are still in development and will continue to evolve even as the initiative becomes operational, the regulations cannot be specific on many subjects, but must be sufficiently flexible to enable the initiative to operate. Accordingly, the premise underlying the regulations OPM is proposing to promulgate in a new part 850 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, to support the RSM initiative, is that current regulations governing CSRS, FERS, FEGLI, FEHB and RFEHB will not be changed at this time, but the provisions authorized by the new part 850 will supersede the existing CSRS, FERS, FEGLI, FEHB and RFEHB provisions for those portions of cases processed under the initiative. Where there is a difference, the provisions authorized by the new part 850 will apply to those portions of cases processed under the initiative. Phased Implementation of RSM Implementation of RSM will begin in February 2008. Retirement and insurance records of current employees and annuitants will be migrated into the new system in a series of waves. More information about the phased implementation of the RSM system will be posted at *http://www.opm.gov/rsm/index.asp* as it becomes available. What RSM Means for Employees and Annuitants As discussed earlier, employees and annuitants will have greater access to their retirement and insurance information under RSM, as well as access to web-based tools that will provide improved customer service and allow for enhanced retirement and insurance benefits counseling. Unless explicitly provided for in these regulations, there is no intention to make substantive changes in provisions governing eligibility for retirement or formulas for computing annuities. However, the initiative's greater ability to capture and use more detailed information will permit more precise and accurate calculation of some aspects of annuities and insurance than the less precise calculations possible under existing procedures, as in the case of data elements that will now be available on a pay-period or daily basis rather than an annual basis. Accordingly, RSM will provide the most accurate computation possible. Subpart A—General Provisions Subpart A of the proposed part 850 includes general provisions governing the RSM initiative, including the purpose and scope of the initiative, definitions of terms used in the new part 850, a description of the applicability of its provisions, and authority for the Director of OPM to issue implementing directives prescribing more specific procedures for RSM processes. As noted earlier, the detailed procedures by which the system will operate will continue to evolve both as the February 2008 implementation date approaches and after that date. These procedures will be at a level of detail that makes them inappropriate for inclusion in the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, § 850.104 of the proposed regulations provides the OPM Director with authority to prescribe detailed procedures to implement the mechanical processes of RSM. The Director's authority under this section is intended to affect only regulations governing process-oriented requirements, such as requirements that applications, forms, or notices be in writing. Part 850 and the Director's implementing directives are not intended to alter any substantive rights of employees or annuitants. In addition, part 850 and the Director's implementing directives are not intended to supersede or alter any functions performed by a private insurance company or carrier with which OPM has entered into a contract, or with which OPM may enter into a contract in the future, under chapter 87 or 89 of title 5, United States Code, or any other statutory or regulatory provision. Electronic Signatures The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), Pub. L. 105-277, Title XVII, requires Federal agencies to allow individuals or entities that deal with agencies the option to submit information or transact with the agency electronically, when practicable, and to maintain records electronically, when practicable. The Act specifically states that electronic records and their related electronic signatures are not to be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability merely because they are in electronic form, and encourages Federal government use of a range of electronic signature alternatives. The Act also gives OMB the authority to issue procedures for the use and acceptance of electronic signatures by Federal agencies. OMB published final procedures and guidance for implementing the GPEA in OMB Memorandum M-00-10, 65 FR 25508 (May 2, 2000). OMB Memorandum M-00-10 states that an agency should perform an assessment of the sensitivity of a particular transaction and available electronic signature technologies before it implements electronic signature capabilities for the transaction. This assessment must include a risk analysis and a cost-benefit analysis concerning the use of a particular electronic signature technology for a transaction. Subpart A includes provisions allowing electronic communications and electronic signatures to be accepted in lieu of currently-required paper documents and written signatures. Section 850.106 incorporates provisions of the GPEA concerning the acceptability of electronic signatures and descriptions of current electronic signature technology set out in OMB Memorandum M-00-10. However, the electronic retirement and insurance processing system developed by RSM will not have the capability to process all of the electronic signature technologies described in the regulations when the system begins to operate. Section 850.106(c) provides that the Director of OPM must issue directives under § 850.104 that identify the acceptable methods of effecting electronic signatures, from among the electronic signature technologies that the electronic retirement and insurance processing system will be capable of processing, for particular electronic communications. For example, to permit an employee to apply for retirement through the submission of an electronic retirement application on an Internet Web site accessed with a personal identification number or password, the Director would have to issue an implementing directive allowing an electronic retirement application to be submitted by this method. Through the issuance of implementing directives prescribed under § 850.104, the Director could authorize the electronic retirement and insurance processing system to accept various forms of electronic signatures including, signatures created by personal identification numbers
(PINs)or passwords, smart cards, digitized signatures, biometrics ( *e.g.* , fingerprints, retinal patterns, voice recognition), or cryptographic methods such as shared symmetric key cryptography, or public/private key (asymmetric) cryptography, also known as digital signatures. These are simply examples of electronic signatures that the Director of OPM would have the discretion to accept, but would not be required to accept, in prescribing implementing directives. Proposed § 850.103 provides definitions for these and other terms. For example, “digitized signature” is defined as a graphic image of a handwritten signature containing unique biometric data associated with the creation of each stroke of the signature. A digitized signature can be verified by comparing it with the characteristics and biometric data of a known or exemplar signature image. “Personal identification number”
(PIN)or “password” is defined as a non-cryptographic method of authenticating the identity of a user of an electronic application. To authenticate a user's identity with this method, a user accessing an electronic application is asked to enter his or her name, or other user identifier, and a password or PIN. The password or PIN is known both to the user and to the electronic system, but to no one else. The system checks the individual's password or PIN against data in a database to ensure correctness and thereby authenticates the user. “Public/private key (asymmetric) cryptography” is a method of creating a unique mark, known as the digital signature, on an electronic document or file. It uses two computer-generated, mathematically-linked keys: a private signing key known only to the user and the electronic system and a public key used to validate the fact that the digital signature was generated with the associated private key. “Shared symmetric key cryptography” is a method of authentication in which a single (private) key, known only to the user and the recipient of the electronic document, is used to sign and verify an electronic document. “Smart card” is defined as a plastic card, resembling a credit card, containing an embedded integrated circuit or “chip” that can generate, store, or process data. A smart card can be used to facilitate various authentication technologies that can also be embedded on the same card. Information from the card's chip is provided to a computer, which can accept the card only when the user also enters a PIN, password, or biometric identifier recognized by the card. The implementing directives prescribed by the Director under § 850.104 also could specify how a signature may be notarized electronically, where there is a requirement for a notarized signature. Section 850.106(a)(4), consistent with section 101(g) of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-229), provides that the Director could accept an electronic signature as properly notarized if the signature is attached to or logically associated with all other information and records required to be included by the applicable statute or regulation. Subpart B—Applications for Benefits; Elections Subpart B of the proposed regulations deals with applications and notices for CSRS, FERS, FEGLI, FEHB and RFEHB benefits under the RSM initiative and elections associated with the processing of those benefits. It allows applications, forms, notices, elections, and other related submissions, which otherwise would be required to be made in writing, to be submitted in whatever form the Director of OPM prescribes, including electronically. It also allows all such submissions to be made to OPM through the RSM electronic processing system, regardless of any other requirement for certain individuals to submit certain documents to their employing agencies or OPM. Subpart B also stipulates that, for cases processed under the RSM system, data provided to the RSM electronic processing system under subpart C will be the basis on which claims for CSRS, and FERS retirement benefits will be adjudicated, and will support the administration of FEGLI, FEHB and RFEHB coverage for annuitants. Subpart B provides a deadline of 35 days after the date of the notice to the retiring employee of the amount of his or her annuity within which he or she can change a survivor election. This deadline replaces provisions in current regulations that link the timeframe for changing survivor elections to the date of the “first regular monthly payment” or “final adjudication.” Subpart B also provides that any deadline for making any other election that is described in reference to the first regular monthly payment or the date of final adjudication is deemed to be 35 days after the date of the notice to the retiring employee of the amount of annuity to which he or she is entitled. This provision is necessary because the terms “first regular monthly payment” and “final adjudication” can no longer be applied in the way they used to be applied in a paper-based environment; therefore, they will lose their meaning in the RSM context. Subpart C—Records Subpart C describes electronic records that are acceptable for processing by the RSM system. These include electronic data submitted through the Enterprise Human Resources Integration
(EHRI)system and data from electronic Official Personnel Folders (e-OPFs), as well as paper documents that have been converted to digital form by image scanning or other means. Paper documents that have not been converted to electronic or digital form will continue to be acceptable records for processing under RSM. Federal agencies and other entities employing individuals covered by CSRS or FERS continue to be responsible for the initiation and proper maintenance of employment, retirement, and insurance records, as well as for correcting errors in data provided to OPM. Subpart D—Submission of Law Enforcement, Firefighter, and Nuclear Materials Courier Retirement Coverage Notices Subpart D concerns the submission of notices of coverage under the CSRS and FERS special retirement provisions for law enforcement officers, firefighters, and nuclear materials couriers. Such notices of coverage must be submitted electronically through EHRI to the RSM processing system. The notice must include the position description number for the position for which special retirement coverage has been approved. E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation will affect only Federal employees, former Federal employees, Members of Congress, annuitants, survivors, and applicants under the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees' Retirement System whose retirement and insurance records are maintained by the new retirement processing system created by OPM's Retirement Systems Modernization
(RSM)initiative. List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 850 Administrative practice and procedure, Air traffic controllers, Alimony, Claims, Disability benefits, Firefighters, Government employees, Income taxes, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Retirement. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. Accordingly, the Office of Personnel Management is proposing to amend title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, by establishing a new part 850 as follows: PART 850—RETIREMENT SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION Subpart A—General Provisions Sec. 850.101 Purpose and scope. 850.102 Applicability. 850.103 Definitions. 850.104 Implementing directives. 850.105 Agency responsibility. 850.106 Electronic signatures. Subpart B—Applications for Benefits; Elections 850.201 Applications for benefits. 850.202 Survivor elections. 850.203 Other elections. Subpart C—Records 850.301 Electronic records; other acceptable records. 850.302 Record maintenance. 850.303 Return of personal documents. Subpart D—Submission of Law Enforcement, Firefighter, and Nuclear Materials Courier Retirement Coverage Notices 850.401 Electronic notice of coverage determination. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8347; 5 U.S.C. 8461; 5 U.S.C. 8716; 5 U.S.C. 8913; section 9 of Pub. L. 86-724, 74 Stat. 849, 851-52 (September 8, 1960) as amended by section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, 3783 (February 23, 1978). Subpart A—General Provisions § 850.101 Purpose and scope.
(a)The purpose of this part is to enable changes needed for implementation of the new retirement and insurance processing system created by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)'s Retirement Systems Modernization
(RSM)initiative. RSM is OPM's strategic initiative to improve the quality and timeliness of services to employees and annuitants covered by the Civil Service Retirement System
(CSRS)and the Federal Employees' Retirement System
(FERS)by using contemporary, automated business processes and supporting technology. The RSM program is designed to transform the retirement process, as well as the processing of annuitant insurance elections of FEGLI, FEHB and RFEHB coverage, by employing more efficient and effective business systems to respond to increased customer demand for higher levels of customer service and online self-service tools.
(b)The provisions of this part authorize exceptions from regulatory provisions that would otherwise apply to CSRS and FERS annuities and FEGLI, FEHB and RFEHB benefits processed by or at the direction of OPM under the RSM initiative. Those regulatory provisions that would otherwise apply were established for a paper-based retirement and insurance benefits processing system that will eventually be phased out but which will continue to operate concurrently with RSM for some time, until RSM is fully implemented. During the phased transition to RSM processing, certain regulations that were not designed with RSM in mind, and which are incompatible with RSM business processes, must be set aside with respect to aspects of retirement and insurance processing accomplished under RSM. The regulations set forth in this part make the transition to RSM processes possible.
(c)The provisions of this part do not affect retirement and insurance eligibility and annuity computation provisions. The provisions for capturing retirement and insurance data in an electronic format, however, may support, in some instances, more precise calculations of annuity and insurance benefits than were possible using paper records. § 850.102 Applicability.
(a)The provisions of parts 831, 835, 837 through 839, 841 through 847, 870, 890, and 891 of this chapter remain in effect, as applicable, except to the extent that they are inconsistent with one or more provisions of this part or implementing directives prescribed by the Director under § 850.104 of this part.
(b)The provisions of this part do not supersede or alter any functions performed by a private insurance company or carrier with which OPM has entered into a contract, or with which OPM may enter into a contract in the future, under chapter 87 or 89 of title 5, United States Code, or under any other provision of law or regulation. § 850.103 Definitions. In this part— *Biometrics* refers to the technology that converts a unique characteristic of an individual into a digital form, which is then interpreted by a computer and compared with a digital exemplar copy of the characteristic stored in the computer. Among the unique characteristics of an individual that can be converted into a digital form are voice patterns, fingerprints, and the blood vessel patterns present on the retina of one or both eyes. *Cryptographic control method* means an approach to authenticating identity or the authenticity of an electronic document through the use of a cipher ( *i.e.* , a pair of algorithms) which performs encryption and decryption. *CSRS* means the Civil Service Retirement System established under subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code. *Digital signature* is an electronic signature generated by means of an algorithm that ensures that the identity of the signatory and the integrity of the data can be verified. A value, referred to as the “private key,” is generated to produce the signature, and another value, known as the “public key,” which is linked to, but not the same as, the private key, is used to verify the signature. *Digitized signature* means a graphical image of a handwritten signature, usually created using a special computer input device, such as a digital pen and pad, which contains unique biometric data associated with the creation of each stroke of the signature, such as duration of stroke or pen pressure. A digitized signature can be verified by a comparison with the characteristics and biometric data of a known or exemplar signature image. *Director* means the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. *Electronic communication* refers to any information conveyed through electronic means and includes electronic forms, applications, elections, and requests submitted by e-mail or any other electronic message. *Electronic Official Personnel Record Folder (e-OPF)* means the electronic Official Personnel Folder application that will replace the current paper personnel folder across the Government. *Electronic retirement and insurance processing system* means the new retirement and insurance processing system created by OPM's Retirement Systems Modernization
(RSM)initiative. *Employee* means an individual, other than a Member of Congress, who is covered by CSRS or FERS. *Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI)* means the comprehensive electronic personnel record-keeping and analysis system that supports human resources management across the Federal Government. *FEGLI* means the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program established under chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code. *FEHB* means the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program established under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code. *FERS* means the Federal Employees' Retirement System established under chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code. *Member* means a Member of Congress defined by section 2106 of title 5, United States Code, who is covered by CSRS or FERS. *Non-cryptographic method* is an approach to authenticating identity that relies solely on an identification and authentication mechanism that must be linked to a specific software platform for each application. *Personal identification number (PIN)* or *password* means a non-cryptographic method of authenticating the identity of a user of an electronic application, involving the use of an identifier known only to the user and to the electronic system, which checks the identifier against data in a database to authenticate the user's identity. *Public/private key (asymmetric) cryptography* is a method of creating a unique mark, known as a digital signature, on an electronic document or file. This method involves the use of two computer-generated, mathematically-linked keys: a private signing key that is kept private and a public validation key that is available to the public. *RFEHB* means the Retired Federal Employees Health Benefits Program established under Pub. L. 86-724, 74 Stat. 849, 851-52 (September 8, 1960) as amended. *Shared service centers* are processing centers delivering a broad array of administrative services to multiple agencies. *Shared symmetric key cryptography* means a method of authentication in which a single key is used to sign and verify an electronic document. The single key (also known as a “private key”) is known only by the user and the recipient or recipients of the electronic document. *Smart card* means a plastic card, typically the size of a credit card, containing an embedded integrated circuit or “chip” that can generate, store, or process data. A smart card can be used to facilitate various authentication technologies that may be embedded on the same card. § 850.104 Implementing directives. The Director must prescribe, in the form he or she deems appropriate, such detailed procedures as the Director determines to be necessary to carry out the purpose of this part. § 850.105 Agency responsibility. Agencies employing individuals whose retirement records or processing are affected by this part are responsible for counseling those individuals regarding their rights and benefits under CSRS, FERS, FEGLI, FEHB, or RFEHB. § 850.106 Electronic signatures.
(a)Subject to any provisions prescribed by the Director under § 850.104—
(1)An electronic communication may be deemed to satisfy any statutory or regulatory requirement under CSRS, FERS, FEGLI, FEHB or RFEHB for a written election, notice, application, consent, request, or specific form format;
(2)An electronic signature of an electronic communication may be deemed to satisfy any statutory or regulatory requirement under CSRS, FERS, FEGLI, FEHB or RFEHB that an individual submit a signed writing to OPM;
(3)An electronic signature of a witness to an electronic signature may be deemed to satisfy any statutory or regulatory requirement under CSRS, FERS, FEGLI, FEHB or RFEHB for a signature to be witnessed; and
(4)Any statutory or regulatory requirement under CSRS, FERS, FEGLI, FEHB or RFEHB that a signature be notarized may be satisfied if the electronic signature of the person authorized to sign is attached to or logically associated with all other information and records required to be included by the applicable statute or regulation.
(b)For purposes of this section, an electronic signature is a method of signing an electronic communication, including an application, claim, or notice, designation of beneficiary, or assignment that—
(1)Identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic communication; and
(2)Indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic communication.
(c)The Director will issue directives under § 850.104 of this part that identify the acceptable methods of effecting electronic signatures for particular purposes under this part. Acceptable methods of creating an electronic signature may include—
(1)Non-cryptographic methods, including—
(i)Personal Identification Number
(PIN)or password;
(ii)Smart card;
(iii)Digitized signature; or
(iv)Biometrics, such as fingerprints, retinal patterns, and voice recognition;
(2)Cryptographic control methods, including—
(i)Shared symmetric key cryptography;
(ii)Public/private key (asymmetric) cryptography, also known as digital signatures;
(3)Any combination of methods described in paragraphs
(1)and (2); or
(4)Such other means as the Director may find appropriate. Subpart B—Applications for Benefits; Elections § 850.201 Applications for benefits. (a)(1) Applications and related submissions that otherwise would be required by this chapter to be made in writing may instead be submitted in such form as the Director prescribes under § 850.104 of this part.
(2)Subject to any directives prescribed by the Director under § 850.104 of this part, applications and related submissions that are otherwise required to be made to an individual's employing agency (other than by statute) may instead be submitted to the electronic retirement and insurance processing system or to OPM.
(b)Data provided under subpart C are the basis for adjudicating claims for CSRS and FERS retirement benefits, and will support the administration of FEGLI, FEHB and RFEHB coverage for annuitants, under this part.
(c)For the purposes of this subpart, “OPM notice” means the notice informing the retiree or other individual of the annuity computation rate and of the elections made by the retiree or other such individual eligible to make such an election and informing him or her of the time limit under § 850.202 or § 850.203 for any election, revocation or change of election. § 850.202 Survivor elections.
(a)A survivor election under subsection
(j)or
(k)of section 8339, or under section 8416, 8417, or 8420 of title 5, United States Code, which is otherwise required to be in writing may be effected in such form as the Director prescribes under § 850.104. (b)(1) Except as provided in §§ 831.622(b)(1), 831.631, 831.632, 842.610(b)(1), 842.611, and 842.612, an individual making a survivor election at the time of retirement may not revoke or change that election later than 35 days after the date of the OPM notice to the individual of the amount of annuity to which he or she is entitled.
(2)A retiree may change a survivor election under § 831.622(b)(1) or § 841.610(b)(1) no later than 18 months after the commencing date of the annuity to which he or she is entitled. § 850.203 Other elections.
(a)Any other election may be effected in such form as the Director prescribes under § 850.104. Such elections include but are not limited to—
(1)Elections of coverage under CSRS, FERS, FEGLI, FEHB or RFEHB by individuals entitled to elect such coverage;
(2)Applications for service credit and applications to make deposit; and
(3)Elections regarding the withholding of State income tax from annuity payments.
(b)Any election, which, if it were not processed under this part, would have a deadline described in reference to the first regular monthly payment or the date of final adjudication, may not be made later than 35 days after the date of the OPM notice to the individual concerned of the amount of annuity to which he or she is entitled. Subpart C—Records § 850.301 Electronic records; other acceptable records.
(a)Acceptable electronic records for processing by the electronic retirement and insurance processing system include—
(1)Electronic employee data submitted by an agency or other entity through EHRI and stored within the new retirement and insurance processing system;
(2)Electronic Official Personnel Folder (e-OPF) data; and
(3)Documents, including hardcopy versions of the Individual Retirement Record (SF 2806 or SF 3100), or data obtained from such documents, that are converted to an electronic or digital form by means of image scanning or other forms of electronic or digital conversion.
(b)Documents that are not converted to an electronic or digital form will continue to be acceptable records for processing by the retirement and insurance processing system.
(c)OPM is not required to retain documents after they have been converted to electronic records. § 850.302 Record maintenance.
(a)The retirement and insurance processing system does not affect the responsibilities of every Federal department, agency, corporation or branch, and the District of Columbia government (included collectively in this part in the term department or agency) having employees or Members of Congress subject to subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, for the initiation and maintenance of records, evidence, or other information described in this title.
(b)Agencies are responsible for correcting errors in data provided to OPM under § 850.301. § 850.303 Return of personal documents. An individual who submits personal documents to OPM in support of a claim for retirement or insurance benefits may have such documents returned to the individual if he or she requests the return of the documents when submitting the documents. If OPM receives a request for return of such documents at a later time, OPM may provide the individual with a copy of the document that is derived from electronic records. Subpart D—Submission of Law Enforcement, Firefighter, and Nuclear Materials Courier Retirement Coverage Notices § 850.401 Electronic notice of coverage determination.
(a)An agency or other entity that submits electronic employee records directly or through a shared service center to the electronic retirement and insurance processing system must electronically submit the notice of law enforcement officer, firefighter, or nuclear materials retirement coverage required by § 831.811(a), 831.911(a), 842.808(a), or 842.910(a) of this title through EHRI to the electronic retirement and insurance processing system.
(b)The electronic notice required by paragraph
(a)must include the position description number of the position for which law enforcement officer, firefighter, or nuclear materials courier retirement coverage has been approved.
(c)An agency or other entity submitting an electronic notice required by paragraph
(a)must electronically submit the coverage determination and background file required to be maintained by § 831.811(b), 831.911(b), 842.808(b), or 842.910(b) to the electronic retirement and insurance processing system for each position included in the notice. [FR Doc. E7-16256 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 984 [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0089; FV07-984-1 PR] Walnuts Grown in California; Increased Assessment Rate AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Walnut Marketing Board (Board) for the 2007-08 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0101 to $0.0122 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The Board locally administers the marketing order which regulates the handling of walnuts grown in California. Assessments upon walnut handlers are used by the Board to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The marketing year begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated. DATES: Comments must be received by September 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax:
(202)720-8938; or Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shereen Marino, Marketing Specialist, California Marketing Field Office, or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone:
(559)487-5901, Fax:
(559)487-5906, or E-mail: *Shereen.Marino@usda.gov,* or *Kurt.Kimmel@usda.gov.* Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:
(202)720-2491, Fax:
(202)720-8938, or E-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 984, both as amended (7 CFR part 984), regulating the handling of walnuts grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California walnut handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable walnuts beginning on August 1, 2007, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. This rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Board for the 2007-08 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0101 to $0.0122 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The California walnut marketing order provides authority for the Board, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Board are producers and handlers of California walnuts. They are familiar with the Board's needs and the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed at a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input. For the 2006-07 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Board recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $0.0101 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts that would continue in effect from year to year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other information available to USDA. The Board met on May 31, 2007, and unanimously recommended 2007-08 expenditures of $3,777,120 and an assessment rate of $0.0122 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $3,222,860. The assessment rate of $0.0122 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts is $0.0021 per pound higher than the rate currently in effect. The increased assessment rate is necessary to cover increased expenses including increased salaries, operating expenses and research for the 2007-08 marketing year. The higher assessment rate should generate sufficient income to cover anticipated 2007-08 expenses. The following table compares major budget expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2006-07 and 2007-08 marketing years: Budget expense categories 2006-07 2007-08 Administrative Staff/Field Salaries & Benefits $415,000 $438,600 Travel/Board Expenses 75,000 86,000 Office Costs/Annual Audit 142,500 139,500 Program Expenses Including Research Controlled Purchases 5,000 5,000 Crop Acreage Survey 85,000 Crop Estimate 100,000 100,000 Production Research 725,000 730,000 Domestic Market Development 1,750,000 2,002,000 Reserve for Contingency 10,360 191,020 The assessment rate recommended by the Board was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of California walnuts certified as merchantable. Merchantable shipments for the year are estimated at 309,600,000 kernelweight pounds which should provide $3,777,120 in assessment income and allow the Board to cover its expenses. Unexpended funds may be used temporarily to defray expenses of the subsequent marketing year, but must be made available to the handlers from whom collected within 5 months after the end of the year, according to § 984.69. The estimate for merchantable shipments is based on historical data, which is the prior year's production of 344,000 tons (inshell). Pursuant to § 984.51(b) of the order, this figure was converted to a merchantable kernelweight basis using a factor of .45 (344,000 tons × 2,000 pounds/ton × .45). The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other available information. Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Board would continue to meet prior to or during each marketing year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Board meetings are available from the Board or USDA. Board meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Board recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Board's 2007-08 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. There are approximately 53 handlers of California walnuts subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 4,800 growers in the production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration
(SBA)(13 CFR 121.201) as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000. Current industry information shows that 18 of the 53 handlers (34 percent) shipped over $6,500,000 of merchantable walnuts and could be considered large handlers by the SBA. Thirty-five of the 53 walnut handlers (66 percent) shipped under $6,500,000 of merchantable walnuts and could be considered small handlers. The number of large walnut growers (annual walnut revenue greater than $750,000) can be estimated as follows. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the two-year average yield per acre for 2005 and 2006 is approximately 1.63 tons. A grower with 290 acres with an average yield of 1.63 tons per acre would produce approximately 473 tons. The season average of grower prices for 2005 and 2006 (published by NASS) is $1,585 per ton. At that average price, the 473 tons produced on 290 acres would yield approximately $750,000 in annual revenue. The 2002 Agricultural Census indicated two percent of walnut farms were between 250 and 500 acres in size. The 290 acres would produce, on average, about $750,000 in annual revenue from walnuts and is near the lower end of the 250 to 500 acreage range category of the 2002 census. Thus, it can be concluded that the number of large walnut farms in 2006 is likely to be around two percent. Based on the foregoing, it can be concluded that the majority of California walnut handlers and producers may be classified as small entities. This rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Board and collected from handlers for the 2007-08 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0101 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts to $0.0122 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The Board unanimously recommended 2007-08 expenditures of $3,777,120 and an assessment rate of $0.0122 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The proposed assessment rate of $0.0122 is $0.0021 higher than the rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable walnuts for the 2007-08 marketing year is estimated at 344,000 tons. Thus, the $0.0122 rate should provide $3,777,120 in assessment income and be adequate to meet this year's expenses. The increased assessment rate is primarily due to increased budget expenditures. The following table compares major budget expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2006-07 and 2007-08 fiscal years: Budget expense categories 2006-07 2007-08 Administrative Staff/Field Salaries & Benefits $415,000 $438,600 Travel/Board Expenses 75,000 86,000 Office Costs/Annual Audit 142,500 139,500 Program Expenses Including Research Controlled Purchases 5,000 5,000 Crop Acreage Survey 85,000 Crop Estimate 100,000 100,000 Production Research 725,000 730,000 Domestic Market Development 1,750,000 2,002,000 Reserve for Contingency 10,360 191,020 The Board reviewed and unanimously recommended 2007-08 expenditures of $3,777,120. Prior to arriving at this budget, the Board considered alternative expenditure levels, but ultimately decided that the recommended levels were reasonable to properly administer the order. The assessment rate recommended by the Board was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of California walnuts certified as merchantable. Merchantable shipments for the year are estimated at 309,600,000 kernelweight pounds which should provide $3,777,120 in assessment income and allow the Board to cover its expenses. Unexpended funds may be used temporarily to defray expenses of the subsequent marketing year, but must be made available to the handlers from whom collected within 5 months after the end of the year, according to § 984.69. According to NASS, the season average grower prices for years 2005 and 2006 were $1,570 and $1,600 per ton respectively. These prices provide a reasonable price range within which the 2007-08 season average price is likely to fall. Dividing these average grower prices by 2,000 pounds per ton provides an inshell price per pound range of between $0.785 and $0.80. Dividing these inshell prices per pound by the 0.45 conversion factor (inshell to kernelweight) established in the order yields a 2007-08 price range estimate of $1.74 and $1.78 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. To calculate the percentage of grower revenue represented by the assessment rate, the assessment rate of $0.0122 (per kernelweight pound) is divided into the low and high estimates of the price range. The estimated assessment revenue for the 2007-08 marketing year as a percentage of total grower revenue would likely range between 0.701 and 0.685 percent. This action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California walnut industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the May 31, 2007, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses. This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California walnut handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. A 15-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Fifteen days is deemed appropriate because:
(1)The 2007-08 marketing year will begin on August 1, 2007, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each year apply to all assessable walnuts handled during the year;
(2)the Board needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis and;
(3)handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Board at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 984 Walnuts, Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 984 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 984—WALNUTS GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 984 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 2. Section 984.347 is revised to read as follows: § 984.347 Assessment rate. On and after August 1, 2007, an assessment rate of $0.0122 per kernelweight pound is established for California merchantable walnuts. Dated: August 13, 2007. Kenneth C. Clayton, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-16199 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP Guam 07-005] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change a permanent security zone in waters adjacent to the island of Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Review of this established zone indicates that its scope is overly-broad and that it imposes an unnecessary and unsustainable enforcement burden on the Coast Guard. This proposed change is intended to narrow the zone's scope so it more accurately reflects current enforcement needs. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam, PSC 455 Box 176, FPO, AP 968540-1056. Sector Guam maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are available for inspection and copying at Coast Guard Sector Guam between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander John Winter, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam at
(671)355-4861. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (COTP Guam 07-005), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know that your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Sector Guam at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we would hold one at a time and place announced by separate notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The security zones at Tinian codified in 33 CFR 165.1403 were first established on November 14, 1986 (51 FR 42220, November 24, 1986), as requested by the U.S. Navy in order to prevent injury or damage to persons and equipment incident to the mooring of the first Maritime Preposition Ships in the port. In addition to describing a larger security zone that is enforced when a Maritime Position Ship is moored at the site, the regulation, as currently written, establishes a permanent 50-yard security zone around Moorings A and B when no vessel is moored there. The zone is approximately 100 nautical miles from the nearest Coast Guard surveillance assets, a distance that hinders our ability to patrol it regularly. A recent review of the 50-yard zone indicates that patrolling it is unnecessary except when the Navy needs to ensure availability of the mooring space, which is signaled by the anchoring of mooring balls. The purpose of this proposal is to change the smaller zone from one that is activated all the time to one that is activated only when necessary. The proposed change would both reduce a burden to more accurately reflect current enforcement needs and eliminate our need to travel 100 miles to patrol the zone when enforcement is unnecessary. In addition, we propose changing the section heading of this regulation to reflect CNMI's proper name and the fact that the section describes two security zones. We also propose to make it easier to distinguish the two zones by describing them in separate paragraphs in 33 CFR 165.1403. Finally, we seek to clarify that while these regulations would be in effect at all times, the security zones would only be activated—and thus subject to enforcement—when necessary. Discussion of Proposed Rule In order to narrow the scope of the 50-yard security zone established in 33 CFR 165.1403, we propose to add the condition that mooring balls be anchored and on station as a condition for that smaller zone to be activated and thus subject to enforcement. The mooring balls would only be anchored and on station when it is necessary to enforce the zone. Also, we propose to separate the two zone descriptions currently in paragraph
(a)of § 165.1403. The existing description of the large zone would appear in paragraph (a)(1) with the only change being that the words “is in effect” would be replaced by “will be enforced.” The description of the smaller zone, reflecting the mooring-balls activation condition discussed above, would appear in paragraph (a)(2). Finally, we propose to revise the section's title by pluralizing the word “Zone,” inserting “of the” after “Commonwealth,” and singularizing “Marianas.” The revised section heading would read: *“Security Zones; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.”* Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the nature of the proposed change (diminishing an established security zone's enforcement period), which is likely to further minimize the economic impact of an established rule. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Due to the nature of the proposed change (diminishing an established security zone's enforcement period), we anticipate that it will further reduce any economic impact of the established rule. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander John Winter, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam,
(671)355-4861. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. Draft documentation supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. In § 165.1403, revise the section heading and paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 165.1403 Security Zones; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(a)*Location.* The following areas are security zones:
(1)The waters of the Pacific Ocean off Tinian between 14°59′04.9″ N, 145°34′58.6″ E to 14°59′20.1″ N, 145°35′41.5″ E to 14°59′09.8″ N, 145°36′02.1″ E to 14°57′49.3″ N, 145°36′28.7″ E to 14°57′29.1″ N, 145°35′31.1″ E and back to 14°59′04.9″ N, 145°34′58.6″ E. This zone will be enforced when one, or more, of the Maritime Preposition Ships is in the zone or moored at Mooring A located at 14°58′57.0″ N and 145°35′40.8″ E or Mooring B located at 14°58′15.9″ N, 145°35′54.8″ E.
(2)Additionally, a 50-yard security zone in all directions around Moorings A and B will be enforced when no vessels are moored thereto but mooring balls are anchored and on station. Note to paragraph (a): All positions of latitude and longitude are from International Spheroid, Astro Pier 1944 (Saipan) Datum (NOAA Chart 81071). Dated: August 6, 2007. William Marhoffer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam. [FR Doc. E7-16203 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0465; FRL-8453-4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Revised Denver and Longmont Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plans, and Approval of Related Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to take direct final action approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Colorado. On September 25, 2006, the Governor's designee submitted revised maintenance plans for the Denver metropolitan and Longmont carbon monoxide
(CO)maintenance areas for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These revised maintenance plans address maintenance of the CO standard for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation, extend the horizon years, and contain revised transportation conformity budgets. In addition, Regulation No. 11, “Vehicle Emission Inspection Program,” and Regulation No. 13, “Oxygenated Fuels Program,” are removed from Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans. EPA is proposing approval of the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans, and the revised transportation conformity budgets. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the removal of Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 from Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0465, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov* and *fiedler.kerri@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*
(303)312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). • *Mail:* Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. • *Hand Delivery:* Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerri Fiedler, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone
(303)312-6493, and e-mail at: *fiedler.kerri@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** . Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: July 30, 2007. Kerrigan G. Clough, Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII. [FR Doc. E7-16164 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-1028; FRL-8455-2] Approval and Promulgation of State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Louisiana; Clean Air Mercury Rule
(CAMR)AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State Plan submitted by Louisiana on October 25, 2006. The plan addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), promulgated on May 18, 2005 and subsequently revised on June 9, 2006. EPA is proposing that the submitted State Plan fully implements the CAMR requirements for Louisiana. CAMR requires States to regulate emissions of mercury
(Hg)from large coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). CAMR establishes State budgets for annual EGU Hg emissions and requires States to submit State Plans that ensure that annual EGU Hg emissions will not exceed the applicable State budget. States have the flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including participating in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. In the State Plan that EPA is approving, Louisiana would meet CAMR requirements by participating in the EPA administered cap-and-trade program addressing Hg emissions. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Matthew Loesel, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final rule in the final rules section of the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew Loesel, Air Permitting Section (6PD-R) U.S. EPA, Region 6, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, telephone
(214)665-8544; fax number 214-665-7263; or electronic mail at *loesel.matthew@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the Louisiana State Plan. The EPA is taking direct final action without prior proposal because EPA views this as a non-controversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn, and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comments on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Authority: This action is issued under the authority of section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412. Dated: August 8, 2007. Lawrence Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E7-16170 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [FRL-8455-7] New Mexico: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The State of New Mexico has applied to EPA for Final Authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant Final Authorization to the State of New Mexico. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time. DATES: Send your written comments by September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the materials submitted by the State of New Mexico during normal business hours at the following locations: New Mexico Environment Department, 2905 Rodeo Park Drive East, Building 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505-6303, phone number
(505)476-6035 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number
(214)665-8533, comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please follow the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the immediate final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson,
(214)665-8533. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: July 25, 2007. Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E7-16243 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AU79 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, availability of draft economic analysis, announcement of public hearing, and amended required determinations. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening the comment period on our October 31, 2006, proposed revision of critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow ( *Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis* under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed critical habitat revision and provide amended required determinations for the proposal. The draft economic analysis estimated potential future impacts associated with conservation efforts for the sparrow in areas proposed for designation to be $32.2 million over the next 20 years (undiscounted). The present value of these impacts is $26.9 million, using a discount rate of 3 percent, or $22.2 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent. The annualized value of these impacts is $1.8 million, using a discount rate of 3 percent, or $2.1 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent. Finally, we announce a public hearing during the reopening of the comment period. We are taking these actions to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the original proposal rule and the newly available associated draft economic analysis. Previously submitted comments need not be resubmitted; they are already part of the public record that we will consider in preparing our final rule determination. DATES: We will accept public comments until September 17, 2007. We will hold one public hearing on August 29, 2007, on the proposed critical habitat designation and the draft economic analysis. See “Public Hearing” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for details. ADDRESSES: Written comments: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and information concerning this proposal by any one of the following methods: 1. Mail or hand-deliver written comments and information to Tylan Dean, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559. 2. E-mail your comments to *Tylan_Dean@fws.gov.* Please see the “Public Comments Solicited” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information about this method. 3. Fax your comments to 772-562-4288. 4. Submit comments via the Federal Rulemaking portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions on the site. Please see the “Public Comments Solicited” section below for more information about submitting comments or viewing our received materials. *Public Hearing:* We will hold a public hearing on August 29, 2007 at the John D. Campbell Agricultural Center, 18710 S.W. 288th Street, Miami, FL. An information session will be held between 5 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. and the meeting will be held between 6:30 and 8:30 p.m. You may provide oral or written comments at the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tylan Dean, South Florida Ecological Services office (see ADDRESSES ); telephone 772-562-3909; facsimile 772-562-4288. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Hearing On August 29, 2007, we will hold a public hearing on the proposed critical habitat designation and the draft economic analysis. An information session will be held from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and will precede the hearing. The public hearing will run from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. See the ADDRESSES section for the location of the public hearing. Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate in the public hearing should contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT as soon as possible. To allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than one week before the hearing date. Information regarding the proposal is available in alternative formats upon request. Public Comments Solicited We intend that any final action resulting from the proposal be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning the proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1)The reasons why any habitat should or should not be designated as critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), including whether designation of critical habitat is prudent in that
(a)the degree of any threat to the species due to the designation of critical habitat is not increased by identification of critical habitat; and
(b)designation would benefit the species;
(2)Specific information on the amount and distribution of Cape Sable seaside sparrow habitat, including areas occupied by Cape Sable seaside sparrows, areas containing features essential to the conservation of the species, and areas that are essential to the conservation of the species;
(3)Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed revised critical habitat;
(4)Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts;
(5)Whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and local costs attributable to the proposed revised critical habitat designation, and information on any costs that we could have inadvertently overlooked;
(6)Whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat;
(7)Whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may derive from the revised designation of critical habitat;
(8)Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designation of revised critical habitat, and in particular, any impacts on small entities or families; and other information that would indicate that the revision of critical habitat would or would not have any impacts on small entities or families;
(9)Whether the draft economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs and benefits that could result from the designation;
(10)Whether the benefits of exclusion of any particular area from critical habitat would outweigh the benefits of inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act;
(11)Economic data on the incremental effects that would result from designating any particular area as revised critical habitat, since it is our intent to include the incremental costs attributed to the revised critical habitat designation in the final economic analysis; and
(12)Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES ). Please submit comments electronically to *Tylan_Dean@fws.gov* . Please also include “Attn: Cape Sable seaside sparrow critical habitat” in your e-mail subject header and your name and return address in the body of your message. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Copies of the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule for critical habitat designation are available on the Internet at *http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/* or from the South Florida Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES ). Our final designation of critical habitat will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we received during both comment periods, including those provided at the public hearing. If you submit previous comments and information during the initial comment period on the October 31, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 63980), you need to resubmit them, because they are currently part of our record and we will consider them in developing our final rule determination. On the basis of public comment on this analysis, the critical habitat proposal, and the final economic analysis, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determined that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area is critical habitat would result in the extinction of the species. We may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, national security, or any other relevant impact. Background We originally designated critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow on August 11, 1977 (42 FR 40685) and published a correction on September 22, 1977 (42 FR 47840). For a description of the sparrow, its habitat, and Federal Actions that occurred prior to our October 31, 2006, proposed rule to revise critical habitat (71 FR 63980), please refer to the original proposed rule published on July 14, 1976 (41 FR 28978); the August 11, 1977, final rule (42 FR 40685); and the September 22, 1977, correction (42 FR 47840). On October 31, 2006, we published a proposed rule to revise the critical habitat designated for the sparrow in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida (71 FR 63980). The proposed revision identifies seven units that encompass a total area of approximately 156,350 acres (52,291 hectares), which represents a reduction in the acreage of designated critical habitat by approximately 40,910 acres (13,682 hectares). In accordance with a settlement agreement, we will submit for publication in the **Federal Register** a final critical habitat designation for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow on or before October 24, 2007. Critical habitat is defined in section 2 of the Act as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Summary of Draft Economic Analysis Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We will continue to review any conservation or management plans that address the species within the areas we have proposed for revised designation, under to section 4(b)(2) and based on the definition of critical habitat provided in section 3(5)(A) of the Act. Based on the October 31, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 63980), we prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed revised critical habitat designation (see “Public Comments Solicited” for how to obtain a copy). The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of the sparrow, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, which would include costs attributable to designating critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for the sparrow in critical habitat areas. The draft analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. Economic efficiency effects generally reflect “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources required to accomplish species and habitat conservation and comply with habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether the effects of the revised designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. The anticipated economic effects associated with the proposed revision of critical habitat are estimated based on activities that are “reasonably foreseeable,” including, but not limited to, activities that are currently authorized, permitted, or funded, or for which proposed plans are currently available to the public. The analysis summarizes costs associated with past species conservation efforts for the sparrow and then forecasts projected future impacts for the 20-year period from 2007 (the year of the species' final critical habitat designation) to 2026. Forecasts of economic conditions and other factors beyond the next 20 years would be speculative. The draft economic analysis is intended to quantify the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. All dollar amounts include those costs coextensive with listing; some of these costs will likely be incurred under the existing critical habitat designation and other existing regulatory mechanisms regardless of whether critical habitat is revised. The analysis estimates potential future impacts associated with conservation efforts for the sparrow in areas proposed for designation to be $32.2 million over the next 20 years (undiscounted). However, because it is uncertain whether incremental conservation measures implemented for sparrow conservation will represent a constraint on overall water management activities due to future actions for the Everglades Restoration program, costs from this proposal associated with water management activities are calculated for only the next 5 years. The present value of these impacts is $26.9 million, using a discount rate of 3 percent, or $22.2 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent. The annualized value of these impacts is $1.8 million, using a discount rate of 3 percent, or $2.1 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent. The majority (58 percent) of the total potential impacts estimated in this report are associated with potential species management efforts (such as surveying, monitoring, research, and exotic vegetation control). The remaining impacts are associated with potential water management changes to conserve the sparrow (33 percent), fire management (7 percent) and administrative costs of consultation (2 percent). As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on this draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of our proposal. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting documents, to incorporate or address new information we receive during this comment period. Required Determinations—Amended In our October 31, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 63980), we indicated that we would be deferring our determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders was available in the draft economic analysis. Those data are now available for our use in making these determinations. We now affirm the information contained in original proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 (Federalism); E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use); the Paperwork Reduction Act; the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951); and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ). Based on the information made available to us in the draft economic analysis, we are amending our Required Determinations, as provided below, concerning E.O. 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 12630 (Takings), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Regulatory Planning and Review In accordance with E.O. 12866, this document is a significant rule, because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. However, we do not anticipate that it will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the **Federal Register** the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)did not formally review the proposed rule. Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal agencies promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (OMB, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4, if the agency determines that a Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency will need to consider alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Act, we must then evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation of critical habitat. In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from the designation of critical habitat, providing that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. We believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis. Regulatory Flexibility Act Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.,* as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, whenever an agency is required to publish a proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposal rule, we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our draft economic analysis of the proposed revised designation so that we would have the factual basis for our determination. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation, as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations. To determine if the proposed designation of revised critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (such as residential and commercial development). We considered each industry or category individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by the revised designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation. In our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the proposed revision of Cape Sable seaside sparrow critical habitat. The economic impacts of conservation efforts for the sparrow are expected to be borne primarily by State and Federal agencies, including the Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Park Service, South Florida Water Management District, and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. None of these agencies is defined as a small entity by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Consequently, the designation of revised critical habitat for the sparrow is not expected to impact small entities. Based on currently available information, the Service certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), we make the following findings:
(a)This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or Tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except
(i)a condition of Federal assistance; or
(ii)a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.” The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
(b)As discussed in the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of revised critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, we expect the impacts on nonprofits and small governments to be primarily those impacts related to changes in environmental and ecological conditions. It is likely that small governments involved with developments and infrastructure projects would be interested parties or involved with projects involving section 7 consultations for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow within their jurisdictional areas. Any costs associated with this activity are likely to represent a small portion of a local government's budget. Consequently, we do not believe that the designation of revised critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow would significantly or uniquely affect these small governmental entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Takings In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing revised critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow in a takings implications assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow does not pose significant takings implications. Author The primary author of this notice is the South Florida Ecological Services Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: August 10, 2007. David M. Verhey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 07-4030 Filed 8-14-07; 12:45 pm]
Connectionstraces to 46
Traces to 46 documents
CFR
- When the drawbridge must open.§ 117.5
- Security Zone; Mackinac Bridge, Straits of Mackinac, Michigan.§ 165.928
- National primary ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide.§ 50.8
- Identification of plan.§ 52.670
- Emission standards and compliance schedules.§ 60.24
- Actions by the Administrator.§ 60.27
- What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes?§ 121.201
- Security Zones; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.§ 165.1403
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
U.S. Code
- Legal status of reproductions; official seal; fees for copies and reproductions§ 2116
- Trust fund account; disbursements; sales of publications and releases§ 2307
- Definitions§ 601
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Purposes§ 3501
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Standards of performance for new stationary sources§ 7411
- Hazardous air pollutants§ 7412
- Authorized State hazardous waste programs§ 6926
- Authorities of Administrator§ 6912
- Civil proceedings§ 9613
- Public participation§ 9617
- Oil and hazardous substance liability§ 1321
- Rule making§ 553
- General powers§ 322
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
- Administration; regulations§ 8347
- Authority of the Office of Personnel Management§ 8461
- Regulations§ 8716
- Regulations§ 8913
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Transferred§ 1226
- Transferred§ 191
- Congressional findings and declaration of purposes and policy§ 1531
- Congressional declaration of purpose§ 4321
- Purposes§ 1501
- Definitions§ 658
register
47 references not yet in our index
- 33 CFR 117
- 33 CFR 165
- 36 CFR 1258
- 40 CFR 52
- 40 CFR 2
- 40 CFR 51
- 40 CFR 50
- 40 CFR 53
- 40 CFR 93.118
- 40 CFR 93.124
- 40 CFR 93.118(b)(1)(ii)
- 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 CFR 81
- 40 CFR 62
- 40 CFR 49
- 40 CFR 75
- 40 CFR 60
- 40 CFR 271
- 40 CFR 271.21
- 40 CFR 272
- 40 CFR 300
- 40 CFR 300.425(e)
- 42 USC 9601-9657
- 42 CFR 402
- 49 CFR 545
- 49 CFR 541
- 49 CFR 1.50
- 49 CFR 541.3(b)(2)
- 50 CFR 660
- 50 CFR 660.323(a)(4)
- 50 CFR 660.373(b)(4)
- 50 CFR 660.373
- 5 CFR 850
- Pub. L. 105-277
- Pub. L. 106-229
- Pub. L. 86-724
- 92 Stat. 3781
- 7 CFR 984
- 7 USC 601-674
+ 7 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation
Cite33 CFR 117
Cite33 CFR 165
Cite36 CFR 1258
Cites 93 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources