Unknown. Direct final rule; request for comments

26,294 words·~120 min read·/register/2007/09/14/07-4561

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-09-14.xml --- 72 178 Friday, September 14, 2007 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52538-52539 E7-18112 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Forest Service See Rural Business-Cooperative Service See Rural Housing Service See Rural Utilities Service Army Army Department See Engineers Corps NOTICES Meetings:

Reserve Officers Training Corps Program Subcommittee, 52554-52555 07-4555 Blind Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52567-52568 E7-18116 E7-18117 Coast Guard Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Ports and waterways safety; regulated navigation areas, safety zones, security zones, etc.:

Motts Channel/Banks Channel, Wrightsville Beach, NC, 52534-52536 E7-18138 Commerce Commerce Department See Economics and Statistics Administration See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement list; additions and deletions, E7-18175 52542-52543 E7-18176 Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Meetings;

Sunshine Act, 52554 07-4594 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 52554 07-4579 Defense Defense Department See Army Department See Engineers Corps Economics Economics and Statistics Administration NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; membership, 52543 07-4556 Employee Employee Benefits Security Administration PROPOSED RULES Employee Retirement Income Security Act: Multiemployer pension plans; information availability, 52527-52534 E7-18073 Energy Energy Department See Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office PROPOSED RULES Unclassified controlled nuclear information; identification and protection, 52506-52519 E7-18052 Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office PROPOSED RULES Energy conservation:

Alternative fuel transportation program; private and local government fleet determination, 52496-52506 E7-18153 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Onondaga Lake Watershed Management Plan, NY; withdrawn, 52555 07-4554 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Tennessee, 52472-52475 E7-17975 Solid wastes: Comprehensive Procurement Guideline V for procurement of products containing recovered materials, 52475-52488 E7-18150 NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:

National Environmental Education Advisory Council, 52555-52556 E7-18152 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Agency comment availability, 52556-52557 E7-18182 Agency weekly receipts, 52557-52558 E7-18188 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: State Innovation Program, 52558-52561 E7-18164 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Recovered materials advisory notice, 52561-52566 E7-18149 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Aircraft:

Non fixed-winged aircraft; nationality and registration marks, 52467-52470 E7-18197 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: CTRM Aviation Sdn. Bhd., 52519-52520 E7-18148 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 52567 07-4599 Federal Housing Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52574 E7-18162 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration PROPOSED RULES Railroad locomotive safety standards:

Electronically controlled pneumatic brake systems Hearings and technical conference, 52536-52537 E7-18169 NOTICES Exemption petitions, etc.: CSX Transportation, 52599-52600 E7-18168 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 52567 E7-18144 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program, 52600-52605 E7-18122 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Comprehensive conservation plans; availability, etc.:

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex, AL, 52574-52575 E7-18145 Endangered and threatened species: Incidental take permits— Washington Natural Resources Department, WA; Commercial Geoduck Fishery; bald eagle, California brown pelican, etc.; low effect habitat conservation plan, 52575-52576 E7-18128 Migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp (Federal Duck Stamp) contest, 52576-52577 E7-18139 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:

Commercially distributed analyte specific reagents; frequently asked questions, 52568-52570 E7-18108 Foreign Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Texas ConocoPhillips Petroleum Co.; crude oil refinery complex, 52543-52544 E7-18160 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Black Hills National Forest, SD, 52539-52540 07-4373 Recreation fee areas: Apalachicola National Forest, FL; OHV vehicle operators, 52540 07-4557 Resource management plans, etc.:

Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests, ID, 52540-52542 07-4552 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Food and Drug Administration Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard Housing Housing and Urban Development Department See Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office NOTICES Grant and cooperative agreement awards: Hispanic-Serving Institutions Assisting Communities Program, 52570 E7-18119 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Homeless assistance; excess and surplus Federal properties, 52571 E7-17910 Mortgage and loan insurance programs: HUD-held multifamily home and healthcare loan sale, 52571-52572 E7-18115 Privacy Act; systems of records, 52572-52574 E7-18118 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office IRS Internal Revenue Service RULES Income taxes: Qualified zone academy bonds; obligations of States and political subdivisions Correction, E7-18180 52470-52471 E7-18186 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E7-18184 52613-52614 E7-18185 Meetings:

Taxpayer Advocacy Panels, E7-18178 E7-18179 52614-52615 E7-18187 International International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Hidalgo and Cameron Counties, TX; Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project, 52580-52581 E7-18140 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Sodium hexametaphosphate from— China, 52544-52551 E7-18167 Cheese quota; foreign government subsidies: Quarterly update, 52551-52552 E7-18157 Export trade certificates of review, 52552 E7-18114 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping:

Silicomanganese from— Various countries, 52581-52582 E7-18111 Import investigations: Polyethylene terephthalate film from— India and Taiwan, 52582 E7-18110 Labor Labor Department See Employee Benefits Security Administration See Labor-Management Standards Office Labor Labor-Management Standards Office PROPOSED RULES Federal transit law: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act; Legacy for Users— Assistance application processing guidelines and administrative efficiency, 52521-52527 E7-18040 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Coal leases, exploration licenses, etc.:

Wyoming, 52577-52578 E7-18086 Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.: Arizona, 52578-52579 E7-18190 Resource management plans, etc.: Price Field Office, UT, 52579-52580 E7-18098 Legal Legal Services Corporation RULES Aliens; legal assistance restrictions: Legal assistance to citizens of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau residing in U.S., 52488-52491 E7-18194 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52605-52606 E7-18127 E7-18173 Coastwise trade laws; administrative waivers:

OCEAN SPIRIT, 52606-52607 E7-18129 Deepwater ports; license applications: Woodside Natural Gas, Inc., 52607-52611 E7-18130 Mexico Mexico and United States, International Boundary and Water Commission See International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Atka mackerel, 07-4561 52491-52493 07-4563 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish, 52668-52743 07-4358 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands pollock, 52494-52495 07-4587 Pacific cod, 52493-52494 E7-18174 Shallow-water species, 52491-52492 07-4562 NOTICES Meetings:

Atlantic shark identification and protected species safe handling, release, and identification; workshops, 52552-52554 E7-18183 National Sea Grant Review Panel, 52554 E7-18084 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Exelon Generation Co., LLC, 52585-52586 E7-18141 Southern Nuclear Operating Co., 52586 E7-18143 Senior Executive Service Performance Review Boards; membership, 52587 E7-18151 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* General Electric Co., 52582-52584 E7-18147 TXU Generation Co.

LP, 52584-52585 E7-18142 Office Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight See Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52587 07-4560 Pension Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation RULES Single-employer plans: Allocation of assets— Benefits payable in terminated plans; interest assumptions for valuing and paying benefits, 52471-52472 E7-18156 NOTICES Single-employer and multiemployer plans:

Interest rates and assumptions, 52587-52588 E7-18158 Presidential Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS African Union Mission to the United States; extension of privileges and immunities (EO 13444), 52745-52747 07-4600 Research Research and Innovative Technology Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52611-52612 E7-18177 Rural Rural Business-Cooperative Service PROPOSED RULES Rural development guaranteed loans, 52618-52666 07-4349 Rural Rural Housing Service PROPOSED RULES Rural development guaranteed loans, 52618-52666 07-4349 RUS Rural Utilities Service PROPOSED RULES Rural development guaranteed loans, 52618-52666 07-4349 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings;

Sunshine Act, 52588 E7-18214 Securities: Suspension of trading— Texas Energy, Inc., 52588-52589 07-4584 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 52589-52591 E7-18131 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 52591-52593 E7-18132 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster loan areas: New York, 52593 E7-18172 Oklahoma, 52593 E7-18137 Texas, 52593 E7-18123 Vermont, 52593-52594 E7-18126 Wisconsin, 52594 E7-18133 Meetings: Regulatory Fairness Boards— Annual meeting, 52594 E7-18124 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52594-52596 E7-18104 State State Department NOTICES Culturally significant objects imported for exhibition:

A New World: England's First View of America, 52596 E7-18170 Sir Anthony van Dyck: Portrait of an Old Man, 52596 E7-18171 Surface Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52580 07-4553 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Railroad operation, acquisition, construction, etc.: Austin Western Railroad, Inc., 52612 E7-17978 Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 52612-52613 E7-17980 TVA Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Environmental statements; record of decision:

Bear Creek Dam Leakage Resolution Project, AL, 52596-52598 E7-18146 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Railroad Administration See Federal Transit Administration See Maritime Administration See Research and Innovative Technology Administration See Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Corridors of the Future Program, 52598-52599 07-4550 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Agriculture Department, Rural Business-Cooperative Service;

Agriculture Department, Rural Housing Service; Agriculture Department, Rural Utilities Service, 52618-52666 07-4349 Part III Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 52668-52743 07-4358 Part IV Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 52745-52747 07-4600 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 178 Friday, September 14, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 45 [Docket No.

FAA-2007-27173; Amendment No. 45-25] RIN 2120-AJ02 Nationality and Registration Marks, Non Fixed-Wing Aircraft AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: This direct final rule will permit operators of U.S. registered powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft to display their nationality and registration marks in other than a horizontal orientation on the fuselage, a structural member, or a component of the aircraft.

It will also clarify the size requirements for these marks. This action will provide a solution to the challenges faced by many operators in complying with current regulations that require these marks to be displayed horizontally on a fuselage structural member. This rule will eliminate the need for affected operators to petition for an exemption from current nationality and registration marks requirements. DATES: Effective November 13, 2007. Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before October 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-27173 using any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:* Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Bring comments to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Grant Schneemann, AIR-230, Airworthiness Branch, Production and Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone

(202)267-8473; facsimile

(202)267-5580; e-mail *grant.schneemann@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Currently, § 45.27(e) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) requires operators of U.S. registered powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft to display nationality and registration markings horizontally and in two diametrically opposite positions on any fuselage structural member. However, fuselage structural members for these aircraft are, quite often, nothing more than diagonally-mounted narrow bars. These bars, due to their size and orientation, are generally unsuitable for displaying nationality and registration marks as required by current regulations. Consequently, the Experimental Aircraft Association

(EAA)petitioned the FAA for an exemption from § 45.27(e) of the regulations to allow horizontal or vertical display of the required markings. The EAA also separately petitioned the FAA for rulemaking to revise § 45.27(e) to the same effect. In consideration of the varying and evolving structural designs of powered parachute and weight-shift-control aircraft, the FAA is issuing this direct final rule to accommodate these aircraft designs and enable them to meet the intent of the marking requirements. This amendment will relieve operators of U.S. registered powered parachute and weight-shift-control aircraft from the current requirement to display nationality and registration marks in only a horizontal orientation. It will also relax the requirement that marks be displayed on a fuselage structural member, while clarifying the minimum requirement for 3 inch high markings. This amendment will permit the display of marks on the fuselage, on a structural member of the aircraft, or on a component of the aircraft. The marks must be visible by a person standing 90 degrees off the nose of the aircraft. Because operators will have greater latitude in displaying nationality and registration marks, we believe this rule will allow them to achieve compliance more easily. Part 45 also contains requirements regarding the size of nationality and registration markings. Section 45.29(f) states that if any approved surface “is not large enough for full-size marks, marks as large as practicable” must be used. This rule will clarify the size requirements for nationality and registration marks by amending § 45.29(f) to state the marks for powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft must be no less than 3 inches high. This amendment to § 45.29(f) is consistent with the size requirements of § 45.29(b)(2), which specifies that powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft must have marks at least 3 inches high. Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Safety, Section 44104. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations in the interest of safety for registering and identifying an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it eliminates a potentially burdensome marking requirement on many operators, while still requiring proper marking and identification of the affected aircraft. The Direct Final Rule Procedure The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in any adverse or negative comments and therefore is issuing a direct final rule. We believe we will not receive adverse or negative comments because this action will— • Eliminate the need for operators to petition the FAA for an exemption from the nationality and registration marks requirements in §§ 45.27 and 45.29. • Provide relief from a requirement which, due to varying aircraft designs, presents challenges for compliance. • Not place any new requirements or additional burdens on affected operators, nor will it require any changes to existing aircraft. The regulation will become effective on the date specified above unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the **Federal Register** indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the direct final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment which is within the scope of this rule, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the **Federal Register** , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period. Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting this rule. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the Internet at the web address in the ADDRESSES section. *Privacy Act:* Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Availability of Rulemaking Documents You may obtain an electronic copy using the Internet by:

(1)Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System

(DMS)web page ( *http://dms.dot.gov/search* );

(2)Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policy web page at *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/* ; or

(3)Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* You may also obtain a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202)267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this rulemaking. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact their local FAA official, or the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at our site, *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/* . Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), requires the FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there are no new information collection requirements associated with these amendments. International Compatibility In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization

(ICAO)Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these regulations. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this direct final rule. Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this direct final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows: This direct final rule will not impose any cost on operators of U.S. registered powered parachute and weight-shift-control aircraft. It is relieving in nature, and is intended to eliminate the need for affected operators to petition for an exemption from current nationality and registration marks requirements. It will not require any change to the location of existing nationality or registration marks. FAA has, therefore determined that this direct final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. Regulatory Flexibility Determination The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)

(RFA)establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. This direct final rule will not impose any cost on operators of U.S. registered powered parachute and weight-shift-control aircraft. It is relieving in nature, and eliminates the need for affected operators to petition for an exemption from current nationality and registration marks requirements. It will not require any change to the location of existing nationality or registration marks. Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. International Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this direct final rule and has determined that it will have only a domestic impact and, therefore, no affect on international trade. Unfunded Mandates Assessment Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This direct final rule does not contain such a mandate. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The FAA has analyzed this direct final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, we determined that this direct final rule does not have federalism implications. Environmental Analysis FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312 and involves no extraordinary circumstances. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The FAA has analyzed this direct final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the Executive Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 45 Aircraft, Exports, Signs and symbols. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 45 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 45) as follows: PART 45—IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKING 1. The authority citation for part 45 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 44109, 40113-40114, 44101-44105, 44107-44108, 44110-44111, 44504, 44701, 44708-44709, 44711-44713, 44725, 45302-45303, 46104-46304, 46306, 47122. 2. Amend § 45.27 to revise paragraph

(e)to read as follows: § 45.27 Location of marks; nonfixed-wing aircraft.

(e)*Powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft.* Each operator of a powered parachute or a weight-shift-control aircraft must display the marks required by §§ 45.23 and 45.29(b)(2) of this part. The marks must be displayed in two diametrically opposite positions on the fuselage, a structural member, or a component of the aircraft and must be visible from the side of the aircraft. 3. Amend § 45.29 to revise paragraph

(f)to read as follows: § 45.29 Size of marks.

(f)If either one of the surfaces authorized for displaying required marks under § 45.25 is large enough for display of marks meeting the size requirements of this section and the other is not, full size marks shall be placed on the larger surface. If neither surface is large enough for full-size marks, marks as large as practicable shall be displayed on the larger of the two surfaces. If no surface authorized to be marked by § 45.27 is large enough for full-size marks, marks as large as practicable shall be placed on the largest of the authorized surfaces. However, powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft must display marks at least 3 inches high. Issued in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2007. Marion C. Blakey, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-18197 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9339] RIN 1545-BG44 Qualified Zone Academy Bonds; Obligations of States and Political Subdivisions; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to final and temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final and temporary regulations (TD 9339) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Monday, July 16, 2007 (72 FR 38767) providing guidance to state and local governments that issue qualified zone academy bonds and to banks, insurance companies, and other taxpayers that hold those bonds on the program requirements for qualified zone academy bonds. DATES: The correction is effective September 14, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy L. Jones or Zoran Stojanovic,

(202)622-3980 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final and temporary regulations that are the subject of this correction are under section 1397E of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final and temporary regulations (TD 9339) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the final and temporary regulations (TD 9339), which was the subject of FR Doc. E7-13665, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 38767, column 3, in the preamble, under the caption DATES: , line 4, the language “applicability, see § 1.1397E-1(m) of” is corrected to read “applicability, see § 1.1397E-1T(m) of”. 2. On page 38768, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “C. Proceeds for Purposes of the Use and Spending Requirements”, line 3 of the paragraph, the language “provisions of QZAB provisions” is corrected to read “QZAB provisions”. 3. On page 38769, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *II. Maximum Term* ”, lines 1 and 2 from bottom of the fourth paragraph of the column, the language “securities ( *http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov* ).” is corrected to read “securities ( *https://www.treasurydirect.gov* ).”. 4. On page 38772, column 1, in the preamble, under the subparagraph heading “3. Failure to Properly Use Proceeds”, third paragraph, the language “The Temporary Regulations retain these provisions.” is inserted at the end of the paragraph. 5. On page 38774, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “Effective/Applicability Dates”, last line of the fourth paragraph, the language “§ 1.1379E(m),” is corrected to read “§ 1.1379E—1T(m).”. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-18180 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9339] RIN 1545-BG44 Qualified Zone Academy Bonds; Obligations of States and Political Subdivisions; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correcting amendments. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final and temporary regulations (TD 9339) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Monday, July 16, 2007 (72 FR 38767) providing guidance to state and local governments that issue qualified zone academy bonds and to banks, insurance companies, and other taxpayers that hold those bonds on the program requirements for qualified zone academy bonds. DATES: The correction is effective September 14, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy L. Jones or Zoran Stojanovic,

(h)* * *

(2)* * *

(iii)* * *

(B)The expenditure of at least 95 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the issue for a qualified purpose with respect to a qualified zone academy will continue to proceed with due diligence.

(7)* * *

(ii)* * *

(D)* * * ( *2* ) * * * ( *ii* ) The first date on which an action is taken that causes the issuer to fail actually to use at least 95 percent of the proceeds of the issue for a qualified purpose with respect to a qualified zone academy.

(9)* * *

(i)* * *

(6)*Certain defeasance escrow earnings.* With respect to a defeasance escrow established in a remedial action for an issue of QZABs that meets the special rebate requirement under paragraph (h)(7)(ii)(C)( *2* ) of this section, the QZAB issuer is treated as ineligible for the small issuer exception to arbitrage rebate under section 148(f)(4)(D) and paragraph (i)(5) of this section and compliance with that special rebate requirement is treated as satisfying applicable arbitrage investment restrictions under section 148 for that defeasance escrow. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-18186 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Parts 4022 and 4044 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans prescribe interest assumptions for valuing and paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans. This final rule amends the regulations to adopt interest assumptions for plans with valuation dates in October 2007. Interest assumptions are also published on the PBGC's Web site ( *http://www.pbgc.gov* ). DATES: Effective October 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PBGC's regulations prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Three sets of interest assumptions are prescribed:

(1)A set for the valuation of benefits for allocation purposes under section 4044 (found in Appendix B to Part 4044),

(2)a set for the PBGC to use to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine lump-sum amounts to be paid by the PBGC (found in Appendix B to Part 4022), and

(3)a set for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology (found in Appendix C to Part 4022). This amendment

(1)adds to Appendix B to Part 4044 the interest assumptions for valuing benefits for allocation purposes in plans with valuation dates during October 2007,

(2)adds to Appendix B to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for the PBGC to use for its own lump-sum payments in plans with valuation dates during October 2007, and

(3)adds to Appendix C to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology for valuation dates during October 2007. For valuation of benefits for allocation purposes, the interest assumptions that the PBGC will use (set forth in Appendix B to part 4044) will be 5.51 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 5.18 percent thereafter. These interest assumptions represent a decrease (from those in effect for September 2007) of 0.02 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 0.02 percent for all years thereafter. The interest assumptions that the PBGC will use for its own lump-sum payments (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022) will be 3.25 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. These interest assumptions represent no change from those in effect for September 2007. For private-sector payments, the interest assumptions (set forth in Appendix C to part 4022) will be the same as those used by the PBGC for determining and paying lump sums (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022). The PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible. Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits in plans with valuation dates during October 2007, the PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication. The PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866. Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2). List of Subjects 29 CFR Part 4022 Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 29 CFR Part 4044 Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions. In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows: PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344. 2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 168, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities (percent) *i* 1 *i* 2 *i* 3 *n* 1 *n* 2 * * * * * * * 168 10-1-07 11-1-07 3.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 168, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities (percent) *i* 1 *i* 2 *i* 3 *n* 1 *n* 2 * * * * * * * 168 10-1-07 11-1-07 3.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 4. The authority citation for part 4044 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362. 5. In appendix B to part 4044, a new entry for October 2007, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4044—Interest Rates Used to Value Benefits For valuation dates occurring in the month— The values of *i* i are: *i* t for *t* = *i* t for *t* = *i* t for *t* = * * * * * * * October 2007 .0551 1-20 .0518 >20 N/A N/A Issued in Washington, DC, on this 11th day of September 2007. Vincent K. Snowbarger, Deputy Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-18156 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0042-200726, FRL-8466-5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Tennessee; Approval of Revisions to the Tennessee SIP and the Nashville/Davidson County Portion of the Tennessee SIP; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan

(SIP)submitted by the State of Tennessee on February 23, 2006, and amended on April 16, 2007; and revisions to the Nashville/Davidson County portion of the Tennessee SIP submitted by the State of Tennessee on May 31, 2006. The SIP revisions modify the Tennessee and Nashville/Davidson County Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)and Nonattainment New Source Review

(NNSR)regulations in the Tennessee SIP to address changes to the federal new source review

(NSR)regulations, which were promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002, and reconsidered with minor changes on November 7, 2003 (commonly referred to as the “2002 NSR Reform Rules”). EPA proposed approval of these revisions on July 23, 2007; no comments were received on that proposal. The revisions include provisions for baseline emissions calculations, an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for calculating emissions changes, options for plant-wide applicability limits, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule will be effective October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0042. 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, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Tennessee State Implementation Plan, contact Mr. James Hou, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is

(404)562-8965. Mr. Hou can also be reached via electronic mail at *hou.james@epa.gov.* For information regarding New Source Review, contact Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at the same address above. The telephone number is

(404)562-9214. Ms. Adams can also be reached via electronic mail at *adams.yolanda@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Background for This Action? III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the Tennessee SIP and the Nashville/Davidson County portion of the Tennessee SIP regarding the Tennessee and Nashville NSR programs. On February 23, 2006, and May 31, 2006, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), submitted revisions to the Tennessee SIP and the Nashville/Davidson County portion of the Tennessee SIP. Nashville/Davidson County is separately authorized to implement and enforce the NSR program in that region of Tennessee. The February 23, 2006, SIP submittal consists of changes to the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations. Specifically, the proposed SIP revisions include changes to TDEC Rule .01 of chapter 1200-3-9 entitled, “Construction Permits.” The May 31, 2006, submittal consists of revisions to the Nashville Pollution Control Division's Regulation 3 entitled, “New Source Review.” TDEC submitted these revisions in response to EPA's December 31, 2002, revisions to the federal NSR program. In a letter to EPA dated April 16, 2007, Tennessee requested to amend the February 23, 2006, SIP submittal in light of the decision issued by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) on June 24, 2005. Notably, on June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), EPA took final action to revise the 2002 NSR Reform Rules to exclude the portions that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court. TDEC requested that the portion of the Tennessee SIP revision related to the EPA rules that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court (specifically the clean unit and pollution control project

(PCP)provisions) not be approved into the SIP. The affected portions of the February 23, 2006, submittal are as follows: Sections (b)2.(i)(VIII), (b)4.(iii)(III), (b)4.(vi)(IV), (b)35., (b)39., (c)4.(v), (c)6., (p), (q), and

(r)of Rule 1200-3-9-.01(4); sections (b)1.(v)(III)VIII, (b)1.(vi)(III)III, (b)1.(vi)(V)V, (b)1.(xxxvii), (b)1.(xli), (b)2.(v)(IX), (b)2.(v)(X), (b)2.(xvi), (b)2.(xix), (b)7., (b)8., and (b)9. of Rule 1200-3-9-.01(5); and all references to clean units and PCPs at sections (a)11. and (c)4.(vi) of Rule 1200-3-9-.01(4)., and sections (b)2.(xvii) and (b)5. of Rule 1200-3-9-.01(5). The May 31, 2006, submittal which consists of revisions to NPCD Regulation 3, did not include the clean unit and PCP provisions. On July 23, 2007 (72 FR 40105), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR)in the **Federal Register** , proposing to approve the Tennessee SIP revisions. The July 23, 2007, NPR provides additional information about the proposed Tennessee SIP revisions and the rationale for this final action. The public comment period for the proposed action ended on August 22, 2007. No comments were received on EPA's proposed action. EPA is now taking final action to approve the SIP revisions submitted by TDEC on February 23, 2006, May 31, 2006, and April 16, 2007. II. What Is the Background for This Action? On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule changes to 40 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)parts 51 and 52, regarding the CAA PSD and NNSR programs. On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final action on its reconsideration of the 2002 rules. On June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), EPA took final action to revise the 2002 NSR Reform Rules to exclude the clean units and PCP provisions that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court on June 24, 2005. The purpose of this action is to approve the SIP submittals from the State of Tennessee, incorporating rule changes consistent with EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. The June 24, 2005, D.C. Circuit Court decision also involved a remand of the recordkeeping provisions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. EPA continues to move forward with its evaluation of the portion of its NSR Reform Rules that were remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court. On March 8, 2007 (72 FR 10445), EPA responded to the Court's remand regarding the recordkeeping provisions by proposing two alternative options to clarify what constitutes “reasonable possibility” and when the “reasonable possibility” recordkeeping requirements apply. The “reasonable possibility” standard identifies for sources and reviewing authorities the circumstances under which a major stationary source undergoing a modification that does not trigger major NSR must keep records. Tennessee's SIP revisions are approvable at this time because the Tennessee and Nashville rules are substantially the same as the current federal rules. If EPA adopts recordkeeping criteria that are more stringent than the current Tennessee and Nashville rules, the Tennessee and Nashville rules may need to be revised to be at least as stringent as the federal requirement. On February 23, 2006, May 31, 2006, and April 16, 2007, the State of Tennessee submitted SIP revisions including changes to Tennessee's and Nashville's NSR programs. The NSR program changes were made primarily to adopt EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. On July 23, 2007 (72 FR 40105), EPA published a NPR proposing to approve revisions to Tennessee's Rule .01 of chapter 1200-3-9 entitled, “Construction Permits” and Nashville's Regulation 3 entitled, “New Source Review.” Tennessee's revisions are consistent with the federal NSR regulations published December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186) and November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021). As is discussed in greater detail in the NPR, EPA reviewed the SIP revisions and determined that they were at least as stringent as the federal NSR program. As a result, the SIP revisions are approvable pursuant to the CAA. The July 23, 2007, NPR and the docket for this action provide more details about the SIP revisions being approved and the rationale for EPA's final action. For additional information on EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), and *http://www.epa.gov/nsr.* III. Final Action EPA is taking final action to approve changes to Tennessee's Rule 1200-3-9-.01 (Construction Permits) as submitted by TDEC on February 23, 2006, and amended on April 16, 2007, as revisions to the Tennessee SIP. In addition, EPA is taking final action to approve changes made to the Nashville Regulation 3 (New Source Review) as submitted by TDEC on May 31, 2006, as revisions to the Nashville/Davidson County portion of the Tennessee SIP. IV. 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 final 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 (59 FR 22951, 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 state and local rules implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it 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 CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 13, 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, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: September 5, 2007. J.I. Palmer, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart RR—Tennessee 2. In § 52.2220(c) Table 1 and Table 5 are amended as follows: a. In Table 1 under Chapter 1200-3-9 by revising the entry for “Section 1200-3-9-.01”, b. In Table 5 under Article II. by revising the entries under Regulation No. 3 for “Section 3-1”, “Section 3-2” and “Section 3-3”, and c. In Table 5 under Article II. by adding in numerical order a new entry under Regulation No. 3 for “Section 3-4”. § 52.2220 Identification of plan.

(c)* * * Table 1.—EPA-Approved Tennessee Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * * CHAPTER 1200-3-9 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING PERMITS Section 1200-3-9-.01 Construction Permits 02/14/06 09/14/07 [Insert citation of publication] * * * * * * * Table 5.—EPA-Approved Nashville-Davidson County, Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * * Article II. Standards for Operation * * * * * * * Regulation No. 3 New Source Review Section 3-1 Definitions 03/14/06 09/14/07 [Insert citation of publication] Section 3-2 New Source Review 03/14/06 09/14/07 [Insert citation of publication] Section 3-3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)Review 03/14/06 09/14/07 [Insert citation of publication] Section 3-4 Plantwide Applicability Limits

(PAL)03/14/06 09/14/07 [Insert citation of publication] [FR Doc. E7-17975 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 247 [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0005; FRL-8468-3] RIN 2050-AE23 Comprehensive Procurement Guideline V for Procurement of Products Containing Recovered Materials AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)is amending the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline

(CPG)for recovered content products. Specifically, EPA is revising the list of items designated in the category of landscaping products. First, EPA is changing the description of “compost” by consolidating all compost designations under one item designation: “compost made from recovered organic materials.” At the same time, the Agency is amending the definition of compost. The effect of the two changes will be to include compost from biosolids and manure, and not limit the designation to specific types of organic materials. Second, EPA has added “fertilizer made from recovered materials” as a designated landscaping item and added a definition for “fertilizer made from recovered organic materials.” (In the notices section of this **Federal Register** , EPA also is making available the final Recovered Materials Advisory Notice

(RMAN)that contains recommendations for purchasing these designated items.) The CPG implements section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA)which requires EPA to designate items that are or can be made with recovered materials and to recommend practices that procuring agencies can use to procure designated items. Once EPA designates an item, any procuring agency that uses appropriated federal funds to procure that item must purchase the item containing the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable. This action harnesses government purchasing power to stimulate the use of recovered materials in the manufacture of products, thereby fostering markets for materials recovered from solid waste. DATES: This final rule is effective on September 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0005. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the OSWER Docket EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

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

(202)566-0270. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marlene RedDoor, Office of Solid Waste, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division (5306P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue; 703-308-7276; fax number: 703-308-8686; e-mail address: *Regelski-RedDoor.Marlene@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action may potentially affect agencies that are procuring agencies under RCRA section 6002 that purchase the following items: compost made from recovered organic materials and fertilizers made from recovered organic materials. Section 6002 defines procuring agencies to include the following:

(1)Any federal agency;

(2)any state or local agency using appropriated federal funds for a procurement; or

(3)any contractors of these agencies who are procuring these items for work they perform under the contract. See RCRA section 1004(17). The requirements of section 6002 apply to these procuring agencies only when the agencies procure designated items whose price exceeds $10,000 or when the quantity of the item purchased in the previous year exceeded $10,000. A list of entities that this rule may cover is provided in Table 1. Table 1.—Entities Potentially Subject to Section 6002 Requirements Triggered by CPG Amendments Category Examples of regulated entities Federal Government Federal departments or agencies that procure $10,000 or more of a designated item in a given year. State Government A state agency that uses appropriated federal funds to procure $10,000 or more of a designated item in a given year. Local Government A local agency that uses appropriated federal funds to procure $10,000 or more of a designated item in a given year. Contractor A contractor working on a project funded by appropriated federal funds that purchases $10,000 or more of a designated item in a given year. This table is not intended to be exhaustive. To determine whether this action applies to your procurement practices, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 247.12. If you have questions about whether this action applies to a particular entity, contact Marlene RedDoor at 703-308-7276. Preamble Outline I. What is the statutory authority for this amendment? II. Why is EPA taking this action? III. What are the related requirements for biobased products? IV. What criteria did EPA use to select items for designation? V. What are the definitions of terms used in this action? VI. What did commenters say about the proposed CPG V and draft RMAN V? A. Request for Comments 1. Items Selected for Designation 2. Accuracy of Information Presented in the Item Discussions 3. Definitions of “Organic Fertilizer” and “Compost” 4. Limitations on the Recovered Organic Materials Contained in the Fertilizers Proposed by EPA 5. Types of Recovered Materials Identified in the Item Recommendations, and Other Recommendations, Including Specifications for Purchasing the Designated Items 6. Any Other Specifications the Agency Should Recommend That Pertain to Fertilizers Made With Recovered Organic Materials B. Issue-Specific Comments 1. General Comments About Sewage Sludge/Biosolids as Compost or Organic Compost 2. Proper Labeling of Compost or Fertilizers 3. Use of the Term “Organic” 4. Use of Compost or Fertilizer Made From Sewage Sludge on Food or Crops 5. Toxins in Sewage Sludge and Potential Health Effects 6. Specific Applications of Sewage Sludge 7. Manure 8. Thermophilic Process and Vermicompost VII. Where can agencies get information on the availability of EPA-designated items? VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 1. Summary of Costs 2. Product Cost 3. Summary of Benefits B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act IX. Supporting Information and Accessing Internet I. What is the statutory authority for this amendment? EPA (“the Agency”) is promulgating this amendment to the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline

(CPG)under the authority of sections 2002(a) and 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a) and 6962. This amendment is also consistent with Executive Order 13423, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management,” (72 FR 3919, January 26, 2007), which revoked Executive Order 13101, “Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition,” (63 FR 49643, September 14, 1998). Per section 2(d)(i) of Executive Order 13423, the head of each Federal agency shall require in the agency's acquisition of goods and services the use of, among other things, recycled content products. II. Why is EPA taking this action? Section 6002(e) of RCRA requires EPA to designate items that are or can be made with recovered materials and to recommend practices to help procuring agencies meet their obligations for procuring those items. After EPA designates an item, RCRA requires that each procuring agency, when purchasing a designated item, must purchase that item made of the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable. Between 1983 and 1989, EPA issued five guidelines for the procurement of products containing recovered materials, which were previously codified at 40 CFR parts 248, 249, 250, 252, and 253. These products include cement and concrete containing fly ash, paper and paper products, re-refined lubricating oils, retread tires, and building insulation. Table 2 summarizes designations of CPG I-IV and references the **Federal Register** publications. Table 2.—CPG I-IV Designations Designation Date published FR No. Number items designated CPG I May 1, 1995 60 FR 21370 19 new, 5 previous in 8 product categories. RMAN I May 1, 1995 60 FR 21386 Paper Product RMAN May 29, 1996 61 FR 26985 CPG II November 13, 1997 62 FR 60962 12 new items. RMAN II November 13, 1997 62 FR 60975 Paper Product RMAN June 8, 1998 63 FR 31214 CPG III January 19, 2000 65 FR 3070 18 new items. RMAN III January 19, 2000 65 FR 3082 CPG IV April 20, 2004 69 FR 24028 7 new, 3 revised. RMAN IV April 30, 2004 69 FR 24039 On December 10, 2003, EPA published the proposed CPG V (68 FR 68813) and draft RMAN V (68 FR 68919) which are finalized by this action. EPA is consolidating all compost designations into one item designation: compost made from recovered organic materials. In addition, EPA is establishing a new item designation: “fertilizers made from recovered organic materials.” These items are being designated under the Landscaping Products category. Recovered organic materials include, but are not limited to, yard waste, food waste, manure, and biosolids. (For more information on CPG, go to the EPA Web site at *(http://www.epa.gov/cpg/.* ) III. What are the related requirements for biobased products? Section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA) provides for the preferred procurement of biobased products by procuring agencies. 7 U.S.C. 8192. Under FSRIA, once the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA)designates an item, procuring agencies, when procuring the item, must, in specified circumstances, procure it as a biobased product. Some of the products that are biobased items designated for preferred procurement may also be items that EPA has designated under EPA's CPG program for recovered content products. Where that occurs, and where the item is used for the same purpose and the performance standards are the same for both the product containing recovered materials and the biobased item, an EPA-designated recovered content product (also known as “recycled content products” or “EPA-designated products”) has priority in Federal procurement over the qualifying biobased product. See 71 FR 13686, *http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov/fb4p/files/Round_1_Final_Rule.pdf* ). Composts and fertilizers can be both products containing recovered materials and biobased products. USDA has proposed to designate biobased fertilizer as a product for Federal procurement. Once USDA promulgates a final designation, if an agency purchases fertilizer or landscaping or facilities management services that require the use of fertilizer, then the agency should first consider specifying fertilizer containing recovered materials. This should satisfy both the requirement to purchase EPA-designated products and the requirement to purchase USDA-designated products. If such fertilizer will not meet the agency's reasonable performance needs, then the agency should specify other biobased fertilizer. As noted previously, section 6002 of RCRA requires a procuring agency procuring an item designated by EPA generally to procure such items composed of the highest percentage of recovered materials content practicable. However, a procuring agency may decide not to procure such an item based on a determination that the item fails to meet the reasonable performance standards or specifications of the procuring agency. An item with recovered materials content may not meet reasonable performance standards or specifications, for example, if the use of the item with recovered materials content would jeopardize the intended end use of the item. IV. What criteria did EPA use to select items for designation? RCRA section 6002(e) requires EPA to consider the following criteria when determining which items it will designate:

(1)Availability of the item.

(2)Potential impact of the procurement of the item by procuring agencies on the solid waste stream.

(3)Economic and technological feasibility of producing the item.

(4)Other uses for the recovered materials used to produce the item. Section 6002(e) also authorizes EPA to consider other factors in its designation decisions. EPA, consequently, also consulted with federal procurement officials to identify other criteria it should consider. Based on these discussions, the Agency concluded that the limitations set forth in RCRA section 6002(c) should also be factored into its selection decisions. Specifically, this provision requires that each procuring agency that procures an item that EPA has designated, procure the item that contains the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable, while maintaining a satisfactory level of competition. A procuring agency, however, may decide not to procure an EPA-designated item containing recovered materials if the procuring agency determines:

(1)The item is not available within a reasonable period of time;

(2)the item fails to meet the performance standards that the procuring agency has set forth in the product specifications; or

(3)the item is available only at an unreasonable price. EPA recognized that these criteria could provide procuring agencies with a rationale for not purchasing EPA-designated items that contain recovered materials. For this reason, EPA considers the limitations cited in RCRA section 6002(c) when it selects items to designate in the CPG. In CPG I, the Agency outlined the following criteria that it continues to use when it selects items for designation: • Use of materials found in solid waste. • Economic and technological feasibility and performance. • Impact of government procurement. • Availability and competition. • Other uses for recovered materials. EPA discussed these criteria in the CPG I background documents and in Section II of the document entitled, “Background Document for the Final Comprehensive Procurement Guideline

(CPG)V and Final Recovered Materials Advisory Notice

(RMAN)V.” The RCRA public docket for the proposed CPG V rule, Docket No. RCRA-2003-0005, contains this document. In CPG I, EPA stated that it had adopted two approaches for designating items that are made with recovered materials. For some items, such as floor tiles, the Agency designated broad categories and provided information in the RMAN about the appropriate applications or uses for the items. For other items, such as plastic trash bags, EPA designated specific items, and, in some instances, specified the types of recovered materials or applications to which the designation applies. The Agency explained the approaches it took to designate items in the preamble to CPG I (60 FR 21373, May 1, 1995), and repeats them here for the convenience of the reader: EPA sometimes had information on the availability of a particular item made with a specific recovered material (e.g., plastic), but no information on the availability of the item made from a different recovered material or any indication that it is possible to make the item with a different recovered material. In these instances, EPA concluded that it was appropriate to include the specific material in the item designation in order to provide vital information to procuring agencies as they seek to fulfill their obligations to purchase designated items composed of the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable. This information enables the agencies to focus their efforts on products that are currently available for purchase, reducing their administrative burden. EPA also included information in the proposed CPG, as well as in the draft RMAN that accompanied the proposed CPG, that advised procuring agencies that EPA is not recommending the purchase of an item made from one particular material over a similar item made from another material. The Agency understands that some procuring agencies may believe that designating a broad category of items in the CPG requires that they

(1)procure all items included in such category with recovered materials content and

(2)establish an affirmative procurement program for the entire category of items, even when specific items within the category do not meet the procuring agency's performance standards. RCRA clearly does not require such actions. RCRA section 6002 does not require a procuring agency to purchase items that contain recovered materials if the items are not available or if they do not meet a procuring agency's specifications or reasonable performance standards for the contemplated use. Further, section 6002 does not require a procuring agency to purchase such items if the item that contains recovered material is only available at an unreasonable price, or if purchasing such items does not maintain a reasonable level of competition. See also 40 CFR 247.2(d). However, EPA stresses that the statute requires that a procuring agency must purchase the product made with the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable in the absence of the circumstances identified above. The items designated have been evaluated against EPA's criteria. The Agency discusses these evaluations in the “Background Document for the Proposed CPG V/Draft RMAN V,” which the Agency has placed in the docket for the final CPG V and RMAN V. You may also access the document electronically. (See Section IX below for Internet access directions.) V. What are the definitions of terms used in this action? For this action, in 40 CFR 247.3, EPA is revising the previous definition of compost from CPG III (65 FR 3070) and adding a definition for “fertilizer made from recovered organic materials.” 1 EPA generally bases its definitions on industry definitions. Because there are a number of industry definitions for “compost” and “fertilizer,” EPA developed its own to prevent confusion to procuring agencies. EPA based its fertilizer definition in part on a USDA definition of “fertilizer” (see *http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOP/NOP/standards/DefineReg.html* ). 1 In proposed CPG V, the Agency proposed that the definition be entitled “organic fertilizer.” However, in final CPG V, EPA is instead entitling the definition “fertilizer made from recovered organic materials” so that the definition title and the designation description are more consistent. Because the description of the items designated in CPG V uses the term “recovered materials,” the Agency also is providing a definition for that term in this notice. The Agency previously provided this definition in CPG I, and it is also provided at 40 CFR 247.3. *Recovered materials* means waste materials and byproducts which have been recovered or diverted from solid waste, but the term does not include those materials and byproducts generated from, and commonly reused within, an original manufacturing process. VI. What did commenters say about the proposed CPG V and draft RMAN V? EPA received 395 comments on the proposed CPG V and the draft RMAN V. Many of the comments received on the proposed CPG V were equally applicable to the draft RMAN V. In this section, EPA discusses the major comments that commenters provided on the proposed CPG V. The most significant comments received on the draft RMAN V are discussed in the preamble to the final RMAN V, which is published in the notices section of this **Federal Register** . You can find a more thorough summary of comments and EPA's responses in the “Background Document for the Final Comprehensive Procurement Guideline

(CPG)V and Final Recovered Materials Advisory Notice

(RMAN)V.” The Final CPG V and RMAN V Background Document also has reference numbers to specific comments found in the CPG V Docket: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0005. A. Request for Comments This section summarizes and responds to the comments that address the Agency's specific requests for comments in the CPG V proposed rule. 1. Items Selected for Designation *Comments:* EPA received comments specifically regarding the designation of compost and/or fertilizers. Some commenters opposed consolidating all compost designations under one heading called “compost made from recovered organic materials.” A few of these comments described the proposed revision as deceptive or misleading due to an inconsistent use of the term “organic.” One commenter discussed the need for appropriate labeling were the revision to be carried out. Many commenters also opposed revising the compost designation to include sewage sludge or generally opposed using biosolids, manure, and/or sewage sludge in compost or fertilizer. One of these comments claimed that composts and fertilizers made from these materials are likely to contaminate the land and cause adverse effects to human health and welfare and the environment. One commenter specifically supported the revision of compost to include manure or biosolids and the designation of fertilizers containing recovered organic materials. One other commenter believed the proposed, more generic designation that defines compost as “compost made from recovered organic materials” is more accurate and encompassing. *Response:* In the CPG V final rule, the Agency consolidated all compost designations under one item designation: “compost made from recovered organic materials.” This is being done partly in response to the request of procuring agencies that EPA simplify the compost designations to make it easier for them to track and report their purchases of compost. For discussion on the labeling issue and the term “organic,” please see the responses below in sections VI.B.2 and 3, respectively. Regarding those comments that opposed the designations for compost and fertilizer made with sewage sludge because of perceived risks, EPA notes that, if a compost product or fertilizer contains biosolids, then its use would be subject to the Part 503, Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40 CFR part 503). EPA believes that these standards ensure protection of human health and the environment. 2. Accuracy of Information Presented in the Item Discussions *Comment:* The U.S. Composting Council

(USCC)commented on the accuracy of the information presented in the designation of compost. Specifically, USCC claimed that compost can be a sole source of plant nutrients when applied at sufficient application rates, countering EPA's background statement that “compost is not a complete fertilizer unless amended.” The commenter cited research projects demonstrating that compost alone can result in yields equivalent to those obtained with chemical fertilizers. The commenter requested that EPA correct this misconception in its background statement. *Response:* EPA first explained that “compost is not a complete fertilizer unless amended” in the April 20, 1994 **Federal Register** notice for the proposed CPG I. (See 59 FR 18877.) EPA based its explanation on USCC's own description in its “Composting Glossary”: Compost is the stabilized and sanitized product of composting; compost is largely decomposed material and is in the process of humification (curing). Compost has littleresemblance in physical form to the original material from which it was made. Compost is a soil amendment, to improve soils. Compost is not a complete fertilizer unless amended, although composts contain fertilizer properties, e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, which must be included in calculations for fertilizer application. Since USCC has modified its position on this issue, as evidenced in their subsequent referenced comment, the Agency has removed this statement from the compost discussion in the final CPG V background document (see section VIII.A.6 of the background document). 3. Definitions of “Organic Fertilizer” and “Compost” *Comments:* EPA received comments on the definitions EPA provided for “compost” and “organic fertilizers” in its proposal. Several of these comments actually appear to address the “designation” of the items, rather than the “definition,” and EPA is responding to those comments in this section. A few of the commenters stated that they agreed with the proposed definition of compost and/or organic fertilizers, or that they agreed with or supported including biosolids or manure in the definition of compost because it allows for the addition of other materials or appropriately broadens the definition to include other types of materials. One of these commenters also requested that EPA include some means to acknowledge and evaluate compost products that are produced at lower temperatures, short of thermophilic. On the other hand, one commenter suggested that EPA amend the compost definition to require the composting process to meet the time-temperature relationships in 40 CFR part 503. A few other commenters stated concern that the definitions may cause confusion over the term “organic” or that the definitions must be carefully phrased so as not to conflict with organic food production laws. One of these commenters suggested using the term “nutrient-rich products from recovered organic materials” rather than “fertilizers.” One other commenter opposed re-defining compost to include sewage sludge because it would blur the distinction between sludge-based and non sludge-based compost. *Response:* The CPG V defines compost as a thermophilic converted product and does not include compost products that are produced at lower temperatures, short of thermophilic. For more discussion on these issues, please see the response in section VI.B.8 below. The definition does not include specific language about the time-temperature relationships in 40 CFR part 503. However, the Specifications section of the final RMAN V for compost does reference 40 CFR part 503. For more on the time-temperature requirements in Part 503, see pp. 28, 38, *et al* , of the EPA document entitled, *Environmental Regulations and Technology: Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge.* This document can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/Pubs/1992/625R92013.pdf.* Regarding the potential confusion over the term “organic,” EPA acknowledges that USDA's National Organic Program

(NOP)regulations prohibit the use of biosolids and sewage sludge for use in growing organic foods ( *i.e.* , of or relating to foods grown or raised without synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, or hormones), as addressed in the proposed background document for CPG V/Draft RMAN V. However, in EPA's proposal, EPA used the term “organic” to mean “of, relating to, or derived from living organisms.” EPA is using the word “organic” in the phrase “recovered organic materials” because this is the term commonly used by those promoting the recovery and use of these materials. In these circumstances, EPA has concluded there is little potential for confusion. (See section VI.B.3 below for more discussion on the term “organic.”) Regarding a potential blurred distinction between sludge-based and non sludge-based compost, EPA has previously explained that, if biosolids are included as part of the compost, the processing and product are subject to the 40 CFR part 503 regulations which are protective of human health and the environment. (See 68 FR 68818.) Further, all users of sludge-based products also must comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws regarding the use of biosolids and sewage sludge. 4. Limitations on the Recovered Organic Materials Contained in the Fertilizers Proposed by EPA *Comments:* EPA received comments asking that restrictions be placed on the materials used in fertilizers. Most of these comments either stated that sewage sludge or human waste should not be used as fertilizer, or made a reference to sewage sludge being too toxic, hazardous, or unsafe to use as fertilizer. One commenter did not support the use of biosolids in public projects due to possible toxic contamination of biosolids, which could contaminate organic production operations. Another commenter requested that EPA maintain a separation of sewage sludge and fertilizers that will be used for growing organic fruits and vegetables. Still another commenter claimed that the idea of proposing that composted “municipal sludge” be used as an “organic” fertilizer has already been rejected for “Organic” standards, as defined in NOFPA. (EPA could not identify “NOFPA.”) Another commenter stated that to be an effective fertilizer, the dung (i.e., sewage) must be totally vegan. Another commenter mentioned a report that indicates that the “greensands” that EPA proposed as rock and mineral powders for “organic fertilizers” are highly contaminated with heavy metals and organic toxins. The commenter cites a report that refers to “green sand” that is foundry sand. The commenter concludes that greensand is not an adequate, appropriate, or effective substitution for virgin rock or minerals. *Response:* Regarding the comments that sewage sludge should not be used as fertilizer or that sewage sludge is too toxic, hazardous, or unsafe to use as fertilizer, please see the responses in sections VI.B.4 and 5 below. Also, as previously stated, EPA has evaluated the potential risks of sewage sludge in developing the Part 503 Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40 CFR part 503). EPA believes that these regulations will ensure that sewage sludge used in compliance with the Part 503 Standards will not be harmful to human health and the environment. Procuring agencies should not procure compost or fertilizer that is not appropriate for its intended use. The commenter opposing the use of biosolids in public projects due to possible toxic contamination of biosolids, and who expressed concern that this could contaminate organic production operations, provided no further explanation as to what was meant by “public projects” or the mechanism by which contamination of organic production operations would occur. Regarding a separation of sewage sludge from fertilizer that will be used for growing organic fruits and vegetables, in the final RMAN V for fertilizers, EPA references USDA's NOP regulations, which prohibit the use of biosolids in organic production. EPA also references the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), which developed guidelines and lists of materials allowed and prohibited for use in the production, processing, and handling of organically grown products, and the land application requirements for biosolids in 40 CFR part 503. For more discussion on the term “organic,” please see section VI.B.3 below. EPA appreciates the comment that dung (i.e., sewage) should be vegan, but does not believe that this characteristic is necessary to achieve a high-quality fertilizer. Therefore, EPA is not addressing this issue in the recommendations for fertilizer in the final RMAN V. Finally, EPA has determined that the commenter who claimed that “greensands,” highly contaminated with heavy metals and organic toxins, and therefore not appropriate for use in fertilizer, was confusing the term EPA used with a different type of green sand—that which is found in foundry sand. EPA is clarifying that the proposed CPG V background document referenced greensand which is sedimentary rock containing the mineral glauconite. The two materials are unrelated. 5. Types of Recovered Materials Identified in the Item Recommendations, and Other Recommendations, Including Specifications for Purchasing the Designated Items *Comments:* EPA received a number of comments on the types of recovered materials identified in the item designations, and other recommendations, but none that appeared to address specifications for purchasing the designated items. Several comments supported allowing biosolids and/or manure to be used for compost and/or fertilizer. Some of these commenters stated that the inclusion of biosolids in the compost and fertilizer designations will increase market demand for these recovered material products, but will also provide further support for the long-standing practice of biosolids land application. EPA also received comments that suggested or implied that additions should be made to the list of materials covered by the scope of “recovered organic materials” in the compost and fertilizer item designations and RMAN recommendations such as EQ biosolids, cotton gin by-products, sawdust, and yard trimmings. Yet another commenter encouraged EPA to retain the 247.15(b) designation of compost language “for use in landscaping, seeding of grass or other plants on roadsides and embankments * * * ” and add “and other uses” at the end of the sentence. *Response:* EPA appreciates the comments supporting the use of biosolids and/or manure for compost and/or fertilizer and agrees that their designation will achieve one of the most important goals of the CPG program-to increase market demand for items made from recovered materials. For responses to comments opposing the use of biosolids, manure, and/or sewage sludge in compost and/or fertilizer, please refer to section VI.B.5. EPA appreciates the suggestions for additional materials to be included in EPA's recommendations. In EPA's view, EQ biosolids, cotton gin by-products, sawdust, and yard trimmings are already included in the scope of the item designations and recommendations, because EPA has revised the description of fertilizer and compost to “made with recovered organic materials,” a term which does not restrict the organic content only to the specified material. Also, in CPG V and RMAN V, the Agency did not exclude any particular types of biosolids. Instead, in the final RMAN V, the Agency referred to Part 503, as well as to applicable federal, state, and local government regulations on the use of compost and fertilizer made with biosolids and other recovered organic materials. Regarding the comments about permitting the use of sewage-derived products only on trees and non-vegetable crops, please refer to the comments and responses in section VI.B.4. In response to the comment which encouraged EPA to retain the 247.15(b) designation of compost language “for use in landscaping, seeding of grass or other plants on roadsides and embankments * * * ” and add “and other uses” at the end of the sentence, EPA did retain this language in the Preference Program section of the RMAN V for compost. However, the final CPG V compost designation language does not prescribe specific applications. Recognizing that government agencies typically use compost for numerous applications, such as landscaping, bioremediation, roadside maintenance, and erosion control, EPA wanted to be as inclusive as possible in terms of potential applications of compost, while ensuring that the Agency would not have to re-propose the compost designation each time it learned of an additional use by procuring agencies. Regarding the suggestion that the processing and handling protocols in Part 503 should be further emphasized, EPA referenced Part 503 in the final RMAN V for both compost and fertilizers. 6. Any Other Specifications the Agency Should Recommend That Pertain to Fertilizers Made With Recovered Organic Materials *Response:* The Agency did not appear to receive any comments on other specifications pertaining specifically to fertilizers. B. Issue-Specific Comments This section summarizes and responds to other significant comments. Many of the comments were similar, and most could be grouped in one or more particular topic categories that captured the general essence of the comment. 1. General Comments About Sewage Sludge/Biosolids as Compost or Organic Compost *Comments:* EPA received many comments that essentially found the idea of calling, renaming, or labeling biosolids as compost problematic, especially without labeling that indicated that the compost originated from sewage. Approximately half of the comments in this topic category were opposed to toxic, hazardous, or contaminated sewage sludge being called compost or organic. A few commenters mentioned negative impacts to human health from using sewage sludge as compost. Some of the comments also mentioned that designating manure and biosolids compost is misleading to the public or is a misrepresentation of the labeling for organic products. Specifically, many comments were opposed to calling, renaming, labeling, or using biosolids as compost if there was not accurate labeling indicating that the compost originated from sewage. *Response:* EPA is not renaming or re-labeling biosolids or sewage sludge as compost. This designation acknowledges that biosolids and treated and processed sewage sludge are components in recovered organic material used in commercial compost and fertilizer. For a discussion on the toxicity, health, and labeling issues, please see additional responses below in sections VI.B.5, 4, and 2, respectively. 2. Proper Labeling of Compost or Fertilizers *Comments:* A number of commenters emphasized that compost and/or fertilizer made from biosolids should be appropriately labeled. While most of these commenters seem to oppose the designations, several do not seem to oppose it as long as the compost and/or fertilizer derived from biosolids is accurately labeled with what it contains so that users could make informed decisions when purchasing these products. Many of these commenters made the general point that appropriate labeling was necessary. Some commenters specifically stated that proper labeling of these products was necessary in order to be fair to the consumer or the public. One other commenter suggested that labeling biosolids as “recovered organic materials” is not appropriate or honest. Approximately half of the comments in this category suggested that appropriate labeling was particularly necessary due to the toxic or unsafe nature of biosolids. *Response:* The final CPG V rule does not include a labeling requirement because under RCRA EPA is not authorized to promulgate labeling requirements, and because labeling requirements that ensure product safety exist under other Federal and State regulations such as the USCC's Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC) and USCC's Seal of Testing Assurance

(STA)labeling program. In the draft (and final) RMAN V, EPA recommends that procuring agencies refer to USCC's TMECC, which are standardized methods for the composting industry to test and evaluate compost and verify the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of composting source materials and compost products. The TMECC also includes material testing guidelines to ensure product safety and support market claims. In addition to referencing the TMECC, the final RMAN V recommends that procuring agencies refer to the USCC's STA labeling program. STA is a compost testing and information disclosure program that uses the TMECC. Participating compost producers regularly sample and test their products using STA Program approved labs, all of which must use the same standardized testing methodologies. Participants must make test results available to customers and certify that they are in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations with respect to their compost products. The USCC then certifies the participants' compost as “STA certified compost” and allows the use of the STA logo on product packaging and literature. Procuring agencies may wish to consider specifying STA certified compost in their solicitations to the extent otherwise authorized. The USCC has developed sample specification and contract language, available at *http://www.compostingcouncil.org/pdf/Specifying_STA_Prog.pdf* . More information on TMECC and STA can be found at *http://www.composting council.org.* 3. Use of the Term “Organic” *Comments:* EPA received a number of comments that supported the proposal and discussed the use of the term “organic” when describing recovered materials used in compost. A couple of the commenters noted that the proposal, as it defines “organic,” is not renaming organic amendments or foods. The rest of these commenters suggested that the definitions presented in CPG V should be carefully worded so that they do not conflict with “organic food production laws” or “USDA's organic farming and food standards.” One commenter suggested using the term “biologically-derived.” EPA also received a large number of comments that opposed the proposal and took issue with the idea that EPA would label or represent compost made from biosolids as “organic,” many claiming that there is nothing organic about it. Some of these commenters were generally opposed to representing compost derived from biosolids or sewage sludge as organic. Some commenters stated that this designation would dilute, compromise, or otherwise undermine the term “organic” as used or defined by USDA's NOP standards. Similarly, other commenters claimed that the use of the word “organic” would be misleading, deceptive, or confusing to the public. In addition, a number of comments argued that (biosolids) compost could not possibly be considered organic due to the toxic, hazardous, or polluting nature of chemicals that are found in sewage sludge. A few commenters offered solutions to any confusion that may arise from using the term “organic.” One suggested that any compost labeled “organic” must have the same restrictions as food labeled as such. Another commenter suggested that EPA replace “organic” with the word “natural” or “biobased” to avoid confusion with materials produced under 7 CFR part 205. *Response:* By the term “organic,” EPA means “of, relating to, or derived from living organisms.” EPA used the word “organic” in the phrase “recovered organic materials,” which include food and yard waste, biosolids, and manure, of animal or vegetable origin. EPA's use of the term “organic materials” is consistent with the compost and fertilizer industries’ commercial use of that term. For this reason, EPA is not using an alternative word, such as those suggested by the commenters. Also, EPA is not using the term “organic” to refer to organic farming, organically grown food, or USDA's NOP standards. EPA recognizes that the NOP standards do not allow biosolids to be used in the production of organic food and the final CPG V does not revise the NOP standards in any way. In addition, in the final CPG V RMAN, EPA notes that the NOP standards prohibit the use of sewage sludge (biosolids) in organic production. 4. Use of Compost or Fertilizer Made from Sewage Sludge on Food or Crops *Comments:* EPA received comments that emphasized that compost or fertilizers made from biosolids or sewage sludge should not be used on foods or crops. Many of these comments expressed general opposition to the use of sewage sludge or biosolids on food or agricultural crops. Nearly half of the food/crop related comments mentioned the general issue of toxicity. Some included direct or indirect references to a 1992 determination or decision which the commenters claimed determined that biosolids are too toxic to be dumped in the ocean and questioned how they could be spread on crops; many of the commenters attributed this determination to EPA. 2 One commenter believed the proposed designations would make it more difficult for consumers to know what went into the production of their food. One comment requested studies to ensure the safety of food treated with sludge, and another suggested that any untested sewage sludge is unsafe for crops. 2 We believe this is a reference to the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 that prohibited the dumping of sewage sludge in ocean waters. Specifically, the Act made it unlawful for any person to dump or transport for the purpose of dumping sewage sludge or industrial waste into ocean waters after December 31, 1991. *Response:* EPA disagrees with the commenters who argue that the use of biosolids and or sewage sludge can not be safely used on foods or crops. (The basis for this position is discussed more fully below.) Therefore, in RMAN V, EPA recommends that procuring agencies can purchase and use fertilizer made from recovered organic materials in such applications as agriculture and crop production, landscaping, horticulture, parks and other recreational facilities, on school campuses, and for golf course and turf maintenance. Both EPA ( *http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biosolids/* ) and USDA ( *http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/NOPhome.html* ) have promulgated regulations and requirements to be followed in the production, use and application of fertilizers made from recovered organic materials, including biosolids and sewage sludge. Also, OMRI ( *http://www.omri.org* ) has developed guidelines and lists of materials allowed or prohibited for use in the production, processing and handling of organically grown products. If a fertilizer is produced with recovered organic materials, including biosolids, it must have already met the standards for production or be in violation of legal requirements. As previously stated, EPA has concluded that these standards protect human health and the environment. Specifically, in 1993, EPA promulgated regulations that limit pollutants and pathogen content in biosolids. These regulations (known as “the Part 503 Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge” (40 CFR part 503)) are designed to protect public health and the environment with an adequate margin of safety. If a composted product contains biosolids, the product and its processing are subject to Part 503. The regulations require that sewage sludge meet metals standards and require either the elimination or significant reduction of concentrations of pathogens in sewage sludge before land application. For Class B sewage sludge that contains reduced levels of pathogens, Part 503 standards impose crop-harvesting restrictions and site controls to ensure that the pathogen levels in the sewage sludge-soil mixture are reduced below pathogen background levels before crops may be harvested, domestic animals are allowed to graze or humans are allowed unrestricted access to the land application site. Class A sewage sludge contains no pathogens or pathogen indicator organisms. There are no restrictions in the use of Class A biosolids. (For more information, see subpart D of 40 CFR part 503.) EPA's national sewage sludge standards are protective of public health and the environment, including sensitive human subpopulations, such as the elderly and small children. In establishing national standards for sewage sludge under the 40 CFR part 503 regulations, EPA assessed the exposure and hazard to members of a modeled highly exposed farm family who live on farms where sewage sludge is land-applied as a fertilizer or a soil amendment. Uses include fertilizer use on both pasture-land and crop land, and as a soil amendment on mining reclamation areas. The farm family's diet is assumed to include a significant portion of home-produced foods, including exposed and protected fruits and vegetables, root vegetables, beef, and milk. We also assumed that a child will consume a biosolids-soil mixture via hand to mouth exposure. Ecological species modeled include invertebrate and vertebrate animals and plants that may be exposed to contaminants through agricultural application of sewage sludge as a fertilizer or soil amendment. Based on this assessment, the Agency concluded that the Part 503 regulations are protective of public health and the environment and continues to support biosolids management in full compliance with State and Federal regulations. Moreover, EPA is in an ongoing process to evaluate additional toxic pollutants for potential regulation under section 405(d) of the CWA, and the Part 503 Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge. Finally, although EPA does not have baseline data on the amount of compost or fertilizers used by each federal agency, we believe that the major purchases by procuring agencies of compost or fertilizers would be used in landscaping applications. 5. Toxins in Sewage Sludge and Potential Health Effects *Comments:* EPA received a number of comments regarding the toxic, radioactive, pathogenic, or chemical nature of biosolids. More than half of the comments in this category generally described sludge or biosolids as toxic, hazardous, poisonous, or containing harmful chemicals. Many of the comments mentioned specific substances found in wastewater and/or sludge, such as radionuclides, hormones, drugs, heavy metals, pesticides, solvents, and pathogens. Some comments focused particularly on pathogens present in sludge or biosolids. A few other commenters stated that radioactivity can end up in the sludge, because NRC, DOE, DOT, and EPA are proposing that nuclear waste go to landfills, with the resultant leachate going to wastewater treatment plants, and radioactivity is not monitored or regulated in sludge. Other comments expressing concern about substances found in wastewater mentioned a variety of materials they believe homeowners and industry flush down the drain; one of these suggested education for households and industry to prevent contamination of biosolids with chemicals. A few comments also suggested that landfill and Superfund leachates are disposed of in local sewage treatment plants. A little more than a dozen comments raised concerns over the potentially harmful human health effects of sewage sludge/biosolids. One in particular cited the 2002 Report of the Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which the commenter claimed underscored the uncertainties about the human health effects from exposure to biosolids. One commenter also suggested that, “If the limits used in the HWIR also allow a hazardous waste to escape regulation as a hazardous waste, then they should be used as the upper limit delimiting solid that is allowed as fertilizer feedstock under the Procurement Rule.” *Response:* As noted above, EPA has established standards for sewage sludge to protect public health and the environment. Thus, the Agency does not agree with those commenters who argue that the use of biosolids as compost or fertilizer is not protective of human health and the environment. (For more information on Part 503, please refer to the response in section VI.B.4 above.) In addition, EPA has an ongoing effort to evaluate further pollutants for potential regulation in sewage sludge. Regarding the 2002 NAS report cited by a commenter, EPA requested the NAS to prepare a study of sewage sludge to assist the Agency in evaluating regulatory requirements and non-regulatory measures with respect to the land application of biosolids. The NAS completed an 18-month study in July 2002 entitled, *Biosolids Applied to Land, Advancing Standards and Practices.* The overarching findings of the report indicated that there is no documented scientific evidence that the Part 503 rule has failed to protect public health. The findings went on to say that additional research is needed to reduce the persistent uncertainty concerning the potential for adverse human health effects from exposure to biosolids. The NAS report can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/biosolids/nas/complete.pdf* . As a result, in December 2003, EPA developed a biosolids action plan aimed at responding to the NAS report. The EPA action plan includes conducting a review to identify additional pollutants for possible regulation, conducting a targeted survey of potential pollutants, and evaluating the next steps for investigating adverse health allegations following land application of sewage sludge. A number of projects from the action plan are either completed or nearing completion, including field studies of application of treated sewage sludge, the targeted national analytical sewage sludge survey, and an exposure measurement workshop. Several analytical methods reports and several research projects have been published and a number of documents are scheduled to be published by the end of 2007. For more information see: *http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/biosolids/.* One comment referred to EPA's Proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR). EPA notes that it never finalized this rule. 6. Specific Applications of Sewage Sludge *Comments:* EPA received a number of comments supporting the proposed CPG V that discussed specific applications of compost made from biosolids. A few commenters stated that they support the proposal because it would promote the use by government agencies and their contractors of biosolids-derived compost on landscaping and not on food crops. Use on farm land was supported by one commenter, who stated it resulted in significant crop growth and yield and reduces the need for chemical fertilizers. Another commenter stated that several municipalities in Georgia have used compost derived from a combination of biosolids and yard waste for use in landscaping, agriculture, and as landfill cover, with good success. Yet another commenter encouraged EPA to retain the 247.15(b) designation of compost language “for use in landscaping, seeding of grass or other plants on roadsides and embankments * * *” and add “and other uses” at the end of the sentence. The commenter stated that the majority of materials procured in large quantities by government agencies and their contractors are used in applications that involve minimal public contact, such as highway construction, land reclamation after construction, landfill covers, parks, and golf courses. Encouraging such uses could reduce demand for biosolids applications in agriculture, which, while widely considered safe and effective, has been criticized by some. This commenter also stated that, in densely-populated regions, such as parts of New England, the nutrients and organic matter in biosolids are needed less in agriculture and more to build healthy urban and suburban soils that are then better able to absorb precipitation and reduce storm runoff and erosion. EPA also received several comments that were opposed to certain types of land applications of sewage sludge or sludge products. One comment opposed all land applications of sludge. A few other commenters opposed application of sewage sludge near food, as an agricultural soil amendment, or on recreational public places. Some of these commenters did suggest, however, that there were appropriate land applications of sludge, such as on trees and non-vegetable crops or along roadways and similar places. *Response:* Regarding the use of biosolids on food crops, please see the response in section VI.B.4 above. In response to the comment which encouraged EPA to retain the previous 40 CFR 247.15(b) designation of compost language “for use in landscaping, seeding of grass or other plants on roadsides and embankments* * * ” and add “and other uses” at the end of the sentence, EPA has retained this language in the Preference Program section of the RMAN V for compost. However, the final CPG V compost designation language does not prescribe specific applications. Recognizing that government agencies typically use compost for numerous applications, such as landscaping, bioremediation, roadside maintenance, and erosion control, it is appropriate to be as inclusive as possible in terms of potential applications of compost, while ensuring that the Agency would not have to re-propose the compost designation each time it learned of an additional use by procuring agencies. As explained in sections VI.B.4 and 5 above, EPA's Part 503 regulations are protective of public health and the environment, and the Agency continues to support biosolids management that complies with the Part 503 regulations. EPA supports the beneficial reuse of biosolids as an option for biosolids use, but recognizes that any decisions regarding those choices are local decisions subject to state requirements in addition to federal regulations. 7. Manure *Comments:* EPA received a few comments that discussed animal manure. A few of the commenters supported changes to the definition of compost and the description of the fertilizer designation that would have the effect of allowing the recovered material content of these designated items to include manure. A number of other commenters addressed both manure and biosolids. One of the commenters supported the use of manure as a recovered material, but also expressed concern that it (including human manure) could be very toxic regarding “medications, diseases, and any products that are flushed in the toilet.” Another opposed allowing manure or biosolids as recovered materials for the compost designation, asking how these materials are not considered “a risk for human consumption, especially once they are [leached] into our ground water systems?” One commenter was opposed to the use of manure, claiming that CAFOs produce manure full of hormones and antibiotics. *Response:* As previously explained, EPA is only designating items that may be produced with recovered materials. In doing so, under section 6002 of RCRA, we evaluated a number of factors, including availability. Compost and fertilizers are available with manure content, one of many types of compost and fertilizers composed of recovered materials content. Accordingly, the descriptions of the compost and fertilizer designations do not address specific types of recovered organic materials in the compost or fertilizers. The use of the compost or fertilizer and their suitability for particular uses is a determination made by individual procuring agencies. That decision made by individual procuring agencies will reflect many factors, including the required organic material content, necessary nutrient concentration, as well as the necessity for complying with all state and local limitations or restrictions relative to the organic content. As discussed in the background document for proposed CPG V, if improperly managed, animal manures can and have created significant environmental problems, including human health issues caused by contamination of surface water and groundwater. Using animal manures as a raw material for compost, as opposed to applying it directly to the land or stockpiling it, represents an environmentally beneficial option for this waste product that should help in controlling the pathogens in the manure. With respect to more general concerns about animal manure, EPA notes that, under EPA regulations, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) must obtain permits, submit annual reports, and develop and follow nutrient management plans for proper handling of manure and wastewater associated with CAFO operations (68 FR 7176, February 12, 2003). 8. Thermophilic Process and Vermicompost *Comments:* EPA received a few comments requesting that the agency include vermicompost (the end-product of the breakdown of organic matter by some species of earthworm) in the designation. One of the commenters requested that the Agency not require thermophilic treatment, while the other requested that EPA acknowledge compost products (e.g., vermicompost) that are produced at temperatures lower than thermophilic. *Response:* Vermicompost (the end-product of the breakdown of organic matter by some species of earthworm) does not appear to meet the statutory criteria under RCRA section 6002 by which EPA evaluates products for designation, including widespread availability. The commenters did not provide sufficient information to assist EPA in evaluating vermicompost against those criteria. Furthermore, EPA understands that there are very few large-scale vermicomposting operations in the U.S. and that this could impact the availability of vermicompost. Therefore, EPA's definition of compost promulgated in the final CPG V is limited to compost produced by the thermophilic processes. Since vermicompost is not a thermophilic product, it is not covered by the definition, and therefore it is not included within the scope of the final CPG V compost designation. As background, EPA sought to designate the broadest category of compost so as to promote its wide applicability for procuring agencies. Consequently, EPA originally designated compost produced under thermophilic conditions in CPG I in 1995 because these conditions result in mature, cured composts that can be used for a broad range of applications for which procuring agencies were known to use compost. Among these applications are landscaping, seeding of grass or other plants on roadsides and embankments, use as a nutritious mulch under trees and shrubs, erosion control, and land reclamation. This diverse range of applications requires that the compost have several characteristics. These include an ability to hold several times its weight in water and to change the infrastructure of soils. In addition, the compost should degrade the hydrocarbons found in petroleum products, pesticides, and wood preservatives; degrade volatile organic compounds (VOCs); and form metal, humus, and soil complexes that are too large to pass through the cell walls of plants grown in this compost. Thermophilic compost has these characteristics. Furthermore, thermophilic microorganisms that develop only at higher temperatures are needed to promote rapid composting and destroy pathogens and weed seeds that may be present in the composted materials. While vermicompost has been shown to enhance plant growth as a soil amendment, it does not appear to exhibit characteristics that would make it useful in the other applications previously mentioned. VII. Where can agencies get information on the availability of EPA-designated items? EPA has developed a searchable online Supplier Database containing the names of manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of CPG-designated items (see section IX below for Internet access information). Procuring agencies should contact the manufacturers/vendors directly to discuss their specific needs and to obtain detailed information on the availability and price of recycled products meeting their needs. Other information is available from the GSA, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), private corporations, and trade associations. State and local recycling programs are also a potential source of information on local distributors and the availability of designated items. In addition, state and local government purchasing officials that are contracting for recycled content products may have relative price information. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. However, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the “Economic Impact Analysis for the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline V.” A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action and is briefly summarized here. 1. Summary of Costs As shown in Table 3 below, EPA estimates that the annualized costs of the final rule will range from $1.75-$3.51 million, with costs being spread across all procuring agencies (i.e., federal agencies, state and local agencies that use appropriated federal funds to procure designated items, and government contractors that use appropriated federal funds to procure designated items). These costs are annualized over a 10-year period at a three percent discount rate. Because there is considerable uncertainty regarding several of the parameters that influence the costs, EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis to identify the range of potential costs of the final rule. Thus, high-end and low-end estimates are presented along with the best estimate. The primary parameter affecting the range of cost estimates is the number of products each procuring agency is assumed to procure each year. Details of the costs associated with the final rule are provided in the Economic Impact Analysis

(EIA)for this rule. Table 3.—Summary of Annualized Costs of CPG V Amendments to All Procuring Agencies Procuring agency Total annualized costs ($1000) Best estimate total annualized costs ($1000) Federal Agencies $668-$1,336 $1,336 States 240-480 480 Local Governments 836-1,673 1,673 Contractors 10-20 20 Total 1,754-3,509 3,509 As a result of this rule, procuring agencies will be required to take certain actions pursuant to RCRA section 6002, including rule review and implementation; estimation, certification, and verification of designated item procurement; and for federal agencies, reporting and recordkeeping. The costs shown in Table 3 represent the estimated annualized costs associated with these activities. Table 3 also includes estimates for federal agencies that will incur costs for specification revisions and affirmative procurement program modification. More details of the costs associated with this rule are included in the EIA. There may be both positive and negative impacts to individual businesses, including small businesses. EPA anticipates that this final rule will provide additional opportunities for recycling businesses to begin supplying recovered materials to manufacturers and products made from recovered materials to procuring agencies. In addition, other businesses, including small businesses, that do not directly contract with procuring agencies may be affected positively by the increased demand for recovered materials. These include businesses involved in materials recovery programs and materials recycling. Municipalities that run recycling programs are also expected to benefit from increased demand for certain materials collected in their recycling programs. EPA is unable to determine the number of businesses, including small businesses, which may be adversely impacted by this final rule. If a business currently supplies products to a procuring agency and those products are made only out of virgin materials, the amendments to the CPG may reduce that company's ability to compete for future contracts. However, the amendments to the CPG will not affect existing purchase orders, nor will it preclude businesses from adapting their product lines to meet the new specifications or solicitation requirements for products containing recovered materials. Thus, many businesses, including small businesses, that market to procuring agencies have the option to adapt their product lines to meet specifications. 2. Product Cost Another potential cost of this action is the possible price differential between an item made with recovered materials and an equivalent item manufactured using virgin materials. The relative prices of recycled content products compared to prices of comparable virgin products vary. In many cases, recycled content products are less expensive than similar virgin products. In other cases, virgin products have lower prices than recycled content products. Many factors can affect the price of various products. For example, temporary fluctuations in the overall economy can create oversupplies of virgin products, leading to a decrease in prices for these items. Under RCRA section 6002(c), procuring agencies are not required to purchase a product containing recovered materials if it is only available at an unreasonable price. However, the decision to pay more or less for such a product is left up to the procuring agency. 3. Summary of Benefits EPA anticipates that this final rule will result in increased opportunities for recycling and waste prevention. Waste prevention can reduce the nation's reliance on natural resources by reducing the amount of materials used in making products. Using less raw materials results in a commensurate reduction in energy use and a reduction in the generation and release of air and water pollutants associated with manufacturing. Additionally, using compost can reduce the need for water, fertilizers, and pesticides. It serves as a marketable commodity and is a low-cost alternative to standard landfill cover and artificial soil amendments. Composting also extends municipal landfill life by diverting organic materials from landfills and provides a less costly alternative to conventional methods of remediating (cleaning) contaminated soil. The use of compost and fertilizer made from recovered organic materials reduces the need for chemical manufacturing and processing and reduces energy costs associated with that. Recycling, in general, can affect the more efficient use of natural resources. For many products, the use of recovered materials in manufacturing can result in significantly lower energy and material input costs than when virgin raw materials are used; reduce the generation and release of air and water pollutants often associated with manufacturing; and reduce the environmental impacts of mining, harvesting, and other extraction of natural resources. By purchasing products made from recovered materials, government agencies can increase opportunities for all of these benefits. On a national and regional level, this final rule can result in expanding and strengthening markets for materials diverted or recovered through public and private collection programs. Also, since many state and local governments, as well as private companies, reference EPA guidelines when purchasing designated items, this rule can result in the increased purchase of recycled products, locally, regionally, and nationally and provide opportunities for businesses involved in recycling activities. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as:

(1)A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's

(SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;

(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. EPA evaluated the potential costs of this rule to determine whether its actions would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. In the case of small entities that are small governmental jurisdictions, EPA has concluded that the rule will not have a significant economic impact. EPA concluded that no small government with a population of less than 50,000 is likely to incur costs associated with the designated items because it is improbable that such jurisdictions will purchase more than $10,000 of any designated item. Consequently, RCRA section 6002 would not apply to their purchases of designated items. Moreover, there is no evidence that complying with the requirements of RCRA section 6002 would impose significant additional costs on the small governmental entity in the event that a small governmental jurisdiction purchased more than $10,000 worth of a designated item. This is the case because in many instances, items with recovered materials content may be less expensive than items produced from virgin material. EPA similarly concluded that the economic impact on small entities that are small businesses would not be significant. Any costs to small businesses that are “procuring agencies” (and subject to RCRA section 6002) are likely to be insubstantial. RCRA section 6002 applies to a contractor with a federal agency (or a state or local agency that is a procuring agency under section 6002) when the contractor is purchasing a designated item, is using appropriated federal money to do so, and exceeds the $10,000 threshold. There is an exception for purchases that are “incidental to” the purposes of the contract, *i.e.* , not the direct result of the funds disbursement. For example, a courier service contractor is not required to purchase re-refined oil and retread tires for its fleets because purchases of these items are incidental to the purpose of the contract. Therefore, as a practical matter, there would be very limited circumstances when a contractor's status as a “procuring agency” for section 6002 purposes would impose additional costs on the contractor. Thus, for example, if a state or federal agency is contracting with a supplier to obtain a designated item, then the cost of the designated item (any associated costs of meeting section 6002 requirements) to the supplier presumably will be fully recovered in the contract price. Any costs to small businesses that are “procuring agencies” (and subject to section 6002) are likely to be insubstantial. Even if a small business is required to purchase other items with recovered materials content, such items may be less expensive than items with virgin content. After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small entities, EPA certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis. The basis for EPA's conclusions is described in greater detail in the EIA for the final rule. While not a factor relevant to determining whether the final rule will have a significant impact for RFA purposes, EPA has concluded that the effect of this final rule will be to provide positive opportunities to businesses engaged in recycling and the manufacture of recycled products. Purchase and use of recycled products by procuring agencies increase demand for these products and result in private sector development of new technologies, creating business and employment opportunities that enhance local, regional, and national economies. Technological innovations associated with the use of recovered materials can translate into economic growth and increased industry competitiveness worldwide, thereby, creating opportunities for small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The estimated aggregate cost of compliance for state and local governments is not expected to exceed, at the maximum, $2.1 million annually. The cost of enforceable duties that may arise as a result of this action on the private sector is estimated to not exceed $20,000 annually. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule does not significantly affect small governments because they are subject to the same requirements as other entities whose duties result from this rule. As discussed above, the expense associated with any additional costs to state and local governments is not expected to exceed, at the maximum, $2.1 million annually. The requirements do not uniquely affect small governments because they have the same ability to purchase these designated items as other entities whose duties result from today's rule. Additionally, use of designated items affects small governments in the same manner as other such entities. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule does not have federalism implications. It 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. The rule will not impose substantial costs on states and localities. As a result of this action, procuring agencies will be required to perform certain activities pursuant to RCRA section 6002, including rule review and implementation, and for federal agencies, reporting and record keeping. As noted above, EPA estimates that the total annualized costs of this final rule will range from $1.75 to $3.51 million. EPA's estimate reflects the costs of the rule for all procuring agencies (i.e., federal agencies, state and local agencies that use appropriated federal funds to procure designated items, and government contractors that use appropriated federal funds to procure designated items), not just states and localities. Thus, the costs to states and localities alone will be lower and not substantial. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. The rule does not impose any mandate on tribal governments or impose any duties on these entities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions 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. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The Agency has referenced USCC's Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC) and USCC's Seal of Testing Assurance

(STA)labeling program, as well as the OMRI guidelines. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order

(EO)12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The effect, if any, of our action is to increase the procurement, and hence the quantity produced, of items with recovered materials content. This may result in the increased diversion of waste products from the disposal stream and thus may have positive effects on human health and the environment. Reuse of the waste materials may prevent improper disposal with its potential for adverse consequences to public health or the environment. To the extent that disadvantaged populations are disproportionately at risk for such effects, this rule may well result in community benefits. K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective September 15, 2008. IX. Supporting Information and Accessing Internet Supporting materials for this final CPG V are available in the OSWER Docket and on the Internet. The address and telephone number of the OSWER Docket are provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section above. Supporting materials can be accessed on the Internet at *www.regulations.gov.* Among the supporting materials available in the OSWER Docket and on the Internet are the following: “Background Document for the Final Comprehensive Guideline

(CPG)V and Final Recovered Materials Advisory Notice

(RMAN)V,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, August, 2007. “Economic Impact Analysis for Final Comprehensive Procurement Guideline V,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, July 2007. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 247 Environmental protection, Government procurement, Recycling. Dated: September 6, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows: PART 247—COMPREHENSIVE PROCUREMENT GUIDELINE FOR PRODUCTS CONTAINING RECOVERED MATERIALS 1. The authority citation for part 247 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6912(a) and 6962; EO 13423, 72 FR 3919, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 210. 2. Section 247.3 is amended by revising the definition of “compost” and adding a definition in alphabetical order for “fertilizer made from recovered organic materials” to read as follows: § 247.3 Definitions. *Compost* is a thermophilic converted product with high humus content. Compost can be used as a soil amendment and can also be used to prevent or remediate pollutants in soil, air, and storm water run-off. *Fertilizer made from recovered organic materials* is a single or blended substance, made from organic matter such as plant and animal by-products, manure-based or biosolid products, and rock and mineral powders, that contains one or more recognized plant nutrient(s) and is used primarily for its plant nutrient content and is designed for use or claimed to have value in promoting plant growth. 3. In § 247.15, revise paragraph

(b)and add paragraph

(f)to read as follows: § 247.15 Landscaping products.

(b)Compost made from recovered organic materials.

(f)Fertilizer made from recovered organic materials. [FR Doc. E7-18150 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 45 CFR Part 1626 Restrictions on Legal Assistance to Aliens AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: LSC is amending section 1626.10(a) of this regulation to permit LSC grant recipients to provide legal assistance to otherwise financially eligible citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau legally residing in the United States. DATES: This final rule is effective as of October 15, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mattie Cohan, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007; 202-295-1624 (ph); 202-337-6519 (fax); *mcohan@lsc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: LSC-funded legal services providers are permitted to provide legal assistance only to citizens of the United States and aliens upon whom eligibility has been expressly conferred by statute. LSC regulations at 45 CFR part 1626 implement the various existing statutory authorities and set forth the eligibility standards based on citizenship and eligible alien status. Since 1996 Part 1626 has limited the eligibility of citizens of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (“RMI”) and the Federated States of Micronesia (“FSM”) and the Republic of Palau to services provided in those respective nations (unless the applicant is otherwise eligible under Part 1626). In connection with LSC's development of a 2007 Rulemaking Agenda, the Legal Aid Society of Hawai'i

(LASH)and Legal Aid of Arkansas

(LAA)have both requested that LSC engage in rulemaking to change the section 1626.10(a) to provide for the eligibility of citizens of RMI, FSM and Palau legally residing in the United States for legal assistance from LSC-funded programs. LSC agreed that there was sufficient reason and authority for LSC to amend its regulation in this regard. To that end, the Operations and Regulations Committee of the LSC Board of Directors considered a Draft NPRM and the Board of Directors approved an NPRM for publication and comment at their respective meetings on July 28, 2007. That NPRM was published on August 2, 2007 (72 FR 42363). LSC received twelve timely filed comments and one late filed comment on the NPRM. In addition to comments from grantees, LSC received comments from the Embassy of the Federated States of Micronesia, several organizations representing the Micronesian community, community services organizations providing aid and services to citizens of RMI, FSM and Palau, and two individual citizens. 1 All of the comments supported the proposed rule change. 1 In addition to the comments filed directly in response to the NPRM, LSC also notes that it had, prior to the issuance of the NPRM, received letters from the Department of Interior's Office of Insular Affairs and the Embassy of Palau, a letter signed by several Members of Congress, and several oral comments presented at the July 28, 2007 Operations and Regulations Committee meeting. LSC considers these comments as entirely consistent with and supportive of the spirit and letter of the proposed change to the regulation. History of FAS Eligibility for Legal Assistance From LSC-Funded Programs At the time of the creation of LSC in 1974, the countries that are now the sovereign nations of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (“RMI”), the Federated States of Micronesia (“FSM”), and the Republic of Palau were possessions of the United States, known as the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands (“the Trust Territories”). The LSC Act defined the Trust Territories as a “State” for the purposes of the Act. The Act thus conferred eligibility for LSC-funded legal services to Trust Territory residents to the same extent provided to residents of any other State of the United States. Section 1002(8) of the LSC Act, 42 U.S.C. 2996a(8). In 1983, Congress placed the first statutory restrictions on representation of aliens on LSC recipients in LSC's appropriations bill for that year, Public Law 97-377. That law provided that none of the funds appropriated could be expended to provide legal assistance for or on behalf of any alien unless the alien was a resident of the U.S. and otherwise met certain statutorily specified criteria. On its face, this language would have appeared to imply that all non-U.S. citizens, including residents of RMI, FSM and Palau would be subject to these restrictions, notwithstanding their eligibility under the LSC Act. To deal with this problem, LSC included a “special eligibility section” (§ 1626.10) in the implementing regulations on representation of aliens, 45 CFR Part 1626, to exempt residents of the Trust Territory from the alien restrictions imposed by Congress. In 1986 the trust governing the relationship between the U.S. and the Trust Territories was terminated. At that time the former Trust Territories were recognized as independent nations and a new relationship with RMI, FSM and Palau was created by the signing of two Compacts of Free Association, one with RMI and FSM and the other with Palau. The Compact with RMI and FSM contemplates the provision of certain services and programs of the U.S. to those nations. Specifically, section 224 of the Compact of Free Association with RMI and FSM provides that: The Government of the United States and the Government of the Marshall Islands or the Federated States of Micronesia may agree from time to time to the extension of additional United States grant assistance, services and programs as provided by the laws of the United States, to the Marshall Islands or the Federated States of Micronesia, respectively. The Compact of Free Association Act of 1985 (“CFA Act”) (Pub. L. 99-239, codified at 48 U.S.C. 1901 *et seq.* ), which implemented the Compact, provides express authority for the provision of LSC-funded legal services. Specifically, section 105(h)(1)(A) of the CFA Act provides that: * * * pursuant to section 224 of the Compact the programs and services of the [Legal Services Corporation] shall be made available to the Federated States of Micronesia and to the Marshall Islands. The implementing act for the Compact with Palau makes section 105 of the CFA Act applicable to the Republic of Palau. 48 U.S.C. 1932(b). 2 2 RMI, FSM and Palau are collectively referred to as the “Freely Associated States” or “FAS.” This designation will be used throughout the remainder of the supplementary information section. After the signing of the respective Compacts and the corresponding implementing statutes, the FAS remained covered by the special eligibility section of Part 1626, notwithstanding their change in legal status vis-à-vis their relationship with the United States. In 1989 that section of the regulation was amended to make the section more precise in light of the termination of the trust. Under this version of the rule, the special eligibility section provided:

(a)Micronesia. The alien restriction stated in the appropriations acts is not applicable to the legal services program in the following Pacific island entities:

(1)Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas;

(2)Republic of Palau;

(3)Federated States of Micronesia;

(4)Republic of the Marshall Islands All citizens of these entities are eligible to receive legal assistance, provided they are otherwise eligible under the [LSC] Act. 54 FR 18812 (April 29, 1989). The preamble to the Final Rule adopting this language explained that this change was intended to “restate[] congressional intent that residents of these political entities be eligible to be clients of a legal services program.” Id. at 18110. The special eligibility section addressing the FAS remained as set forth above until 1996. As a result of new statutory restrictions contained in the LSC FY 1996 appropriations legislation (Pub. L. 104-134), additional changes to Part 1626 were made in 1996. Although the statutory amendments did not address this issue, § 1626.10(a) was again revised, this time in response to comments from the LSC Office of Inspector General (OIG). As explained in the preamble to the 1996 Final Rule: The OIG suggested that both the prior rule and the interim rule dealt with the question of special eligibility incorrectly and urged that the final rule refer only to the legal services programs serving people who were citizens of those jurisdictions. The effect of this change would be to make financially eligible citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau only eligible for legal services from the recipients serving those areas * * * They would not be eligible for services from any other recipients unless they also came within one of the categories of eligible aliens listed in section 1626.5 * * * 62 FR 19413 (April 21, 1997). The OIG's comments were based upon its interpretation of the CFA Act that the language of the CFA Act provides authority for the provision of services within those nations, but does not expressly confer individual eligibility for services to the citizens of those nations without reference to where the service is to be provided. The Board considered the matter, agreed with the OIG analysis, and revised § 1626.10(a) as follows. This part [1626] is not applicable to recipients providing services in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of the Marshall Islands. 62 FR 19413 (April 21, 1997); 45 CFR 1626.10(a). Thus, since 1996 otherwise financially eligible residents of the FAS seeking assistance from legal services providers in the United States may only receive such assistance if they meet the alien eligibility requirements of § 1626.5. Alternative Interpretation of the Compact Act During the last session of Congress, legislation was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent on September 29, 2006, which would have definitively clarified the issue by clearly stating that LSC services were to be available to the citizens of the FAS. Specifically, section 5 of S.1830, provided: SEC. 5. AVAILABILITY OF LEGAL SERVICES. Section 105(f)(1)(C) of the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (48 U.S.C. 1921d(f)(1)(C)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: “, which shall also continue to be available to the citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands who legally reside in the United States (including territories and possessions)”. The report accompanying S.1830 explained that: Section 5 clarifies that section 105(f)(1)(C) of the CFAAA is intended to continue eligibility for the programs and services of the Legal Services Corporation for FSM and RMI migrants who legally reside in the United States. Legal Services Corporation eligibility was extended by the first Compact Act in 1986 (P.L. 99-239), but in 1996, without any further action by Congress, the Legal Services Corporation, by rule, terminated the eligibility of FSM and RMI migrants. Section 104(e) of the original Compact Act, and of the CFAAA, state that it is ‘not the intent of Congress to cause any adverse consequences for an affected area,' which are defined as Hawaii, Guam, the CNMI, and American Samoa. The Legal Services Corporation is one of those programs which had assisted local communities, in both the “affected areas” and in the mainland U.S., in responding to the impacts and needs of FSM and RMI citizens who were residing in U.S. communities. This section would restore eligibility as it existed from 1986 to 1996. Similar legislation was introduced in the House, but was not acted on during the course of the 109th Congress. Accordingly, there was no final legislation enacted into law on this subject in the last Congress. More recently, on January 12, 2007, S.283, the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act was introduced in the Senate. On February 15, 2007, the bill was reported out of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, accompanied by a written report. The operative language of the bill and report dealing with the availability of legal assistance from LSC recipients to citizens of the FAS, regardless of where they are obtaining those services, is the same as in last year's Senate bill (quoted above). A similar bill, H.R. 2705, has also been introduced in the House. As of the publication of this notice, both of the bills are still pending. In addition, LSC received a letter dated June 1, 2007, from David Cohen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs at the Department of Interior. In his letter, Deputy Assistant Secretary Cohen stated: I can assure you that it is consistent with Federal policy under the Compacts and the [implementing] public laws * * * to allow FAS citizens lawfully resident in the United States to receive LSC services * * * We are not aware of any intention to permit the extension of LSC benefits to FAS citizens in the FAS but to prevent the extension of those benefits to FAS citizens during their lawful residence in the United States. Subsequently, representatives of LSC met with the Deputy Assistant Secretary, several members of his staff and an attorney from the Department of State. They reiterated their understanding of the Compact and the CFA Act. In particular, they explained that the United States and the FAS countries negotiated the Compacts as essentially an aid package and that the Departments of Interior and State, as well as the FAS nations themselves, consider the extension of benefits to the FAS to include the extension of benefits to FAS citizens, regardless of where those citizens are lawfully residing (in the FAS or the United States). As an example, they noted that the CFA Act extends the Pell Grant (educational grants) program to the FAS and that the grants are provided to FAS citizens regardless of whether they are attending institutions of higher education in the FAS or in the United States. Similarly, FAS citizens are eligible for Job Corps services being provided in the United States. Several commenters specifically addressed the issue of interpretation of the treaty. These commenters agreed that the different interpretation of the CFA Act being considered was, indeed, the better interpretation. They urged LSC to amend the regulation to reflect this alternate interpretation. In light of the above, it would appear that LSC's interpretation of the CFA Act, while permissible, was not the only permissible reading and perhaps, in hindsight, not the best available reading. Moreover, LSC appears to be within its legal authority under the law to amend § 1626.10 to permit FAS citizens to receive legal assistance anywhere LSC services are provided without requiring independent eligibility under Part 1626. Need for Amendment of the Regulation—FAS Citizens in the United States When LSC was created in 1974, there were probably no more than a few thousand Micronesians living in Guam and Hawai'i, and a scattering in the continental United States. Even when the first Compact was negotiated in 1986, there were probably still less than ten thousand Micronesians living within U.S. territory, still mostly in Guam and Honolulu. However, when the Compact was renegotiated and extended in 2002, it was then known that the migration pattern was showing greatly increased numbers in the continental United States. According to the Embassy of FSM there are, in addition to the traditionally high populations of Micronesians in Guam and Hawai'i, at least 30,000 to 40,000 FSM citizens living or going to school in the continental U.S. Further, LAA has noted in its request to LSC for rulemaking on this issue that there are also 6,000 to 10,000 Marshallese living in Northwest Arkansas alone. Thus, while there was relatively little demand for legal services among FAS citizens in the United States in 1996, the increased migration of FAS citizens to the United States has significantly increased the potential demand for legal services among members of that community. The inability of financially eligible FAS citizens in the U.S. to access legal services from LSC programs assistance is a growing problem for the U.S. FAS community. LASH, for example, has noted that that FAS citizens working in Hawai'i are more likely to be victims of unscrupulous employers because they believe that such citizens have little recourse to legal services to protect their employment rights. Several commenters on the NPRM reiterated these statistics, emphasizing the increasing migration of FAS citizens to the U.S. and the legal vulnerability of many members of this community. Amendment of § 1626.10(a) LSC proposed to amend § 1626.10(a) to redesignate the existing language in paragraph

(a)as paragraph (a)(1) and to add a new paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: “All citizens of the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands residing in the United States are eligible to receive legal assistance provided that they are otherwise eligible under the Act.” This language makes explicit that FAS citizens are eligible under Part 1626 for legal assistance and is consistent with the other eligibility provision in § 1626.10 addressing the eligibility of Canadian-born American Indians at least 50% Indian by blood, members of the Texas Band of Kickapoo and foreign nationals seeking assistance pursuant to the Hague Convention. 45 CFR 1626.10(b); 1626.10(c); and 1626.10(d). The “otherwise eligible” language is meant to refer to financial eligibility (for the provision of LSC-funded legal assistance”) and to the permissibility of the legal assistance provided under applicable law and regulation. In light of the information in the record, LSC is now adopting the proposed amendment as set forth in the NPRM. List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1626 Aliens, Grant programs—law, Legal services, Migrant labor, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For reasons set forth above, and under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 2996g(e), LSC is amending 45 CFR part 1626 as follows: PART 1626—RESTRICTIONS ON LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO ALIENS 1. The authority citation for part 1626 continues to read as follows: Authority: Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 1321; Pub L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 3009. 2. Amend § 1626.10 by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 1626.10 Special eligibility questions (a)(1) This part is not applicable to recipients providing services in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

(2)All citizens of the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands residing in the United States are eligible to receive legal assistance provided that they are otherwise eligible under the Act. Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President and General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-18194 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 070213033-7033-01] RIN 0648-XC56 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Atka Mackerel With Gears Other than Jig in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea Subarea in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel with gears other than jig in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2007 Atka mackerel total allowable catch

(TAC)with gears other than jig in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea in the BSAI. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 11, 2007, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area

(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The 2007 Atka mackerel TAC for gears other than jig in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea in the BSAI is 22,015 metric tons

(mt)as established by the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (72 FR 9451, March 2, 2007). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2007 Atka mackerel TAC for gears other than jig in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea in the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 21,915 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 100 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel for gears other than jig in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea in the BSAI. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and

(f)apply at any time during a trip. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Atka mackerel for gears other than jig in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 10, 2007. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: September 11, 2007. Alan D. Risenhoover Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 07-4561 Filed 9-11-07; 3:00 pm]

Connectionstraces to 30

Traces to 30 documents

U.S. Code